Key players in the conflict over civil rights 187diverse than those of other Republican presidents. His initial 19 cabinet and cabinet-
rank appointments included 15 men and 4 women, of whom 6 were members of racial
minorities. The rhetoric that surrounded these appointments, however, was couched
not in terms of affirmative action but rather in terms of merit. Critics argued that gender
and race played a central role in Bush’s decisions, just as they had with Clinton, even if the
rhetoric had a different tone. Despite the different approach, Bush made serious overtures
to minorities, especially Latinos, in his effort to expand the Republican Party base.
While the long-term impact of the Obama presidency on the civil rights movement
remains to be seen, the historical significance of his successful campaign as a minority
candidate is clear. At the 2008 Democratic National Convention, some African-American
delegates openly wept as Obama accepted the party’s nomination. Many delegates had not
expected that they would live to see an African American become a strong contender for
the presidency. Obama’s nominations for his cabinet and cabinet-level offices consisted of
a diverse group of 14 men and 7 women, with 7 of them members of racial minorities. Eric
Holder was the first African American to serve as attorney general, and Sonia Sotomayor
is the first Latina on the Supreme Court. Obama also nominated Elena Kagan to the
Supreme Court, putting three women on the Court for the first time. Obama’s second-
term team was similar, consisting of 14 men and 8 women, 6 of them racial minorities.
In his first term, Obama tried to downplay race and diversity concerns. Indeed,
some observers argue that Obama’s presidency signaled the beginning of a “post-racial
politics” that places less emphasis on race and devotes more attention to issues that
concern all Americans, such as the economy, education, and health care. However,
Obama himself rejected this view. In Obama’s second term, he used the bully pulpit to
draw more attention to women’s issues, such as rape on college campuses and equal
pay; used executive action on immigration policy to limit deportations of young adults
who were brought to the United States as children; called attention to racial disparities
in the criminal justice system; and saw the Supreme Court recognize same-sex
marriage as a fundamental right.
Donald Trump was elected with racially divisive positions, such as his promises
to build a wall between the United States and Mexico and deport 12 million illegal
residents. In his election-night victory speech, he emphasized the importance of
representing all Americans and uniting the country. As president, Trump has tended to
express polarizing opinions on civil rights issues, rather than unifying themes. He failed
to condemn the attacks by white supremacists on counterprotesters in Charlottesville,
Virginia, instead blaming “both sides” for the violence and saying that some of the
white supremacists were “very fine people.” He also said that any NFL player who knelt
during the national anthem in protest of racial bias in policing was a “son-of-a-bitch,”
attempted to ban immigration to the United States from several dominantly Muslim
countries, and attempted to ban transgender service members from the military.“Why
Should
I Care?”
Why is it important for us to know about who the key players are in civil rights?
At various times in our history, different branches of government took the lead in
promoting civil rights: Congress in the 1960s with the Civil Rights Act and the VRA,
Presidents Clinton and Obama with promoting diversity in presidential appointments,
and the Supreme Court in endorsing same-sex marriage. But in recent years, both the
Supreme Court and President Trump have moved some civil rights policies in the other
direction. If we want to see policies on these kinds of issues change, knowing who is
involved, and what impact these policies can have, is critical.Full_06_APT_64431_ch05_148-197.indd 187 16/11/18 1:31 PM