|
Obama not first ‘black’ president By Michael C. Guilmette Jr. Originally published on June 4, 2009, in the Connersville News-Examiner. In my time as a journalist, I have had the opportunity to be involved in the hiring of new journalists. As with any job, hiring is a laborious task of wading through resumes and picking the best candidate for the position.
So, I went through the process of ignoring the resumes and diving straight into the writing samples, and while doing so, I came upon a submission that truly intrigued me. This young writer, fresh out of college, sent me samples that included a feature about a typical overnight convenience store worker that was actually very interesting. Anyone who could take a mundane subject and weave it into something the readers wanted to read was someone I wanted writing for me. In my mind, that was the only qualification that mattered. My co-workers, however, had a little bit different take on the applicant. After passing the packet around the room, they agreed the samples were very well written, but my one co-worker remarked that it would be good to get someone who is “black” in the newsroom. He had done what I had not — read the resume — and noticed the applicant belong to a professional organization for African-American journalists, and that’s just fine and dandy. I immediately responded to him, telling him that my choice would be based if the person could write and write well, and nothing more. My co-worker was usually a levelheaded guy, so his comment surprised me. I was quick to lay down the law in that situation, since I the concept of finding intrinsic value in something as arbitrary as skin color is aggravating at best. However, in the years since, I have reconsidered how I responded to him. I now wonder what he would have said had I, instead of simply dismissing his thought, asked him why he felt that way. Not that it would have changed my mind, but his response may have given me some insight into current events. When Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced his retirement from the high court on May 1, the media and pundits began buzzing with whom President Barack Obama should pick to succeed him. Just as quickly, the talking heads opined that his pick should not only be a woman, but also someone of Hispanic descent. The Supreme Court has only had two other women on the court — Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — and has not had a justice of Hispanic descent. Apparently, according to the Washington intelligentsia, race and gender are overriding factors when choosing one of the nation’s top jurists. On May 26, the White House announced that the president has selected 2nd Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the open seat, fulfilling the dreams and wishes of the media circles. The announcement from the White House was itself largely void of race-based comments. “Judge Sonia Sotomayor has lived the American dream,” the media release said. “Born to a Puerto Rican family, she grew up in a public housing project in the South Bronx. Her parents moved to New York during World War II – her mother served in the Women’s Auxiliary Corps during the war. Her father, a factory worker with a third-grade education, died when Sotomayor was 9 years old. Her mother, a nurse, then raised Sotomayor and her younger brother, Juan, now a physician in Syracuse. After her father’s death, Sotomayor turned to books for solace, and it was her new found love of Nancy Drew that inspired a love of reading and learning, a path that ultimately led her to the law.” There was more to the release, with the White House compounding on why the president thinks she is a qualified pick, but the Puerto Rican reference was about the only hint at ethnicity. Clearly, the administration is looking to give the impression that race isn’t important to this selection. However, race is surrounding the selection of Sotomayor, thanks to the mass media. The Associated Press, in an article posted Wednesday, said Sotomayor “would be the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the nine-justice high court.” This continues a tradition of pigeonholing Americans based on ethnicity, gender, place of origin, sexual preference … the list goes on. In fact, two days after the White House made the Sotomayor announcement, the Associated Press released an article entitled “Multiracial people become fastest-growing U.S. group,” detailing Americans who don’t consider themselves to be part of any single ethnic group. On one hand, this may be a positive development, since it may mean more Americans are rejecting the notion that ethnicity is somehow important in this country. On the other hand, it shows how the media may be struggling to define Americans by its traditional ethnic divisions. The article also noted that Obama describes himself as a “mutt,” but that distinction did not extend very far into the media. All we heard throughout the 2008 campaign was how he was the first African-American presidential nominee and then the first African-American president. In my view, Barack Obama is not the first “black” or “African-American” president. He is, in fact, the 44th American out of the near half billion Americans who have lived and died in this country. I only wish more Americans would start to see him that way and stop thinking that arbitrary ethnic identities need to be considered. • Guilmette is managing editor of the News-Examiner. He may be contacted at mguilmette@newsexaminer.com. |
|||
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2009, Michael C. Guilmette Jr. |
Being in journalism, I was afforded one advantage that helped in making the decision — the portfolio. While resumes and letters of recommendation attempt to put the candidate’s best foot forward, accompanying article clips serve to separate the wheat from the chaff because they show if a potential writer can actually write.
