A Watchdog Muted

NY Times ^ | Dec 14, 2004

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

The United States Commission on Civil Rights cannot legislate or regulate. What it can do is hold hearings and make a terrible racket if the government is not enforcing the laws of the land forbidding discrimination in voting, employment and housing.

The panel is a watchdog, exactly as President Dwight Eisenhower intended when he persuaded Congress to establish it in 1957. Mostly it has been run on a part-time basis by academics like the first chairman, John Hannah, then president of Michigan State; the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, who was president of Notre Dame; and, most recently, by Mary Frances Berry, the Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought at the University of Pennsylvania. The panel helped created momentum for the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 and for the creation of civilian review boards to ease tensions between the police and minorities in the 1970's.

Watchdogs occasionally bite, of course. While some presidents have tolerated this, others have not - including President Bush, who has now appointed Gerald Reynolds, a conservative African-American lawyer, to succeed Ms. Berry as commissioner.

An equal-opportunity critic, Ms. Berry has harangued presidents of both parties for nearly 25 years. What finally did her in, apparently, was a 166-page report criticizing Mr. Bush's leadership on civil rights that appeared in draft form on the commission's Web site before the election. It was ultimately rejected by the commission's conservative majority, but Ms. Berry sent it to the White House anyway with a plea to Mr. Bush to "embrace the core freedoms and values enshrined in our civil rights laws."

Mr. Bush is unlikely to get such lectures from Mr. Reynolds, an energy company lawyer who briefly ran the Office of Civil Rights at the Education Department. Mr. Reynolds has described affirmative action as a "big lie," is generally opposed to preferential treatment for members of minorities and has said the civil rights groups overstate the problem of discrimination. This approach may make for warmer relations with the White House, but it hardly seems likely to keep the commission on the leading edge of the struggle for civil rights.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

DBFBFP

[Blue Screen of Death]

The New York Times is owned by a white guy. Don't pay them any attention until Pinch eithers changes race or sells to Rev. Sharpton.

[pacpam]

Guess the NYTs takes the position an appointed position for a defined period of time is to be ignored if the current occupant of the seat wishes to stay. Ms Berry will not be missed.

[arjay]

Why am I not surprised that the NYT came to her defense and trashed Bush in the process?

[swilhelm73]

So, the Slimes is upset because Bush, the President, is using the powers of ...The President... and appointing someone other than a foaming at the mouth racialist who disenfranchised other members of the commission?

[ReadyNow]

Mary Frances Berry is a bigger embarrassment than Jayson Blair.

[sam_paine]

DBFBFP?

Dis Be Fo Bush's Fault Ping?

[Joe Bonforte]

An equal-opportunity critic, Ms. Berry has harangued presidents of both parties for nearly 25 years.

Yes, she is so far left, there has never been a president that would satisfy her. So she has spewed her leftist drivel no matter who was president.

That doesn't mean it made any sense. Her delusional rantings deserved exactly the attention Bush gave them, i.e., none whatsoever. (And Clinton didn't pay any more real attention to here, although he did pay some lip service.)

Why, oh why, must leftist media persist in such logical fallacies? Who was president while this witch was spewing her drivel has nothing whatever to do with whether it made any sense. And the NYT carefully avoids any real analysis of her positions.

[Congressman Billybob]

Ms. Berry is a classic bigot in black face. She is also a classic Democrat, meaning she is willing to violate the law to get what she wants. Therefore, she is a heroine to the New York Times. Why am I not surprised?

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest, "Should the Iraqi Election be Delayed?"

[NutCrackerBoy]

What finally did [Mary Frances Berry, the Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought at the University of Pennsylvania] in, apparently, was a 166-page report criticizing Mr. Bush's leadership on civil rights that appeared in draft form on the commission's Web site before the election. It was ultimately rejected by the commission's conservative majority, but Ms. Berry sent it to the White House anyway with a plea to Mr. Bush to "embrace the core freedoms and values enshrined in our civil rights laws." -New York Times editorial

And because of this pious phrase, we are expected to bow down to Berry's civil rights martyrdom. The New York Times uses the word "conservative" as synonymous with bigoted and committed to the status quo. A conservative could never be a watchdog. There could never be a civil rights issue that is perceived from a conservative point-of-view. Only liberals and revolutionaries have legitimacy.

What a piece of crap.

[RBroadfoot]

I am entirely unfamiliar with the career of Gerald Reynolds, but I can think of no better endorsement of President Bush's nominee than criticism from the New York Times.

[goodnesswins]

"Mr. Reynolds has described affirmative action as a "big lie," is generally opposed to preferential treatment for members of minorities and has said the civil rights groups overstate the problem of discrimination."

Sooooo......a logical, reasonable person is appointed....and, of course, the NYT is upset. So, what's new?