I’ve long maintained that the left is worse on most issues than the right–worse on both economic and personal liberties. Worse on free speech, for example. They oppose “commercial” free speech rights; they advocate speech codes, affirmative action and antidiscrimination laws that muzzle free speech. And with the manifest collapse of outright socialism in the 1990s and the more and more evident failures of their policies–as they run out of excuses and arguments in favor of interventionism–the resort more and more frequently to this retort: “Shut up!”
Case on point: the January 2005 issue of Corporate Counsel (a magazine for in-house attorneys) has a letter to the editor from Veta Richardson, Exec. Director of the Minority Corporate Counsel Assocation, in which she attacks Corporate Counsel for an August 2004 story (Law.com version of the August 2004 article) which commented on the affirmative action practices of some large corporations. First, she denies that affirmative action efforts discriminate against or exclude white men. As she puts it, “I can assure you that the exclusion of white men is not on anyone’s agenda.” Whew! Thank goodness for that! Now I see there is simply no cause for worry.
Second, she objects to the illustration accompanying the article (I attached it to the end of her letter): She claims it contains a “customized illustration that is repugnant, divisive, and misleading. It is also a gross misrepresentation of corporate diversity efforts. The women and minority lawyers are depicted as dancing and high-fiving and dressed in garish unprofessional attire. All of the white male lawyers are depicted as gray, glum, and outcast. The illustration is so racist, sexist, and incendiary that your editors owe an apology to your readers and advertisers, many of whom are equally appalled that you
would publish something that olfensive.”
Now, take a look at the illustration. The white men are glum because they are being passed over by minorities; or, at least, have lost their allegedly privileged status. Is this racist to depict? The clothes of the minorities don’t appear all that garish to me; and they are celebrating because they are being showered with affirmative action preferences by the corporations. Isn’t this what Richardson wants? Why shouldn’t minorities celebrate when they achieve a victory?
Moreover, what is somewhat amusing is if you go to the MCCA website, you immediately hear a groovy jazz tune playing. Most law firm sites are very staid and conservative; this is definitely out of the mainstream and more “garish” and playing to minority stereotypes than the illustration in question.
The editor responded and subtly chastised Richardson for so casually dropping the r-bomb: “a charge of racism is powerful. It has the power to end reasoned discourse, either by silencing the recipient or by rendering him or her furious as to be unable to respond with anything but invtective. We believe in open discussion and a fair airing of all sides of issues.” Also, the MCCA’s magazine, Diversity & the Bar, is distributed by Corporate Counsel as a supplement to it. I guess nothing is enough for these parasites and whiners.
Richardson does not. What incensed her the most was Corporate Counsel’s decision to publish letters to the editor from two opponents of affirmative action, one of them Roger Clegg, general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity–she claims Corporate Counsel “stepped way outside the bounds of responsible editorial discretion by publishing” Clegg’s letter.
These people are shameless. You can almost hear her yelling to critics, “Shut up! Shut up! SHUT UP!“
1:03 pm on December 30, 2004
