Yes, that’s right: according to Keller, Deval Patrick’s “Big Problem” is his work on affirmative action over a decade ago in the Clinton Justice Department. Here’s Keller’s big question about Patrick’s chances in the election:
But will the blue hairs and scally caps still be laughing when they learn about Deval Patrick, “quota king”? That is the derisive nickname hung on Patrick by conservative critics of his stint with the Department of Justice, a period when he pursued preferential treatment for minority workers and businesses in several high-profile cases.
Now who, exactly, was calling Deval Patrick a “Quota King”? Keller doesn’t tell us. From what I could dig up, the “Quota King” moniker was invented by Clint Bolick (see p. 8), and later parroted by our own Jeff Jacoby – it seems to have had no greater currency than that. Bolick is an anti-affirmative action zealot extraordinaire, and is the orchestrator of the successful campaign to derail Lani Guinier‘s nomination for the job that Patrick eventually took. Bolick’s name for Guinier? The “quota queen,” of course. It worked so well for Guinier that Bolick thought he’d try it again for Patrick, but it didn’t stick (not as alliterative, maybe) – Patrick got the job. Jacoby, for his part, is unalterably opposed to affirmative action in any form (as well as being an “ideological hack,” according to Nicholas Confessore). And, not incidentally, the Bolick-Jacoby position on affirmative action was squarely rejected by the US Supreme Court in 2003.
So on the “quota king” business, I’m afraid I have to call bullshit on Mr. Keller. I’ve found no evidence (and Keller supplies none) that Patrick has any sort of “reputation” beyond a couple of right-wing mouthpieces as a “quota king.” Rather, that name was apparently invented by an ideological extremist (Bolick) as part of a smear campaign to sabotage Patrick’s nomination to lead the Civil Rights Division. Later, the name was parroted by another ideological extremist (Jacoby) who hates affirmative action and who was arguing against Bill Clinton’s reelection. The “quota king” epithet was a mean-spirited PR stunt that failed, nothing more. Sorry Jon, but just because Clint Bolick says it doesn’t make it so.
So, now that we’ve got the “quota king” garbage out of the way, what about Keller’s broader point that Patrick’s work on affirmative action was controversial? Well, it was, at least part of it. Keller talks mostly about a very controversial case called Piscataway Bd. of Educ. v. Taxman. By way of background, the Taxman case presented very peculiar facts: two teachers, one white and one black, had been hired on the same day in the same department. Almost a decade later, budget cuts required that one of them be laid off, and the school district cited “diversity” in choosing to lay off Taxman (the white teacher) rather than flipping a coin (which apparently was the district’s usual practice in such cases). Taxman sued, and the first Bush Justice Department backed her, as did the Clinton Justice Department in the trial court, where she won her case. However, when the school board appealed, Deval Patrick had taken over the Civil Rights Division, and he not only withdrew the Department’s support of Taxman, but sought permission (which the court denied) to file a brief against Taxman. Taxman won again in the Appeals Court; the Supreme Court took the case, but it settled before argument. By that time, Patrick had left the Justice Department, and the Solicitor General filed a brief in the Supreme Court (before the case settled) that weighed in on Taxman’s behalf: “we have arrived at a different conclusion on the correct disposition of this case from that stated in [Patrick’s] brief. We continue, however, to adhere to the brief’s main argument — that Title VII does not preclude all non-remedial, race-conscious employment decisions.”
So, yes, the Taxman case was controversial. And perhaps Patrick didn’t make the right call (firing does seem different from hiring, and ultimately, as noted above, the Clinton Justice Department rejected Patrick’s position). But come on, Jon, it was one case. One searches Keller’s article in vain for any other evidence of some kind of extremism on the subject of affirmative action (other than quotes by the likes of the aforementioned Clint Bolick) – and Patrick is quoted in the article as saying, reasonably, “I’m trusting the voters to understand that one decision is not the sum of a person’s life.” Yet Keller’s article calls Patrick a “hardliner” on race, and blithely asserts that he has a “record of devotion to race-based social engineering.” Strong words, right out of Clint Bolick’s anti-affirmative action playbook. And, if you ask me, they are not backed up by the actual information in the article.
Unfortunately, the article doesn’t stop there. It goes on – rather patronizingly, IMHO – to argue that Patrick’s “personal journey out of poverty and through the gauntlet of American racism” is the explanation for why he’s such a “hardliner on this subject.” (This is nonsense, of course, as people with similarly hard-scrabble backgrounds have wound up on the opposite side of this very issue.) Patrick’s “personal journey” no doubt informs his views on affirmative action. But Keller presents that journey as the sole basis for Patrick’s views – here’s another example:
Deval Patrick has every right and reason to be especially invested in issues of race and affirmative action. Given the central role they’ve played in his extraordinary life story, he’d be a cipher to be emotionless about those subjects.
Language like that seems to me to play into the very sort of racial stereotyping that Keller clearly abhors.
Keller concludes his article by posing the following “million-dollar question for Patrick and his potentially history-making candidacy”:
Will his formidable cool burn off when blunt questions about his devotion to race-based remedies come up under the hot campaign lights…?
Keller goes on to recount Patrick’s reaction to one of Keller’s famously blunt questions:
“Am I always gonna make the call in favor of the black person? That’s ridiculous,” he snaps, the brilliant smile suddenly gone.
I’m not really sure what Keller’s point is here. Patrick obviously cares deeply about issues of race in society – as he should, and as Keller no doubt does too. And we all know what happens when candidates, asked provocative questions about emotional issues, respond without emotion (*cough* Mike Dukakis *cough*). So, when Keller asked Patrick a provocative question about race, Patrick responded with passion. And this is a problem because…? I mean, obviously, we don’t want candidates flying off the handle when they get asked tough questions.&nb
sp; But I frankly doubt that Patrick is going to be giving us anything resembling the Howard Dean scream anytime soon.
Keller is a terrific political reporter, and we’re lucky to have him covering the Governor’s race. But this article is not his best work (Adam Reilly doesn’t think so either), and it seems to me to be influenced by Keller’s own obvious distaste for affirmative action. After reading the article, I was left wondering who really has a “Big Problem” with affirmative action – Deval Patrick, or Jon Keller?
Thanks for that. I have a distaste for Jon Keller and have had one for a while… parroting right-wing talking points from Jeff Jacoby’s large mouth only worsens it.
I don’t share your opinion that “Keller is a terrific reporter.” I used to hit the mute button when he held forth on WB56 with his catty “gotcha” reporting. I don’t see that he’s improved any since moving to CBS4. His reporting appears always to be calculated to show off how clever he is, rather than shed any important light on the politics at hand. The Boston Magazine article you write about seems just about par for the course for Keller: big headline, little waspish sting, and mostly calculated to put Jon Keller and his opinions at the center of the story.
âa terrific political reporterâ?!
<
p>
To me, he comes across as a weasel who likes to push peopleâs buttons in a non-substantive way. He is kind of like a less sociopathic Karl Rove meets Chris Matthews.
Sometimes his reporting is good, but his debate questions were just stupid. Most of them were either softballs or complete hypotheticals. Very few dealt with the issues.
<
p>
As for if this is Deval’s “big problem,” have we seen any mention of affirmative action by any of the other candidates? I haven’t heard a peep, and my feeling is that if they tried to take on the issue they’d look like they’re just trying to exploit Deval’s race (coupled with his position).
Have obvious Republicans (though nominally independents) in the media throw out terms to see which ones stick. They will keep doing this to progressives until it stops winning elections for them.
The real issue here is not quotas, which are illegal and have been for years and years, nor is it black people stealing jobs from white people.
<
p>
The real issue here is Jon Keller doesn’t want to talk about how Mitt Romney’s leadership has seen people and jobs leaving Massachusetts. Of all candidates running, Deval represents the biggest change for Massachusetts, and Keller will hurl whatever negative buzzwords he can to stop a progressive. We’ll see more of this as the year goes on, and if we want to see a Democrat win, we can’t let Jon Keller & his ilk change the subject.
and agree he did some excellent digging around. As to what he chose to report and the angle he took for the story, I think it’s more of his hyped schlock.
<
p>
If it’s the same article I’m thinking of, it features a large picture of Deval almost smirking and the headline refers to his “Devils.”
<
p>
It was very well written, but schlock nonetheless. That he even repeats politically charged catch phrases, without ever questioning their validity, points to his laziness as a reporter.
<
p>
Keller’s got a big ego and a creepy mustache. I’m surprised Boston Mag let him publish anything.
It’s not necessarily lazy. What if he wants people to think that phrase is stuck to Deval Patrick, because he’s opposed to affirmative action and would like to see a world where public officials who support it find it to be a problem when they next run for office? By presenting the epithet as a fait accompli, he can make many readers believe that it is already out there. And they may repeat it or ask about it.
I assume Keller wrote the article. He certainly is responsible for its contents since his name is on it. (Digression: would it be more, or less, useful and harder, or easier, to assess if this article were published by an anonymous author like many comments on blogs). However, the editors at Boston Magazine also deserve a share of whatever blame or credit is being handed out. They presumably reviewed and approved every word. Here are some likely candidates from the magazine’s website:
<
p>
JON MARCUS, EDITOR
<
p>
A Boston native and a former newspaper investigative reporter, Marcus is a graduate of Bates College and the Columbia University School of Journalism. His work has appeared in the Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, Washington Post, London Times, and other newspapers; and in magazines including Condé Nast Traveler, Yankee, and the American Journalism Review . He is the author of Boston (Voyageur Press, 1998), Lighthouses of New England (Voyageur Press, 2001), The Complete Illustrated Guide to Boston’s Parks and Gardens (Silver Lining Press, 2002), and Unknown New England (1st Books, 2003), and has won several reporting and writing awards from the City and Regional Magazine Association and other groups. He is on the adjunct faculty at Boston College, where he teaches feature writing.
<
p>
JAMES BURNETT, EXECUTIVE EDITOR
<
p>
Burnett joined Boston magazine in 2002 after starting his career in New York, where he was a staff writer at George and contributing editor at the ASME-award nominated law-student lifestyle magazine Jungle Law. His writing has appeared in Details, New York, Rolling Stone, Runner’s World, and the British soccer glossy Four Four Two. He won a gold medal for reader service in the 2003 City and Regional Magazine Awards.
<
p>
JULIE SURATT, MANAGING EDITOR
<
p>
A Tufts graduate, Suratt taught English in Osaka, Japan, before moving to Washington, D.C., to write for Destinations, a group travel magazine. In 1998, she headed back to Boston to join the Improper Bostonian as calendar editor and rose from the ranks to become managing editor. Suratt has also written for the Boston Globe, Boston Phoenix, Where to Eat and ClubLife magazine.
<
p>
And here is Mr. Keller’s bio:
<
p>
JON KELLER, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR
<
p>
Political columnist Keller has been a print and broadcast journalist in Boston for 20 years. He has worked for the Boston Phoenix, the Boston Herald, and the Boston Globe, and his freelance credits include People magazine, the Wall Street Journal, and The New Republic. Keller is the political analyst for CBS-4 as well as a political commentator for WBZ Radio. He has been honored with an Emmy Award for his television commentaries, and a New England Press Association Award for investigative print reporting.
His reporting has deteriorated over the years, not that it was particularly good to begin with. He focuses on the shortcomings of the Beacon Hill Dems, rather than Romney’s abysmal record as Governor. He parrots RW talking points ad nauseum. I hit the mute button or change the channel when he’s on.
Clearly any repoprter that focuses on the shortcomings of the party that has had 100% veto-proof control of the entire state government for the last 14 years as opposed to the shortcomings of another in a series of powerless, figure-head Republican governors loses all credibility.
He’s spent most of his time here in Mass. spending our tax money campaigning for President. I don’t like the cronies on Beacon Hill either, but Romney is a buffoon.
I love to bash Mr. Goodhair as much as the next BMGer, but please do explain how he has spent our tax money in his campaign for Prez. And I don’t mean some tangential nonsense, but a real substantiation of the bold position you just took. How did he directly spend our money to campaign for the highest office of the land?
<
p>
Forgive me if I missed something, but I feel like there’s enough cuts to take against Romney without making stuff up.
Sam Seidel broke the news a few days ago, and Andy from MassMarrier confirms: http://www.dfacambri…
But yeah, disgusting.
(Andy is from MassRevNow! Mike is massmarrier.)
<
p>
Just sayin’ 🙂
<
p>
Blog on!
What troubled me more than anything about the Howie Carr hatchet-job was this line:
<
p>
That is disgusting. Even a columnist (and a newspaper) with a distinct ideological slant has to have some journalistic standards.
<
p>
<
p>
Imagine the uproar…
There is a quota king ’cause if you see it in the Wikipedia, it must be true.
I can’t believe all the good words spoken about Jon Keller recently. Going back to and before his days writing, in Metro, the WORST political column I’ve ever read, Keller has been garbage. Is he the best we can find to moderate a debate? I mean…really? Forget bias, he just sucks.
Please don’t confuse the act of substantive rebuttal with actually getting it ‘out of the way’…
Nationally, for example, there is a long, storied history of charges: Billy Carter; Whitewater; Al Gore and the internet; Al Gore and ‘love canal’; John Kerry and the Swift Boat Vermin; etcetera-etcetera-etcetera…; which were all substantively rebutted within 30 seconds of utterance, to very little avail. That’s at the national level under the klieg lights of broadcast news. State and local races get decidedly more scurrilous and underhanded, chiefly because there is both more scurry and more underneath to be had…
Look for the phrase quota king to be uttered an indescribably maddening number of times in the next few weeks in defiance of all rationality and with utter disregard for any attachment to substance. They are, after all, trying to court the vote of those wan souls who fell for ‘compassionate conservative‘ and Mitt Romneys’ statements on abortion…
Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for substantive rebutalls, none more so… But you’ll have to repeat it over and over and over again (try to make it short and interesting) for there to be noticeable effects.