Tuesday, November 27, 2007

MITT ROMNEY

Big Muslims-in-the-Cabinet Roundup

I'll have more on the Mansour Ijaz Christian Science Monitor piece in the near future, but for now, I can say that after talking with Ijaz, he stands by his account in the CSM 100 percent, and contends there is no way that Mitt Romney could have misinterepreted or misheard his question.

He is certain that his question was whether Romney would "consider" including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, and that there was no aspect of quotas, guarantees, or promises to the question. He asked the question, Romney repeated the question so that everyone in the room could hear, and Ijaz clarified when Romney believed the question was whether he would have Muslim advisors regarding the war on terror.

He stands by his description of Romney's answer including the claim that Romney rejected the idea of a Muslim cabinet member based on the "numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population."

Romney remembers the question differently, telling MSNBC earlier today that "No, that's not what I said. His question was, Did I need to have a Muslim in my Cabinet in order to confront radical jihad, or would it be important to have a Muslim in my Cabinet?' And I said no, I don't think you need a Muslim in the Cabinet to take on radical jihad any more than we needed a Japanese American to understand the threat that was coming from Japan or something of that nature."

Romney continued, "It's something I rejected, number one. And number two, point out that haven't given a lot of thought to the people I would have in my Cabinet. I don't have boxes I check off in terms of ethnicity, and it's not that I need a certain number of people representing ethnic groups. Instead, I would choose people based on their merits... I'm open to having people of any faith, ethnic group. But they would be selected based on their capacity and capabilities and what they could bring to the Administration, but I don't choose people based on checking off a box."

Finally, Campaign Spot reader Tim notes the federal law on this matter:

Long time fan; you’re my favorite political blogger.  I must, however, gently advise you with all due respect that you are absolutely incorrect when you say that the next president should consider appointing a “qualified Muslim” to the cabinet.  Fact of the matter is that no one should be asking anyone any questions regarding their religious background during a job interview, and that includes the President for government jobs.  Generally speaking, unless a job is for a religious institution and a person’s faith is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ as we say) for the position, it is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make a hiring decision because of someone’s religious faith.  Thus, you can’t say: “go find me a Muslim for this job” anymore than you could say “I need a Catholic for HHS” or “I need a Protestant at Treasury.”   Seems like an obvious point to me, but maybe that just because I am a attorney who specializes in labor and employment law and I have to live this stuff every day.
 
Of course, someone’s “diversity and life experiences” may give that applicant a “unique perspective” (code words for justifying otherwise discriminatory preference) which gives them an edge over an equally qualified candidate.  That’s how the game is played, but strictly speaking, hiring decisions based upon religion are almost always illegal.

A Muslim advocate for the U.S. war on terror would, I would argue, be uniquely persuasive with the hearts and minds we need to reach. I concur with David Frum that Zalmay Khalilzad, currently U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, would make a brilliant Secretary of State.

11/27 04:11 PMShare