Today's Topic: Segregation in the halls of Congress?

I think the existence of a caucus, translated as a voting block based on race, sex or religion is an affront to the real world. I think someone, preferably Congressman Cohen, should test the constitutionality of the organization - force Congress to set up an affirmative action program and play by the same rules the rest of us are stuck with.

Sure, they can caucus any way they want, because they are not covered by the same laws as the people they represent. Tancredo does a service by highlighting their hypocracy.

Was JC Watts, a former Black Republican member of Congress, in the caucus? I don't know, but I do know that Black politicians think any Black Republican is an "Oreo," or White on the inside.

Racial politics are disgusting, but a fact of life. Congressional "minority" caucuses should be a thing of the past. There is no public policy that everyone in any racial group should agree on, unless they are selling out their individuality to group identity. One could say that a majority of Blacks support affirmative action, but many Blacks blame it for hurting Black achievement, by putting unqualified people ahead of better qualified ones.

Congressional caucuses should be based on ideas, not demographics. Why isn't there any "over 70" caucus, or "single parent" caucus? It seems that the Black, Latino, and Asian caucuses are totally comprised of Democrats, who share the liberal agenda of wealth redistribution, and "set-asides" for "their people."

I would think that the Asian caucus would be against affirmative action, anyway. They, as a group, are discriminated against by it. I'd have to look up their "official" position on it, but I'm willing to bet that they support it.

Go figure. I don't believe that any of these caucuses actually help do anything good for the people they claim to represent.

This is interesting. I have know about the existence of the CBC for a long time but I never really thought about it. What could the possible advantages be to segregating your group based on race. All black people don't have the same issues any more than all whites do. What's the point? That being said, I don't think race based caucuses should be legally banned. If people want to have social clubs, politicians or otherwise, they shouldn't be told who they can admit.

It seems to be a true "do as I say and not what I do" situation here. The courts would be forcing all white, all men, all black, all ... groups to change their rules and allow anyone in or to stop having these groups. If we remember Golf Courses were one large situation. How could Congress think or feel they are above the law is beyond me.

There cannot be any truely beneficial reason that Congress should have any special priveleges in this type situation than any specialty group outside of the halls of Congress.

I would as well fight the constitutionality of these groups.

Congress should get rid of all these racially divisive caucus's.

it's not like these groups have any real power. it's just kids sitting at the lunch table together. while they may not share parties or ideas or districts, what they do share is the experience of being in the minority in a larger group. if the majority of the minorities are from one party that's not that party's fault, the other party should try to recruit more minorities into their ranks if they want more representation at the lunch tables.

There are also state delegations, no? How dare all the congress members from a single state sit down together? They don't share the same views...see arguments above.

Excluding someone on the basis of their skin color is racism, pure and simple. I thought this issue was supposed to have died after all "white" country clubs would not admit persons of color. Of course, I know that it has not. I agree that there should be support groups of sorts for those in the minority. I also believe, however, that anyone who wishes to be supportive of that minority should be able to express their support through membership.

This is just stupid! Congress has passed many laws against racial discrimination, but it cannot seem, as is usual, to aplly them to itself. The Civil Rights movemnt was for people of color, mainly African Americans. to gain rights they were entitled to have but were denied. What would have happened it Anglo Americans didn't join in this fight? The members of the black Congressional caucus would be the first to speak out when they perceive white people won't allow them to do something based on the color of their skin. Thye don't seem to think it's morrally wrong when they do the same thing. They want white Congress persons to understand their point-of-view, but when someone takes notice, they don't seem to want the attention.

WOW. I haven't been around for a few days, and I think I should feature this on GRAFFITI POLITTI for the comments alone, though there are fewer than I expected after I left my earlier one.

To Tim and RANDY D: Congress is given express consent under the Constitution to make their own rules, separate from the laws that they pass to govern the nation. John M. also has a great point, about caucuses being little more important than "sitting at the lunch table together."

However, if one looks into other parts of local governments, there are counterparts in such things as Irish, Italian, and Jewish police officer affiliated groups. When these groups were struggling minorities, did they have open caucuses in Congress? I'm not sure. NYC Mayor Fiorello H. Laguardia could have been president if he wasn't Italian. Perhaps Giuliani will pick up his mantle over half a century later.

...but I digress.

Lauren, segregation of people one chooses to associate with is also protected under the Constitution, though this protection does not apply to business or government in general. I still agree with you that it's wrong, and totally hypocritical for these CBC guys to "fight against segragation" while practicing it. Come to think of it, isn't it done on publicly-funded college campuses around the nation, as well? There are separate "orientation programs," dorms, and graduation ceremonies for "African Americans," "Latinos," and other racial minorities, imposed by student "leadership" groups, while the colleges seem a little too happy to accomodate them. Where do you think these young people get these ideas from?

Ed: Did you know that the NAACP was founded by White people?

Christopher - The government cannot under any law promote segregation based on a protected group. Color of the skin is a protected group. Any caucus, therefore, that denies membership based on the color of one's skin is in violation of the very laws they are supposed to create and uphold!

At least on my college campus, the Black Student Union (as well as any other "minority" group) was open to persons of any color who wished to support the black students on campus, or those students who wanted to learn more about "stepping."

No, Christopher, I didn't know that whipte people founded it. I work a few blocks northwest of the local chapter in the city where I live, and I confess I don't know much about the history of the NAACP. Why did you ask me? I'm against what the CBC has done.

Sorry, Ed. It was late, and I don't remember why I wrote that to you. I think your comments started a tangential thought, and I wasn't actually responding to you.

My bad.

I think that my point was that the NAACP do not have any White people in their leadership anymore, though I don't know if their membership policy discriminates against Whites. I see it as similar to what the CBC is doing, or part of the same bad trend in many such minority groups.

I think Lauren has expressed this very well. Thanks.