John Kerry: the Democratic frontrunner, senator from one of the most liberal states in the country. You'd think he'd be willing to safeguard programs that guaranteed diversity in our society. You'd think a lifelong Democrat like him would have some sensitivity towards the historical exclusion of minorities from our educational institutions and workplaces. You'd think that someone who is in no imminent danger of losing his Senate seat would be willing to fight for programs that aren't always popular. And hey, he will-- as long as it's politically expedient.
The Boston Globe article from 1/24/2003, archived
here by the Affirmative Action and Diversity Project paints a view of Kerry slightly different than his current "defender of Democratic values" posture.
In the last two decades, court decisions have chipped away at the legality of using race as a factor in college admissions or hiring, and many affirmative action programs that were once based on race have been modified to include geography, income or business size.
Those changes had just begun to occur when Kerry, against the advice of aides and supporters, addressed the issue in a speech to Yale students on March 30, 1992. Kerry emphasized that he supports affirmative action and lauded its successes. ''But,'' he added, ''there is a negative side and we can no longer simply will away the growing consensus of perception within America's white majority. We must be willing to acknowledge publicly what we know to be true: that just as the benefits to America of affirmative action cannot be denied, neither can the costs.'' Part of that cost, Kerry suggested, was what he called reverse discrimination. ''Not only by legislation, but by administrative order and court decree, a vast and bewildering apparatus of affirmative action rules and guidelines has been constructed,'' he said. ''And somewhere within that vast apparatus conjured up to fight racism there exists a reality of reverse discrimination that actually engenders racism.''
Kerry was excoriated by affirmative action supporters who saw the speech as a craven attempt to broaden his appeal to white voters. He maintained that he wanted to ask tough questions that were typically avoided. ''This issue of white resentment cannot simply be dismissed,'' he had said in the speech, later adding that, ''We cannot hope to make further racial progress when the plurality of whites believe, as they do today according to recent data, that it is they, not others, who suffer most from discrimination.'' After black leaders in Boston criticized Kerry's remarks, the senator held a series of meetings in the city to clarify his meaning, but did not back away from the statements he made at Yale.
The plurality of whites believe that they're victims of discrimination, Kerry says. And rather than challenging that idea, he reinforces it.
Yes, he says he's for Affirmative Action, but against quotas. Frankly, that's exactly what Bush says his position is. But minorities understand the code as well as anyone else: attacking "quotas" is just a more politically correct way of trying to tear down all Affirmative Action programs.
This raises an interesting question in my mind: just how committed a Democrat was Kerry in the 1990s? An earlier diary cited a Boston Herald article around the same time quoting Kerry being "delighted" about the Republican Revolution. That poster was a little extreme in his anti-Kerry position (regardless of all of this, I'll vote for Kerry against Bush... although I'll have to go vomit somewhere later), but he raises an interesting point. Just how much does our current Democratic frontrunner give a damn about the Democratic party?