Author: Jill has written 4626 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

14 Responses

  1. 1
    Jadelyn 11.19.2008 at 5:11 pm |

    I had that exact same moment. I was doing the “boob count”, as it were, while I read the list. 3 of 14. That’s depressing.

    The more things change…

  2. 2
    nonskanse 11.19.2008 at 5:34 pm |

    What is the ratio m:f that are partners at big law firms, judges, law professors etc? The ratio of the Obama administration should be the same as that, approximately, since that is the pool to draw from (presumably).

    Looking here … well it doesn’t seem like Obama is that far off. 17% or so females could be an industry average.

    I’m not saying that the average is good.
    But at this point the group could be somewhat representative of different high-profile law careers, which is a good thing. Does anyone have some numbers to look at this? It would be interesting.

  3. 3
    Cara 11.19.2008 at 5:37 pm |

    Nonskanse, in order for your theory to be accurate, you must assume that there is no merit to purposely seeking out members of underrepresented groups to appoint. I don’t. There is always more than one person who can do a job well, and I see great merit in using this fact to create greater diversity in the administration. I hope that Obama does as well.

  4. 4
    Cara 11.19.2008 at 5:39 pm |

    Let me clarify — I hope that Obama will see the merit going forward with other appointments, since what we know so far indicates that he hasn’t.

  5. 5
    Radfem 11.19.2008 at 5:48 pm |

    I don’t know. I was interviewed by three DOJ Civil Rights attorneys and two U.S. attorneys and all but one of them were female. Three were women of color and all of them were excellent. So there’s pools for attorneys, particularly in civil rights and women’s health and reproductive issues.

    Alejandro Mayorkas, I had to cough up a hairball when I saw that name. He was the head U.S. Attorney in my region. Not very impressive but that’s my personal experience.

    Some really strong attorneys though on his team. I’m hoping this is good news for the Civil Rights Divison of the DOJ and that there will be much more focus in this area than there has been in the past (cough) eight years.

  6. 6

    [...] More here: Tom Daschle for HHS Secretary? [...]

  7. 7
    Anna 11.19.2008 at 6:45 pm |

    I’m also frowny over the lack of women, but I am thrilled over the inclusion of people with disabilities through Marilyn Golden. I’m not familiar with her because my work has been primarily in Canada, but knowing that there’s at least a place at the table for PWD makes my webbed toes tingle.

  8. 8
    printmaker 11.19.2008 at 7:44 pm |

    I’m not thrilled with the lack of females or minorities represented, but I do think that we have to remember that Obama is relatively inexperienced and seems to be choosing people who are. Unfortunately, at this point in history, a lot of women and minorities haven’t been given the chance to have such lengthy experience. While that in and of itself is a good argument to give them a chance, the state of our nation is also a good argument to pick someone who’s been around for awhile. I think we need to go a little easy on Obama as he’s navigating some pretty treacherous territory right now.

  9. 9
    Anne 11.19.2008 at 7:45 pm |

    The people Obama selects are typical. Change was just a word and lie that a lot of people fell for.

  10. 10
    Rachel 11.19.2008 at 11:31 pm |

    I could not be more thrilled to see Marilyn’s name on that list – I worked with her at DREDF for two years, and she is a rockstar (although not technically an attorney, so if she’s in the list of fourteen the count’s off).

    And Justice Reynoso! Another amazing person who has done so much good work. I can’t speak to the rest, but these two choices make me very, very happy.

  11. 11
    dan 11.20.2008 at 4:00 am |

    Tom Daschle now on CNN: “Obama is wrong”
    watch interview: http://www.ma.my/iny3vn/
    very surprised!

  12. 12
    Rev. Debra Haffner 11.20.2008 at 10:22 am |

    I’m guessing this is only the first of the “consensus” type appointments we’ll see in the days ahead. Clearly, in terms of sexual and reproductive health issues, it won’t be quite the battle it has been for the past eight years. But if you were wondering if we could sit back and just enjoy the next four, I think this is a good indication that people who support sexual justice need to continue speaking out.
    Rev. Debra Haffner
    http://debrahaffner.blogspot.com

  13. 13
    nonskanse 11.20.2008 at 5:03 pm |

    Cara,
    At lower levels of law and high-profile public careers, the female population is much higher. I think that the number of female associates at law firms, for example, is fairly good. But the number of partners as much less.

    I’m not denying the merit of purposely seeking out groups that are underrepresented in the higher levels of law and public service, which would probably help increase the points of view in the administration. However, I’m wondering if the Obama administration members are being chosen to be representitive of the field they’re drawn from, and if that is a bad thing. (one being good does not make the other bad)

    It could be a smart move politically for votes to hire appropriate ratios from the available pools instead of appropriate ratios from the population as a whole. Unfortunate, yes.

  14. 14
    Ashley 11.24.2008 at 12:45 pm |

    A poster at OpenLeft mentioned Daschle’s reproductive rights record. She said he started out as anti-choice, but he is now completely pro-choice. I think his pro-choice views are expressed in his book on healthcare.

    As far as women in the Obama administration, I find it all so confusing. Of course, there is a gender imbalance on the justice team. But I can’t quite get a handle on exactly how many people, let alone women, have been appointed (as opposed to rumored ) to the administration as a whole. It’s also difficult because every appointment isn’t listed on the Change.gov website. Nevertheless, I sent a message to Change.gov about female appointees.

    I see the overly male justice team, but then I read about lots of great women being apponted. I’m new to this place, so forgive me if this has already been answered (or just point me to a link!):

    Jill (and others), do you think having every administrative team/department be gender balanced is “better” than having the entire administration be gender balanced? If the administration ends up 50% female (although certain teams, like justice, are overwhelmingly male) is that problematic? I understand why we need more women in justice. And I want to see women handling every aspect of policy, from national security to women’s health. But, is one instance of gender parity inherently more “equal”? If the justice team were 70% female and the arts funding team were 70% male, would that be bad? It’s something I’ve been pondering.

    In a great bit of news, Melody Barnes has been tapped to head the Domestic Policy Council. She seems pretty awesome.

Comments are closed.