From Greg Aymond’s Central La Politics blog (bold mine):
LEGISLATOR WANTS MORE DIVERSITY ON THE ETHICS BOARD
“State Rep. Rosalind Jones wants to get more racial, gender and geographical diversity on the 11-member Louisiana Board of Ethics.”id. “The board currently has two female appointees, one of whom is the only black member.” id.
While I am sure that someone who is Black must be qualified for the position, ethics among Blacks is usually a lacking character trait. I think that the Louisiana Legislature should devote more of its time on fixing our deplorable ethics laws in this state.
Representative Jones, who, I believe, is one of the best young leaders in our State, simply suggests that the Ethics Board should more accurately reflect the diversity of the State in which it serves, and Greg essentially dismisses the idea because he believes blacks “usually” lack ethics.
I’ll have to agree with your headline on this one. Like you, I know Rep. Jones. I also am very active during session. I would say the “ethically challenged” remark could apply to all colors, races, religions, geographic regions of our state. I am also quite certain Louisiana is not the only place “ethically challenged” elected officials can be found.
For every Charlie Rangel or William Jefferson there are several Edwin Edwards and Rod Blagojeviches.
I was raised in the south during a time of transition. I’ve seen far too many shenanigans on both sides of the color line in politics to think that there is much distinction between the races when it comes to political corruption. It appears that Lincoln was right about power and it’s corrupting influence.
I regularly read Greg’s blog, and he is generally entertaining and usually informative. However, these remarks are highly irresponsible, at best.
The better position, and the one I take in response to such proposals – “diversity for diversity’s sake” – is the desire to hire highly qualified individuals, regardless of race, and pursue Dr. King’s dream of a colorblind society. No governmental body in the U.S> should ever take race into consideration for anything. If they do, where does it end?
I know I’m late to the party on this one, but two points:
(1) That quote from Aymond is the sort of thing that I used to say “No way this guy really believes this,” but that I now realize plenty of people really believe. Jeez.
(2) @Ace: There’s actually plenty of reason why “diversity for diversity’s sake” is a perfectly fine and lofty goal all on its own, thank you very much. We can’t BEHAVE as though we live in a “colorblind society” until we actually DO live in a colorblind society. Right now, we don’t. Mr. Aymond’s comment is proof enough of that. White + male still equals privilege most of the time, and privilege = greater chance of election to public office. If we genuinely want to make changes and actually ACHIEVE the society that you claim to desire, we can’t do that without actively seeking the input of women and people of color. For the simple sake of diversity. For the sake of hearing voices that have not been heard.