A freshman at the University of Pennsylvania has launched a Black Republicans club.

"It's just to show that black Republicans exist," [Sean-Tamba] Matthew said. "A lot of people laugh ... but we want to let [black students] know there's another option."

Though the group was mostly quiet in the period before the national election, Matthew is serious in his aims for providing a forum for like-minded black students.

Matthew's devotion to Republican ideals supercedes racial lines, although he said he would like to see greater minority representation in elected office.

"If there's a minority candidate out there, we'll help them out," he said.

Yet he ruled out the possibility of voting for a black Democrat, including one running for president.

"If he's not following party lines, I don't see why we would vote for him," he said. "I'm not going to vote for someone just because he's African American."

With roots in a liberal community in Cleveland, supporting the Republicans was not a natural choice for Matthew, whose parents are Democrats. He noted though, that his mother is socially conservative, and their shared emphasis on the family unit attracted him to the Republicans.

"Family values are issues that really affect the African American community," he said. He added that in some areas the family structure had been totally destroyed and that a Republican approach would be beneficial.

The belief in the morality of the Republican Party is common among other members of the group, such as Wharton freshman Peter Handy.

Handy said he admired the integrity of Republican values.

"It's a very wholesome, no bullshit kind of party," he said.

Democratic policies are typically viewed as providing greater aid to blacks, particularly to those who are among the poorest. Matthew called this perception a myth, citing his own experience as a counterexample of how Democratic economic policies can be harmful.

"The effects of egregious taxes on the community, of government arbitrarily increasing the tax base" can hurt the people they are supposed to help, Matthew said. "My parents really have struggled [as] taxes sucked their income away."

My guess is that Matthew is generating a good deal of annoyance and even anger at Penn (which is not to single out Penn as a particularly intolerant environment, but rather to comment generally on the national campus climate). I expect there are plenty of people who will find the notion of a Black Republican student group heinously misguided, and who will not be able to credit Matthew or the group's other members with any decisionmaking power that is not an egregious, historically destructive form of false consciousness.

But the move Matthew is making is a very positive one, if one genuinely does care about diversity. As an ethnic club that is also a club for people of like political mind, Penn's Black Republicans group sits constructively at the contentious intersection of the debate about exactly what diversity is and should be. If one believes that campuses should be places where minority groups can express themselves freely, in all their wide cultural variety, then Penn's Black Republicans club must be a good thing. If one believes that campuses should be places where a variety of political viewpoints are represented, and where, as a consequence, those viewpoints are subjected to the bracing test of vigorous public debate, then Penn's Black Republicans club must be a good thing.

While Matthew's point is well-taken -- that this is a group whose opinions have not been well heard -- the statement that his step is a positive one if he cares about diversity is mistaken.

If he cares about diversity, he won't start a BLACK Republican's club, but will find a way to make a DIVERSE Republican's club.

That there are other positive moves possible, such as a race independent Republican's club, doesn't mean that Matthew's club is not positive.

Tess:

There's no reason under the sun why he can't be in both, and there is nothing in the story that indicates that is isn't in the Penn College Republicans.

I have rarely heard people on the Left indicate that African Amercian feminists should cleave to the W.A.S.P. model of "'Womyn's' Studies." They even has their own "alternative" spelling. And, indeed, they have specific issues relevenat to African American women, and thus are entitled to their own discipline, and deservedly so.

Yet we hear the argument that African American Conservatives must conform to the mainstream GOP line in the name of improving "diversity?" On an Liberal campus, one may argue that this is exactly what the Left wants. Keep the conservatives "diverse" in a single organization while the Left-leaning groups "diversify" and have more interorganizational clout when it's time for going after the pot of student fee $s.

I agree with Tess in her comment about forming a "Diverse Republicans" club rather than one for black republicans.

In general, I disagree with having loyalty to a political party. Perhaps it's only a small handful of people of which I consider myself part of, but I don't like the idea of voting for a particular party due to loyalty, regardless of whether I agree with their ideals. Granted, loyality to a party is usually due to an agreement in ideals. But to vote for someone only because they are Rep. or Dem. or black or whatever doesn't seem logical; it defeats the purpose of picking a candidate because of what they can personally offer, promise, and believe in. Matthew here seems intent on just compounding this issue. He'd prefer to vote for Republicans over Democrats, and he'd prefer a minority Republican over a white one.

Eventually we'll just have our own individual political parties, since we seem so inclined to categorize and separate.

I also notice Matthew contradicted himself when discussing who he'd support. He says he'd support a someone who is a minority, but won't support them just because they are African-American. The author's comment that this "supercedes racial lines" is not true. If your preference for a candidate is based on their status as being of a particular race or simply being a minority, the racial lines are sharper and more pronounced than ever.

There's nothing wrong with introducing minorities (or anyone for that matter) to new ideas, but when it comes down to it (and I know this is wishful thinking) a person should be elected for their qualifications, not because they were born with a particular skin color. Diversity is a great thing...it exemplifies America...but not when it is sought at the expense of the merit.

However, if one believes that campuses should be places where only the 'correct' political viewpoints should be represented, and where, as a consequence, those 'correct' viewpoints should not be subjected to any test or public debate whatsoever, then Penn's Black Republicans club must be a very bad thing.

Those beliefs seem to currently hold greater sway on the campuses than the idealistic ones stated in the post.

Look for the Leftie mainstream academics and media to attack this student (and maybe we'll see some 'Uncle Tom' cartoons for him, like those for Powell and Rice, and any other black to dares to leave the plantation and think independently?).

"It's a very wholesome, no bullshit kind of party"

It's not the point of the post, but I really liked this line. For some reason I find it very amusing that he praises wholesomeness and uses profanity in the same sentence.

"Black Republican" is used to make a statement in itself, distinguishing this party from the Democratic Party seen as the only party for Blacks, which Matthew apparently thinks might be a blinding perception of Blacks. I certainly have no idea why.

Were he to want to not shoot for the magic of Diversity, he could not distinguish his party from that of the Democratic Party on that basis, either, except by including "Black" in its title.

It might be significant, also, that he did not call his party the "African American Republican Party", given the manifest odiousness of the term "African American", though it is soothing to White Liberals: they get to name all Blacks in America, while at the same time saying Blacks need to worry about what they are nationalistically, need to worry that their "roots" are back in Africa without them, and that they are not full, valid Americans like the rest of us. Talk about gender confusion, what does this ambiguous name, further manifested by literal development of the physical Africenter, say to Black Americans?

The term "African American" also conjures up the implication that Black Americans as individuals are perhaps also still disabled by Slavery itself, as though this is a genetically transmitted condition, which can be seen as a not too opaque substitute for racism.

I think everyone should stop telling particular people what they should do if they want to simply form a group. Why would I care? They can think for themselves, and I for one accept their good intentions. [I assume a component of Matthew's point is that diversity has nothing to do with skin color.]

If elected, I....

I simply wonder what would happen if someone were to try to establish a White Republican's Club.

Granted, there are those who would say they exist in all but name. Diversity is to be celebrated, but not at the expense of equality. If one is accepted, all must be.

Sigh.

College campuses have ethnic clubs of all flavors yet no one is asking them to merge in the name of "diversity" or "outreach." I've never heard of Wimmin's Study's need to merge with Womyn's Studies in the name of diversity for their statistically more privileged counterparts of non-color. Nor have I ever heard the left say that ethnic- or gender-supporting professional development groups should be dissolved so that "they may join" with the broader groups (as if being a member of SWE bars you of being in ASCE). If people have issue with Black or African American, or Native American, or Latino, or Jewish, or whatever Republicans, Libertarians, or whatever non-Left wing political group on a campus, they should be equally unhappy with every other ethnic organization. If one side of the aisle must be a tossed salad, then all must be, and that is a very very bad idea.

"Unification in the name of 'diversity'" seems to only apply to conservative or "contrarian" groups on campuses. Only "The Other" may be fruitful and multiply, and only then when it meets the criteria of the politically correct estabilishment.

>>If people have issue with Black or African American, or Native American, or Latino, or Jewish, or whatever Republicans, Libertarians, or whatever non-Left wing political group on a campus, they should be equally unhappy with every other ethnic organization.

It's a bit off-topic, but I see the DP is still staffed by morons who can't edit: love that "supercedes" in the middle. Some things never change.

Okay, I did, in fact, notice the content: I think if the club is set up to be exclusive to black students, that's not a good idea. I don't see why there shouldn't be a group devoted to advocating Republican positions in ways that particularly address social issues connected with Black-American populations, though. In practical terms, there's no getting around the fact that many black people feel that the Republican party doesn't want them or is working against their interests. If a handful of interested students want to see whether they can change that on their own campus, why not? It's been a long time in coming.

BTW, Erin may or may not remember this, since it happened right before she came to Penn, but there was a flap over some meeting of a student organization called White Women against Racism...or White Women Exchanging Liberal Guilt Stories...or something. Anyway, it had a meeting that an inquisitive black student went to, and the organizers asked her to leave so that the assembled White Women would be less inhibited. It didn't rise to Eden Jacobowitz levels of controversy, but it did throw into relief some of the problems involved in trying to address racial issues at a hoity-toity Eastern college: The black woman felt slighted, the white women felt misunderstood, and the people who run student life programs felt terrified at the prospect of real, live conflict.

Tess:

Well as I indicated, diversity issue, given the politically correct campus zeitgeist when it comes to minority clubs, are skewed towards favoring

1) minority-supported professional development clubs (which I support since they can join SWE *and* ASCE, for example)

2) minority clubs that would be "expected" to lean to the left (which I also support just as I'd support right-leaning minority clubs). Black Conservatives and other contrarians become an embarrassment to those who hold that there is "one authentic" viewpoint for a given ethnic group - which has been the fashion years. Such a contrarian group could be voted down legally due to "redundancy" against the existing mainstream groups or due to anticipated "small membership." (These games are played on campuses all the time to keep the pots of campus fees in the hands of existing clubs as well as to just marginalize contrarians.)

I imagine that the meeting that had the ratification of the Black Republicans as part of the agenda would best not have been held in a room with leather chairs lest there be plethora of "phtz"s from all the scrunching. By ratifying the club, they would be affirming that there are views of "ersatz" blacks that actually deserve unique representation and may not have been fully represented by either the CR or generic African American groups already in existence. By voting it down they would be setting themselves up for humiliation in the media.

As to the White Republicans. Your first comment actually holds that the CR is the WR since they apparently need "diversifying" (and assumes that members of the Black Republicans were excluded - something I find to be pretty closet to bull hockey). Indeed, if BR were to be denied on a campus (so as to better diversify the College [White] Republicans, or since their true or .. "True" Ö interests are served elsewhere in existing groups), the CR's could easily opt to "try" to change their names to the White Republicans as leverage to embarrass the school. It would be a genuine media coup.

It's great that we live in a country where such groups are allowed to exist. Of course that doesn't mean the concept of a Black Republican group is only slightly less laughable than the concept of Log Cabin Republicans.

Andrew I don't understand your post. What groups are you referring to, Black groups, Republicans, or groups that promote family values.? And what do you mean by "allowed to exist?" What does the country have to do with whether they're allowed to exist? Penn is a private institution. They very well might try to crush them underfoot. Then what kind of country would this be?

As for the comment about the Black Republicans andr the Log Cabin Republicans, well they don't think the concepts are laughable. Maybe they are onto something.

It is amusing to read the racist views of people like Andrew Cholokian above. He feels that he should be empowered to say whether blacks can have their own "republican club" or "gay club" or whatever kind of club they want. He considers himself magnanimous to allow blacks (or gays) to have such clubs.

There are many such bigoted and pompous fools among the ranks of the pseudo intellectual professariat. Erin, I admire you for allowing your disgust at such individuals to spur you into taking an alternative path.

Egh. They should just call themselves Republicans. No need for conservatives to start the liberal BS of differentiating themselves by skin color. The idea is abhorrent and in no way contributes to "diversity". Diversity shouldn't be about skin color. It should be about diversity of thought. Unless one thinks that true diversity comes from having a campus with many different colors of skin and skin color centric groups.

I understand Matthew's intent and applaud it, I just think he's going about it in the wrong way.

Oh...and he's not a "minority". He's simply an American college student. Both he and the author need to recognize that. (then again...he's a conservative at an American college, he is a minority!)