This is not an issue that I'm in any kind of uproar over, but it did raise some questions that I have had over the years. Recently, a young white Congressman petitioned to join the Congressional Black Caucus. According to some sources, he was told - 'don't bother, you're white'.
To be fair, the reports are unsubstantiated (as far as I can tell) by the CBC, and the bylaws of the CBC do not mention race as a pre-requisite.



Link


The Hill


The questions that this incident raises for me are these:

Would the CBC have been correct in denying (unofficially) admittance to a non-black person?

Since the goal of the CBC is to elevate the issues of a minority (blacks) and of civil rights in congress, and Cohen's district is 60% black, would he or wouldn't he be able to make a contribution to the CBC?

Can the history of the United States Congress historically be considered a type of 'Congressional White Caucus', thus validating the need for minority-centric groups? Or should we move beyond that paradigm?

Would the CBC have been correct in denying (unofficially) admittance to a non-black person?

No. Since a caucus is by invitation only, each case must be decided on an individual basis. Clearly, it makes no sense for, say, a bleeding-heart liberal to be invited to join a Conservative Caucus, even if the liberal claims to be a "real" conservative. Instead of judging a prospective member based on race, it should be based on whether the individual has something to contribute when it comes to issues relevant to African-Americans. This is a matter of opinion, of course. The caucus should be allowed to make the decision, but automatic exclusion on the basis of race is not acceptable. If I were on a Feminist Caucus, I would certainly welcome feminist men as members.

Since the goal of the CBC is to elevate the issues of a minority (blacks) and of civil rights in congress, and Cohen's district is 60% black, would he or wouldn't he be able to make a contribution to the CBC?

As far as I can tell, it seems likely that he could be a fine member of the Caucus.

Can the history of the United States Congress historically be considered a type of 'Congressional White Caucus', thus validating the need for minority-centric groups? Or should we move beyond that paradigm?

Both of these choices have some truth to them. In a perfect world, race would mean nothing. However, we are very far from a perfect world, and it cannot be denied that African-Americans have special concerns that are not identical to the concerns of others.

Would the CBC have been correct in denying (unofficially) admittance to a non-black person?
Not if the reason for doing so is their "non-blackness". Doing so is a violation of the the concept of equal rights. Of course, if some are "more equal than others", then this makes perfect sense. The Congressional Black Caucus utilizes taxpayer funded staff.

Since the goal of the CBC is to elevate the issues of a minority (blacks) and of civil rights in congress, and Cohen's district is 60% black, would he or wouldn't he be able to make a contribution to the CBC?
Whether his district is 60% black or not doesn't impact his ability to make a contribution to the CBC, but it does, as a practical matter, impact his interest in joining it.

Can the history of the United States Congress historically be considered a type of 'Congressional White Caucus', thus validating the need for minority-centric groups? Or should we move beyond that paradigm?
No, because by definition a caucus is a subset of an elected body. And yes, we should move beyond that paradigm, but the "civil rights" movement since the 1970s has abandoned equality of opportunity for equality of outcome. Until the civil rights returns to equality of opportunity, race/ethnic based (i.e. tribal) politics will continue to be a major consideration in our political landscape.

Would the CBC have been correct in denying (unofficially) admittance to a non-black person?

Every bit as correct as a caucus of white Congressmen would have been in denying admittance to a black Congressman on the basis of his race. The corrollary is that our society's double standard in not raising an outcry over this is really contemptible.

Can the history of the United States Congress historically be considered a type of 'Congressional White Caucus', thus validating the need for minority-centric groups?

You can't combat racism with more racism. If it was called something like the "Congressional Counter-Racism Caucus" or the "Congressional Equality Caucus" instead of the Congressional Black Caucus, it would be unobjectionable. But making it race-based only encourages more of the same. Maybe someday our society will get that through its collective skulls.