University of Texas at El Paso

From the SelectedWorks of José D. Villalobos

December, 2011

Staff of the People? Assessing Progress inDescriptive Representation under the ObamaAdministrationJosé D. Villalobos, University of Texas at El Paso

Available at: https://works.bepress.com/jdvillalobos/28/

Race, Gender & Class: Volume 18, Number 3-4, 2011 (28-53)

Race, Gender & Class Website: www.rgc.uno.edu

STAFF OF THE PEOPLE? ASSESSING

PROGRESS IN DESCRIPTIVE

REPRESENTATION UNDER

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

José D. Villalobos

Political Science Department

University of Texas at El Paso

Abstract: Over the past few decades, presidents have made some increasingly

noticeable efforts to fill their administrations with a higher number of minorities.

Though not yet fully representative of the general public, such advances in

descriptive representation are a sign of progressive change occurring within the

executive branch, with positive potential implications for the state of

representative democracy and public policy. In this article, I survey the current

state of descriptive representation under the Obama presidency and the extent to

which the president‘s policy agenda has substantively addressed the needs of

historically underrepresented groups. Descriptively, I find that President Barack

Obama has been symbolically progressive in adopting an inclusive approach for

staffing the upper echelons of his administration. However, concerning

substantive policy outcomes, I find that although the Obama administration has

made some major strides concerning women‘s issues, its record concerning the

needs and expectations of the African American and Latino communities has

been more mixed.

Keywords: president; Obama administration; descriptive representation;

staffing

José D. Villalobos is an Assistant Professor of political science at the University

of Texas, El Paso. His areas of interest are presidential management,

presidential policy making, the public presidency, and studies on immigration

and Latino/a politics. He has recently published his work in Presidential Studies

Quarterly, Political Research Quarterly, Administration & Society, Race,

Gender & Class, the International Journal of Public Administration, the

International Journal of Conflict Management, and Review of Policy Research.

Address: University of Texas at El Paso, Political Science Department,

Staff of the People

29

Benedict Hall 111, 500 W. University Avenue, El Paso, TX 79968. Ph.: (915)

747-7978, Email: jdvillalobos2@utep.edu

tudies on descriptive representation have looked at numerous

underrepresented groups, including women, African Americans,

and the Latino community, largely within the context of the

legislative branch (Bratton, 2002; Bratton & Haynie, 1999; Burrell, 1994;

Carroll, 2002; Dodson et al., 1995; Dovi, 2002; Gay, 2001, 2002; Grose, 2005;

Haynie, 2001; Pachon & DeSipio, 1992; Preuhs, 2006, 2007; Reingold, 2000;

Swain, 1995; Swers, 2002; Tate, 2001; Thomas, 1994; Whitby & Krause, 2001).

Elsewhere, scholars have also paid much attention to the subject as it relates to

the outer federal bureaucracy (Keiser et al., 2002; Kellough et al., 1992; Kingley,

1944; Krislov & Rosenbloom, 1981; Meier, 1975; Meier et al., 1999; Mosher,

1968; Naff, 1998; Naff & Crum, 2000; Riccucci, 2002; Selden, 1997; van Riper,

1958). By comparison, far fewer studies have investigated the merits of

descriptive representation as it relates directly to presidents and their

administrations (but see Borrelli, 2002; King & Riddlesperger, 1996: 503-504;

see also Naff & Crum, 2000). In addition, most works tend to focus on a single

group rather than a broader array of historically underrepresented groups. In

this article, I help to fill these gaps by exploring the current state of descriptive

representation under the Obama administration and the extent to which the

president‘s policy agenda has addressed key issues concerning women, African

Americans, and Latinos. Focusing on the president‘s first two years in office, I

find that although Barack Obama has been descriptively progressive in staffing

his administration, his record concerning substantive policy outcomes has been

more mixed.

I begin by reviewing the literature on descriptive representation.

Therein, I outline scholarly knowledge concerning recent trends in descriptive

representation, the impact these trends have had on public policy as well as

public perceptions of the government, and the extent to which such symbolic

changes may substantively influence the public policy agenda. I next turn my

attention to exploring the state of descriptive representation as it relates

specifically to the Obama administration. In doing so, I attend to the

significance of having Barack Obama as the first African American president

and then explore the extent to which the president has applied an inclusive

approach for staffing the upper echelons of his administration. I conclude with a

general assessment of whether and to what extent the Obama administration has

been progressive in attending to the needs of historically underrepresented

groups.

S

José D. Villalobos

30

DESCRIPTIVE REPRESENTATION: DEFINITION, TRENDS & RESEARCH

In her seminal work, Pitkin (1967) offers a comprehensive discussion of

the various conceptualizations of representation, each with its own set of

standards for assessing the state of representative democracy. One of the main

concepts she identifies is that of descriptive representation (adopted from

Griffiths & Wollheim, 1960:188), which centers on the idea that representatives

should resemble the people they represent (i.e., have similar physical

characteristics and/or previous experiences and backgrounds). The idea dates as

far back as the American Revolution, when John Adams and others

argued—mainly with respect to occupation and geographic origin—for the

inclusion of a broad range of citizens in governmental institutions as a means to

help engender healthy doses of government responsiveness and guard against the

rule by a privileged few (Dovi, 2007:29; see also Manin, 1997:109-14; Pitkin,

1967).

The concept of descriptive representation has since grown widely in its

application to include gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as other cultural and

economic factors. Over time, for many underrepresented groups, the U.S. has

gradually, if not persistently, become a more inclusive community. In grasping

more of an equal stake in society, a greater number of historically

underrepresented groups have also begun to gain greater access to government

positions, making their way into Congress, the federal bureaucracy, the Supreme

Court, and many other areas of public service, nationally as well as at the state

and local level.

In terms of raw numbers, the presence of women, African Americans,

and Latinos serving in Congress has unquestionably increased over time (e.g.,

Manning et al., 2011:2; O‘Connor et al., 2011:171-2). Particularly with respect

to women, the increase has been incremental from the time that Jeannette Rankin

was first elected as the sole female member of the House of Representatives in

1916 to today where there are currently ninety-one women serving in the 112th

Congress (Manning et al., 2011:1-2). In addition, the 112th Congress has a

record of four openly homosexual members serving in the House of

Representatives. For many political observers, such raw number increases in

representation serve as an important barometer of the country‘s progress towards

greater equality in representation. As Browning et al. (1984) note, ―the most

widely used indicator of a group‘s position in a political system is the presence

of members of that group in elective offices‖ (p. 19). However, are such

increases in the level of descriptive representation proportionate to the size and

population growth of these key underrepresented groups?

While the growing presence of underrepresented groups is promising,

one can better ascertain the scope of progressive change by measuring the extent

to which such increases among representatives may or may not parallel the

electorate. Indeed, what if the population size of a minority group is growing

Staff of the People

31

disproportionally compared to the growth in the number of elected officials?

Could growth in representation nevertheless demonstrate a net loss? Generally

speaking, if a particular group in American society constitutes ―x‖ percentage of

a particular constituency, but there is less than ―x‖ percentage of that group

represented in a corresponding government body, then such group may be

considered underrepresented. On the other hand, when the percentage is

approximately equivalent between a constituency and a corresponding

government body, then the group may be considered to have reached parity (e.g.,

see Hero, 1998; King-Meadows & Schaller, 2006).1 With that in mind, how far

has the United States come in reaching parity across groups?

Despite signs of progress, when one compares the demographics of

today‘s American society with that of its governmental institutions, there remain

large gaps in descriptive representation. For instance, the National Association

of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO) has long kept track of changes in

descriptive representation for Latinos, providing annual reports on Latinos

elected and appointed to public office. Over the years, NALEO has consistently

reported that, despite an overall growth in numbers, Latinos continue to be

severely underrepresented ―in virtually every representative body in the United

States‖ and particularly at the national level (Garcia and Sanchez, 2008: 202).

With respect to the U.S. Congress, for instance, although Latinos make up about

16 percent of the U.S. population, they constitute less than six percent of the

legislative body (see Manning et al., 2010; Manning, 2011). Meanwhile,

African Americans make up about 13 percent of the population but constitute

only about eight percent of the U.S. Congress. For women, although they make

up slightly more than half the populace (nearly 51 percent according to the U.S.

Census Bureau, 2011), they currently represent only 17 percent of the national

Congress and constitute less than a fourth of the membership in state legislatures

on average (see Manning et al., 2011:4). Clearly, increases in the number of

minority and female legislators over the past few decades, though promising,

have yet to demonstrate a measure of parity in descriptive representation.

When it comes to the executive branch, presidents have felt a growing

amount of pressure (particularly in the last two decades) to take heed of the

dearth of minorities in the federal workforce (see Table 1). In 1990, President

George H.W. Bush was heavily criticized by NALEO for having appointed only

fifteen Latinos out of the 1,312 positions filled for the Executive Office of the

President, a dismal 1.1 percent (Garcia & Sanchez, 2008:225). When Bill

Clinton stepped into the oval office, he promised a presidential cabinet that

―looked like America‖ and set forth to assign numerous Latinos to top posts,

including Federico Peňa as Secretary of Transportation and Henry Cisneros as

Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Garcia &

Sanchez, 2008:225). Like George H.W. Bush, however, Clinton also lagged

with respect to noncareer SES appointees (see Naff & Crum, 2000:102) while

the numbers concerning career SES civil servants were even more bleak (see

Naff & Crum, 2000:103). Just before leaving office, Clinton issued Executive

José D. Villalobos

32

Order 13171 in October 2000, which provided recommendations for increasing

the number of Latino federal employees within merit system principles (Garcia

& Sanchez, 2008:225-228). Since then, further increases have occurred in terms

of Latino federal employment, though at a notably marginal pace, from 5.7

percent in 1994 to 6.6 percent by 2006.

Table 1: Executive Branch (Non-Postal) Employment Trends by Gender and

Race/National Origin (1994-2006)

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Total 2,043,449 1,890,406 1,804,591 1,755,689 1,813,047 1,851,349 1,848,339

Female (%) 43.9 44.0 44.4 45.0 44.6 44.4 44.2

Male (%) 56.1 56.0 55.6 55.0 55.4 55.6 55.8

Minority (%) 28.4 29.1 29.6 30.2 30.7 31.4 28.3

African

American (%)

16.7 16.6 16.7 17.0 16.9 16.9 15.2

Latino (%) 5.7 6.1 6.4 6.6 6.9 7.3 6.6

Asian/Pacific

Islanders (%)

4.1 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.8 5.0 4.7

American

Indian/Alaska

Natives (%)

2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.8

Source: The Demographic File of Federal Employees, U.S. Office of Personnel

Management (2011).

More recent figures for 2009 and 2010 under the Obama administration

demonstrate further marginal growth with about 7.9 percent Latinos attaining

federal employment positions compared to 10.7 percent Latinos in the civilian

workforce (EEOC, 2009; Newell, 2010; Wallechinsky & Brinkerhoff, 2010).

Meanwhile, women constituted about 44.1 percent of federal employees—much

better than the percentage of women represented in the legislative branch but

still falling short of mirroring the nearly 51 percent female populace. More

notably, African Americans made up about 18 percent of federal employees in

2009-2010, surpassing not only the 10.7 percent of African Americans in the

civilian workforce, but also the general population tally of 13 percent.

Previously, African American federal employment hovered at around 16 percent

of the federal workforce dating back to 1994 (refer to Table 1).

Aside from the gradually increasing presence of underrepresented

individuals in the executive branch, federal civilian workforce employment data

from 2007 shows a major discrepancy in representation between low-level entry

and high-level senior positions (see Table 2). In that year, women constituted

about two-thirds of the low-level entry positions but only about a fourth of the

senior positions. For minorities in general, they constituted about 40 percent of

the entry positions compared to only about 14 percent of senior positions. Thus,

although some historically underrepresented groups, such as African Americans,

have made notable gains towards parity in terms of overall numbers,

representation across levels of government positions remains markedly unequal.

Staff of the People

33

Table 2: Percentage of Women and Minorities Working in the Federal

Bureaucracy by Job Category (2007)

Job Category

GS 1-4 GS 5-8 GS 9-11 GS 12-13 GS 14-15 Senior Pay

Levels

Women (%) 65 66 50 38 30 25

Minority* (%) 43 40 30 24 18 14

*Minority includes women and men with American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Pacific

Islander, African American, or Latino origin. Source: U.S. Office of Personnel

Management (2007).

Amid these recent increases in descriptive representation and in

assessing the gaps that remain to be filled in order to achieve full parity, scholars

have continued to explore the merits of seeking a more descriptively

representative government. So how much do scholars know about the

substantive impact that these gradual increases in descriptive representation have

on society, governmental institutions, and public policy?

The Merits of Descriptive Representation

Over the years, numerous scholars have found that increases in

descriptive representation, although helpful and symbolically important, are no

guarantee of a greater voice for underrepresented groups (see, for example,

Diamond, 1977; Dovi, 2007, 2002). Early on, Pitkin (1967) noted that despite

the symbolic significance of descriptive representation and its potential for

progress, the concept itself falls short because it provides ―no room for

representation as accountability‖ (p. 89; see also Young, 1997:354). More

recently, Swain (1995) found that a greater number of elected African

Americans may ―not necessarily lead to more representation of the tangible

interests of blacks‖ (p. 5). Furthermore, the presence of racism within large

legislative bodies can hinder the potential influence that increased numbers of

minority legislators would otherwise exert (Hawkesworth, 2003). Pitkin and

others have also warned that increases in descriptive representation may

inadvertently lead some to focus too much on the symbolic victory of elective

placement and forget to pay enough attention to the actions and substantive

accomplishments (or lack thereof) of a particular elected official.

Nevertheless, numerous works indicate that increases in descriptive

representation can play an important role in increasing female and minority

group influence over policy decisions across various types of institutions. For

instance, some scholars have found that descriptive representation has a

significantly positive impact on policy outcomes within small nonpartisan

organizational bodies, such as school boards (Meier & Stewart, 1991; Meier et

al., 1999; Stewart et al., 1989; see also Meier et al., 2001; Pitts, 2005). With

respect to Congress and state legislatures, the influence of female and minority

José D. Villalobos

34

representatives may be conditional on certain factors, such as membership in key

coalitions, partisanship, or widespread discrimination existing within the

political context (Browning et al., 1984; Preuhs, 2006). With regards to agenda

setting, the presence of female and minority legislators can increase the

likelihood that issues important to underrepresented groups will garner serious

legislative consideration (e.g. Bratton, 2002; Bratton & Haynie, 1999; Swers,

2002).

Scholars have also noted that when the level of descriptive

representation increases incrementally over time (as in the case for women in

Congress), the potential influence over substantive policy outcomes may also

increase significantly (Beckwith, 2007; see also Bratton, 2005). Moreover, as

societal values become more inclusive amid increases in gender and minority

representation across institutions over time, acts of substantive representation on

behalf of underrepresented groups may more likely follow (e.g., Borrelli, 2010;

see also Dovi, 2007). Even in the absence of legislation that exclusively deals

with issues facing certain underrepresented groups, increased collective and

partisan substantive representation may nevertheless lead to the enactment of

broad legislative acts that indirectly aid key underrepresented groups (e.g., Hero

& Tolbert, 1995).

Aside from the linkage between descriptive and substantive

representation, there are other positive effects related to the increased presence

of females and minorities across institutions. For instance, studies show that

having a person of the same gender, race, and/or ethnicity helps increase

perceptions of trust in government (e.g., Gay, 2002; Mansbridge, 1999, 2003;

Williams, 1998). At the individual and group level, it may also engender a

sense of empowerment and of having a greater stake in government, thereby

alleviating past sentiments of alienation and/or apathy towards the political

system (e.g., Pantoja & Segura, 2003; Banducci et al., 2004; Bobo & Gilliam,

1990; Gilliam, 1996; Gilliam & Kaufman, 1998; Jones, 1978; Overby et al.,

2005). Moreover, increases in descriptive representation may encourage

individuals to more actively participate in the political process (Michelson,

2000; see also Phillips, 1991), perhaps by feeling more comfortable about

reaching out to a representative to speak on minority-related issues. Therein, the

presumption is that these minority groups will react positively to increases in

descriptive representation with the expectation that improvements in substantive

policy representation will follow (Hamilton, 1986; See also Wolfinger &

Rosenstone, 1980).

Taken together, these previous scholarly works serve as a foundation of

knowledge concerning the important potential role and influence descriptive

representation can have on U.S. governmental institutions and American society.

The context of this rich literature provides the impetus for further exploring the

topic within an institution that has previously been largely overlooked—the

modern American presidency.

Staff of the People

35

DESCRIPTIVE REPRESENTATION AND THE MODERN AMERICAN PRESIDENCY

Over the past few decades, presidents have made some noticeable

efforts to fill their administrations with both high-profile female and minority

appointees and, more generally, a higher number of females and minorities

across the executive branch hierarchy (see King & Riddlesperger, 1996:503-4;

Borrelli, 2002, 2010; Naff & Crum, 2000). Though still far from being fully

representative of the general public, such advances in descriptive representation

are a sign of progressive change occurring within the institutional presidency

and broader executive branch, with positive potential implications for the state

of representative democracy and substantive public policy outcomes. So how

much do scholars know about descriptive representation as it pertains to the

institutional presidency?

In a recent study, Naff and Crum (2000) investigated the extent to

which the Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), and Clinton administrations were willing

and able to influence the state of descriptive representation within the executive

branch regarding the outer federal bureaucracy as well as higher-level political

appointees and career senior executive positions. On the one hand, Naff and

Crum find that recent presidents appear to have had little influence on female

and minority representation as it pertains to the outer federal workforce,

regardless of their personal views on the importance of having a representative

federal bureaucracy. Instead, other factors, such as equal opportunity and

affirmative action policies, key court decisions, and changes in the size of the

government workforce appear to explain more of the variation. On the other

hand, when looking specifically at higher-level politically appointed Senior

Executive Service (SES) positions, Naff and Crum find that presidents do, in all

practical terms, have a notable amount of influence for instituting a more diverse

staff environment. As such, it is at the upper echelons of the executive branch

that a president‘s willingness to seek diversity makes a key difference.

In addition to a president‘s personal inclination for diversity, there are

also outside pressures that influence staff diversity. According to King and

Riddlesperger (1996), unlike in earlier decades, ―the constituencies to which

modern presidents owe their allegiance are often outside of the traditional party

structure or coalitions. This is particularly true for Democratic presidents, who

today are more likely indebted to activist women‘s groups, and African

Americans and Hispanics‖ (p. 503; see also Polsby, 1978:22-3). Thus, the

movement towards diversity is both a product of a presidential predisposition as

well as constituency demands.

More recently, Borrelli (2010) found that cabinets of the modern

presidency (from FDR‘s administration to today) have seen shifts in gender

segregation, desegregation, and integration, each of which has had notable

consequences on the actions of women secretaries in their role as executive

decision makers. In earlier years, women secretaries were largely marginalized

José D. Villalobos

36

within the White House and their level of influence was quite disproportionate,

with most having limited influence and just a few standing out. With the advent

of further integration, Borelli (2010) finds that women secretaries now have a

more equal footing with their male counterparts in terms of their inter-cabinet

interactions and their access to executive branch resources. As it stands

currently, one can observe women secretaries within the Obama administration

holding top cabinet positions across key policy spheres, including diplomacy

(Hillary Clinton), homeland security (Janet Napolitano), health and human

services (Kathleen Sebelius), and labor (Hilda Solis).

Though few in number, such recent studies provide important insights

into why and how presidents can shape their administrations via descriptive

representation, with a particular emphasis on the president‘s capacity to

influence staff diversity at the highest levels of government. Building on these

works, I next examine the state of descriptive representation vis-à-vis the Obama

presidency. I begin by exploring the significance of Barack Obama‘s historic

election as the nation‘s first African American president. I then examine the

staff President Obama has surrounded himself with and embark on a midterm

assessment of the administration‘s current progress in responding to the needs of

key underrepresented groups.

BARACK OBAMA: SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FIRST AFRICAN AMERICAN PRESIDENT

In 2008, U.S. voters elected Barack Obama their forty-fourth president

in a whirlwind victory against John McCain. So how significant was the

election of the first African American president in the nation‘s history? On the

heels of Obama‘s triumph, many Americans embraced the new commander in

chief. The day after the election, over 200,000 supporters gathered in Chicago‘s

Grant Park to witness Obama‘s victory speech while millions more watched

proudly through their home television screens or at local grassroots gatherings

(CNN, 2008a). A few days later, a CNN (2008c) polling survey found that

about eighty percent of African Americans viewed Obama‘s victory as ―a dream

come true.‖ Around the country, reports of inspiration spread as students,

educators, and other community members made special efforts to demonstrate

their pride in having Obama elected the nation‘s new leader (e.g., CNN, 2008b).

Since then, while there has been much reflection on the remarkable turn of

events that led a Chicago-based community organizer to hold the highest office

of the land, relatively less attention has been paid to the attitudinal changes and

challenges that Obama has faced from the time he started his campaign until

today.

Just two years before the election, a 2006 national poll taken by the

Gallup organization determined that 58 percent of Americans were ―ready‖ to

accept an African American as president (Jones, 2006). Although clearly a

majority, that still left 42 percent who were otherwise ―not ready‖ for an African

Staff of the People

37

American leader—a startling figure, particularly when one considers the generic

nature of the question. People were not asked about a particular candidate—a

liberal, conservative, or otherwise; nor were they given information about

previous work experience, personality traits, etc. Instead, they were simply

asked on the basis of race and a very sizable percentage of the public expressed

reservations. Similar results arose when asked about the prospect of a female

president—although 61 percent said they were ready, a substantial 39 percent

pronounced otherwise. Last, far worse were the prospects for a Latino

candidate—―less than a majority (41 percent) believed that America was ready

for a Hispanic president‖ (Garcia & Sanchez, 2008:222).

Once Barack Obama set out to capture the White House, the

presidential hopeful faced an unprecedented amount of threats as a result of his

candidacy. In fact, according to a 2008 annual report released by the U.S. Secret

Service, Barack Obama received a protection detail ―more than a year before a

typical candidate would… All told, Obama had 517 days of protection

compared with his eventual challenger, Sen. John McCain, who received just

157 days‖ (U.S. Secret Service, 2008; see also Bedard, 2009). As the newly-

elected president, Obama was reported to be receiving as many as 30 potential

death threats a day (see Harden, 2009). Since then, there has been no shortage

of concern for keeping the nation‘s first African American president out of

harm‘s way.

As Obama took on the responsibilities of his new position, including

the burden of a heavily faltering economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,

the usual partisan debates over policy direction began to heat up while also

producing some atypical public polling questions and responses. For instance,

about a year after Obama was sworn into office, a Daily Kos national survey of

Republican views of the president revealed some particularly unsettling findings.

Among the various questions posed, the Daily Kos asked its respondents: ―Is

Obama a racist who hates whites?‖ The results indicated that 31 percent thought

so, 36 percent disagreed, and 33 percent were ―not sure‖ (Daily Kos, 2010). The

question originated in part from a comment made a few months earlier by

conservative radio talk show host Glenn Beck who had suggested that the

president was a person with ―a deep-seated hatred for white people‖ (CBS,

2009). Other questions concerning the possibility of impeachment, conspiracies

about the president‘s birth place, and whether the president wanted ―the

terrorists to win‖ yielded similar if not more notably negative results (see Table

3). In all, the results of this survey provide an interesting glimpse into the level

of ill will felt by some members of the public towards this particular president.

Over the airwaves, much speculation has been cast about such reported

sentiments against the president and how best to interpret them, with some

observers tying the discontent more to the economy and/or the president‘s

policies while others, including former President Jimmy Carter, have suggested

racism as a major driving factor (see MacAskill, 2009). Looking ahead, it

José D. Villalobos

38

appears that such views may persist and are likely to be compounded by a

growing conservative opposition to the president‘s policy agenda amid the

ongoing economic recession. As such, although Obama‘s election was

undoubtedly an extraordinary victory in progressive descriptive

representation—one that tore down walls that only a few years prior seemed

impenetrable—it would be naïve to assume that the country as a whole has

progressed into a post-racial period or that access to the White House is now

somehow free of racial prejudice. Nevertheless, Obama‘s presence in the White

House today remains a remarkable touchstone in American history. Going

forward, it will be interesting for scholars to continue observing how future

minority and female presidential candidates are able to cope with the gradually

changing political atmosphere.

Table 3: Republican Views of President Obama

Question

% Yes % No % Not Sure

Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not? 39 32 29

Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States,

or not?

42 36 22

Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win? 24 43 33

Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White

people?

31 36 33

Source: Research 2000 for Daily Kos (2010), survey conducted on January 20-31, 2010.

Descriptive Representation in the Obama Administration: Diversity in the

Cabinet

Aside from assessing the progress made in descriptive representation

concerning the election of Barack Obama, exploring the extent to which the

president has, in turn, surrounded himself with a diverse staff is equally

important. As previously noted, the federal workforce under Obama has seen

some notable, though not historically high, increases in descriptive

representation, both with respect to the outer bureaucracy, as well as for staff

located within the Executive Office of the President (EOP). Given Naff and

Crum‘s (2000) insights on how presidential influence centers largely on choices

about upper-level staff appointments, I take a closer look at President Obama‘s

inner cabinet-level staff and other top appointees.

When it comes to Barack Obama‘s cabinet advisors, the president has

shown a preference for surrounding himself with a diverse set of personnel (Ali,

2009; see also White House, 2011a), demonstrating some initial gains in

descriptive representation when compared to his predecessor (see Tables 4 and

5). While George W. Bush also had a highly diverse cabinet, Obama‘s cabinet

by comparison has had a notably higher percentage of women (+9%), African

Americans (+5%), and Asians (+5%). With respect to Latino appointments, on

Staff of the People

39

the other hand, Bush‘s cabinet had 9 percent compared to Obama‘s 8 percent (-

1%).

Table 4: Obama vs. Bush: Scorecard on Cabinet Diversity

White Men

Women

African American Latino Asian

George W. Bush 52% 21% 13% 9% 8%

Barack Obama 43% 30% 18% 8% 13%

Note: This scorecard compares George W. Bush‘s outgoing cabinet to Barack Obama‘s

initial cabinet appointees up to November 2009. Note also that the vice president,

though a cabinet-level officer, was not included in this scorecard. Source: DiversityInc

study report by Ali (2009).

Over time, as is usually the case with presidential administrations, some

cabinet secretaries and cabinet-level officers come and go. Now heading into

the third year of the administration, there have been changes for the Chairperson

of the Council of Economic Advisors, the Director of the Office of Management

and Budget, the National Security Advisor, the White House Chief of Staff, and

the White House Council (see White House, 2011a). With the exception of the

Chairperson of Economic Advisors, wherein Christina Romer was replaced by

Austan Goolsbee, the other four changes in personnel did not further alter the

balance in descriptive representation (refer to Table 5 below). As such, the

president‘s inner-circle of cabinet secretaries and cabinet-level officers remains

nearly as diverse now as it was at the start of Obama‘s term in office.

Just outside of the president‘s inner-circle of top cabinet officials, one

can find numerous women and minorities serving in other prestigious and

influential posts, such as Melody Barnes (Director, Domestic Policy Council),

Carol M. Browner (Director, Office of Energy and Climate Changes Policy,

a.k.a. the ―Climate Czar‖), Joshua DuBois (Director, Office of Faith-Based and

Neighborhood Partnerships), Chris Lu (Cabinet Secretary, Office of Cabinet

Affairs), Rob Nabors (Director, Office of Legislative Affairs), Sonal Shah

(Director, Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation), and Nancy

Sutley (Chairperson, Council on Environmental Quality) (Washington Post,

2011; see also Villalobos & Vaughn, 2010 regarding ―czar‖ appointments).

Last, one should also note the increase in diversity brought about by

Obama‘s recent Supreme Court appointments. Specifically, Obama replaced

David H. Souter (retired) with Sonia M. Sotomayor, the first Latina (and third

female) Supreme Court justice in U.S. history and soon after replaced John Paul

Stevens (retired) with Elena Kagan, the fourth female Supreme Court justice in

U.S. history (Supreme Court, 2011). With these two appointments, Obama

changed the ratio of female to male justices from 1:8 to 3:6.

José D. Villalobos

40

Table 5: Barack Obama’s Cabinet Secretaries and Cabinet-Level Officers

(2009-2011)

Cabinet-Level Position

Office Holder Gender Race/ Ethnicity Tenure Length

Administrator of the

Environmental Protection

Agency

Lisa P. Jackson Female African American 01/23/09-present

Attorney General Eric Holder Male African American 02/03/09-present

Chairperson of the Council

of Economic Advisors

Christina Romer

Austan Goolsbee

Female

Male

White

White

01/28/09-09/03/10

09/09/10-present

Director of the Office of

Management and Budget

Peter Orszag

Jacob Lew

Male

Male

White

White

01/20/09-06/30/10

11/18/10-present

National Security Advisor James L. Jones

Thomas E. Donilon

Male

Male

White

White

01/20/09-10/08/10

10/08/10-present

Secretary of Agriculture Thomas J. Vilsack Male White 01/21/09-present

Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke Male Asian 03/26/09-present

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates Male White 12/18/09-present

(holdover)

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan Male White 01/21/09-present

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu Male Asian 01/21/09-present

Secretary of Health and

Human Services

Kathleen Sebelius Female White 04/28/09-present

Secretary of Homeland

Security

Janet Napolitano Female White 01/21/09-present

Secretary of Housing and

Urban Development

Shaun Donovan Male White 01/26/09-present

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar Male Latino 01/20/09-present

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis Female Latina 02/24/09-present

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Female White 01/21/09-present

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood Male White 01/22/09-present

Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner Male White 01/26/09-present

Secretary of Veteran Affairs Eric Shinseki Male Asian 01/21/09-present

U.S. Ambassador to the

United Nations

Susan Rice Female African American 01/22/09-present

U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk Male African American 03/18/09-present

Vice President Joe Biden Male White 01/20/09-present

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel

William M. Daley

Male

Male

White

White

01/20/09-10/02/10

01/13/11-present

White House Council Greg Craig

Robert Bauer

Male

Male

White

White

01/20/09-01/03/10

01/03/10-present

Source: Website of the White House (2011a).

In all, the president has made a commendable effort to promote

diversity at the highest levels of government, sending a strong signal of

inclusiveness and empowerment. With that in mind, to what extent can

observers say that the Obama administration has, aside from instituting

descriptive diversity, also promoted substantive policy measures for aiding

underrepresented groups?

Staff of the People

41

Obama’s Policy Record Thus Far: From Descriptive Hope to Substantive

Change?

For those that extol the virtues of descriptive representation, one key

belief they hold is that as the make-up of the government begins to more closely

mirror the demographics of the country, government responsiveness to societal

needs will also progress in a more representative manner. When it comes to

presidential administrations, top officials in the president‘s cabinet and others

serving near and within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) have much

influence over the policy agenda. As such, one may expect that greater diversity

amid the president‘s staff may provide an additional impetus for officials to

address the needs of underrepresented groups in society.

To be fair, not all government officials have an equal level of influence

over key issues that affect underrepresented groups. For instance, the Secretary

of Transportation does not have as broad a capacity to address minority

workforce issues in the way that the Secretary of Labor does. Nevertheless, one

can presume, in the same vein as John Adams did so long ago, that the inclusion

of a broad range of citizens within governmental institutions—in this case the

presidency—may help breed a more representative and responsive

administration (see Hamilton, 1986). So how have the men and women of the

Obama administration performed so far in this respect?

Progress on Women’s Issues

Of the various underrepresented groups, women have received a

particularly notable amount of attention and responsiveness from the Obama

administration. In fact, one of Barack Obama‘s first major acts after being

sworn into office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 into law, a

piece of legislation aimed at ―restoring basic protections against pay

discrimination for women and other workers‖ (White House, 2011e; see also

Lee, 2010b). The president has since formed the National Equal Pay

Enforcement Task Force to help ―bolster enforcement of pay discrimination

laws‖ (White House, 2011e). Meanwhile, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis has

also been recognized for her efforts to further promote and educate the public

about the law. In addition, it is worth noting that equal pay has long been a

priority issue for President Obama. In fact, prior to his election as president,

Obama had previously co-sponsored and voted for a similar Equal Pay Act to

add protections for approximately 330,000 women workers when he was an

Illinois senator in May 2003 (see Illinois Department of Labor, 2011).

Improving the treatment of women in the workplace has also been a

prominent focus of the administration‘s Council on Women and Girls, which

was newly established by Barack Obama by executive order to ―provide a

coordinated Federal response to challenges confronted by women and girls and

to ensure that all cabinet and cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies

José D. Villalobos

42

and programs impact women and families‖ (White House, 2011e). The council

is led by Valerie Jarrett who also serves as Obama‘s Senior Advisor and

Assistant for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement (Council on

Women and Girls, 2011).

In addition to these direct substantive actions taken by the president and

his staff, it is also worth noting that the American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act of 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, the Wall

Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, and the Small Business

Jobs Act of 2010 all contain key provisions geared towards aiding women (see

White House, 2011c, 2011d, 2011e). Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary

Clinton has recently launched a ―100 Women Initiative‖ to attend to ―policy

issues that directly impact women and girls worldwide‖ (U.S. Department of

State, 2011). In all, it is apparent that, given the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter

Fair Pay Act, the establishment of the Council on Women and Girls, and the

president‘s inclusion of numerous top-ranking female cabinet members (as well

as two major Supreme Court female appointments), the current administration

has demonstrated some substantive progress in addressing women‘s issues,

particularly as it pertains to the equal treatment of women in the workplace (see

Broendel, 2011; Knox, 2011).

Progress on African American Issues

When it comes to the needs of the African American community, the

Obama administration has also made some notable progress, though its efforts to

address issues affecting African Americans have been less visible and less direct

as compared to issues affecting women. That said, some of the most prominent

policies that have been implemented thus far under the president‘s leadership

include the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, the

Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, and,

as mentioned previously, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, each of

which include provisions intended in one form or another to combat racism and

discrimination against African Americans and other underrepresented groups

(see White House, 2011b). Of these, the most significant change pushed by the

Obama administration for positively and directly affecting the African American

community has been passage of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which is aimed

at significantly reducing the highly disproportionate number of African

Americans imprisoned due to racially biased drug enforcement policies (see

Sirin, 2011 for an extensive review of the literature on this topic).

With regards to the Claims Resolution Act, it provides, in part,

―funding and statutory authorities for the settlement agreements reached in

the…Pigford II lawsuit, brought by African American farmers‖ (Lee, 2010a).

Aside from that, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, though helpful against

discriminatory hate crimes in general, is primarily focused on combating hate

crimes against individuals based on their sexual orientation and thus may be

Staff of the People

43

considered helpful for further protecting members of the African American

community who are also members of the LGBT community. Similarly, the Fair

Pay Act helps reduce pay discrimination against underrepresented groups, with

its primary focus on protections addressing gender issues, thus providing a

particularly major boost to African American women and other minority women

who face multiple layers of discrimination in the workplace. In addition, the

administration also notes that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of

2009 and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 both contain

key provisions designed to help African Americans and other underrepresented

groups overcome numerous economic and health inequities (White House,

2011c, 2011d).

Though each of these aforementioned legislative acts hold important

implications for substantively improving the state of African Americans, only

the Fair Sentencing Act focuses more directly on addressing the longstanding

injustices faced by the African American community. At the same time, there

has yet to be any presidential proposals put forth by the Obama administration

that focus exclusively on African American needs, a fact that numerous African

American political leaders, scholars, and pundits have used as a point of major

criticism for the administration (e.g., SCPAC, 2010, 2011). As a prime example,

members of the Shirley Chisholm Presidential Accountability Commission (see

SCPAC, 2011) recently addressed this issue in detail as follows:

“Consultations with elected officials, civil rights leaders and advocacy

groups in the Black community reveal an ongoing concern with

President Obama’s refusal to acknowledge the disproportionate impact

of the Great Recession on the Black community in terms of chronic

unemployment, poverty, health disparities and high levels of

incarceration. However, any objective assessment must cite the fact

that President Obama is following a trend characterized by the gradual

de-emphasis of civil rights and race based remedies resulting from a

“White backlash” to Black gains in the 60’s. Despite social and

economic indicators that suggest a need to target policies/programs to

address conditions in the Black community, recent presidential

administrations have been extremely reluctant to do so. Therefore, the

frustration with this administration is not new. As the first African

American President, Obama may feel that he is vulnerable to

accusations of a bias in favor of Blacks in formulating policy. That

notwithstanding, the Commission’s position is that it is a major

abdication of leadership and responsibility for any President not to

educate the public on the need to target policies to ameliorate the

conditions of particular constituencies that are disproportionately

affected by negative socio-economic conditions.”

Others have argued that Obama‘s broader focus on societal needs has

allowed him to lead effectively without being marginalized by conservative

José D. Villalobos

44

critics who would, as the SCPAC members surmise, otherwise accuse the

president of bias and attempt to drag him into a politically charged debate that

would expend much time and political capital. Clearly, these opposing pressures

facing Obama present a major conundrum for the administration.

Although President Obama has at times made efforts to more

specifically address the difficulties facing African Americans in his public

speeches (e.g., see Oakland Post, 2011), his reluctance to further and more

directly address the needs of the African American community within his policy

proposals has, in the eyes of ardent social activists, undermined key

opportunities to significantly alleviate the longstanding social inequities and

high levels of poverty still suffered by African Americans. In fact, Obama has at

times faced heightened criticism and opposition from some leaders of the

African American community who have otherwise been highly supportive of the

administration. In one occasion, Obama was challenged with a boycott in the

House of Representatives led by Rep. Maxine Waters on behalf of the

Congressional Black Caucus (Grim, 2010). The boycott nearly blocked the

passage of one of President Obama‘s key financial regulatory reform bills when

put to a final vote in the Financial Services Committee. Although generally

supportive of the bill, members of the Congressional Black Caucus were gravely

disappointed that the president had not more adequately addressed the extreme

unemployment problems suffered by the African American community, which

has been hardest hit by the recent economic recession (see Grim, 2010).

In responding to the boycott by the Congressional Black Caucus,

Committee Chairman Barney Frank lamented as follows: ―They face the

prospect, and I‘m very sympathetic, that the damage that‘s being done to much

of the country will be cyclical and people will recover, but permanent damage

could be done to some of the important institutions in their community and I

think that‘s a very legitimate issue‖ (Grim, 2010). Soon afterwards, the White

House provided its own response: ―We share the concerns raised by CBC

Members about struggling minority communities and that‘s why we‘ve engaged

in a positive way to make progress on these issues. We have not been informed

of the reasoning behind their decision not to vote on the bill, but we continue to

think it is important to move financial reform forward to prevent future crises

from damaging our economy and disrupting the lives of millions of Americans,

including African Americans‖ (Grim, 2010).

Progress on Latino Issues

Last, the administration‘s record in addressing Latino issues has been

mixed. Concerning major policy initiatives, one can refer back to the comments

in the previous section pertaining to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, the Claims

Resolution Act of 2010, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes

Prevention Act of 2009, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and the Patient Protection and

Staff of the People

45

Affordable Care Act of 2010, and draw similar conclusions about their

substantive, positive impact on Latino and Latina Americans. As with African

American issues, however, there is much room for improvement when it comes

to directly addressing the needs of the Latino community, which represents a

highly diverse set of subgroups with a variety of ethnic ties, ideologies, and

cultural as well as socio-economic components.

One major issue that the administration has raised as it affects large

segments of the Latino community is that of immigration. Despite his notable

and oft-repeated pledges during the 2008 campaign, President Obama was

unable to keep his promise to institute major immigration reforms by the end of

his first year in office. Instead, the president found himself embroiled in the

health care reform debate that lasted until March 2010—much longer than he

had anticipated. For a short time thereafter, there were a few signs that the

administration would try to address the immigration issue before the 2010

midterm elections. However, some Democrats from conservative quarters of the

country quickly urged him to hold off from taking on another major legislative

reform proposal that could be as controversial as the health care reform bill had

been. In the midst of these inner-party discussions, the BP oil spill suddenly hit

in late April and immigration reform once again fell from the president‘s policy

agenda.

Right around the time of the BP oil spill, Arizona passed into law its

controversial S.B. 1070 immigration bill (see Archibold, 2010), which soon set

the Obama administration into a defensive mode. President Obama reacted by

taking a firm position against the bill, citing both the federal government‘s

jurisdiction over immigration policy as well as expressing his concerns about

racial profiling that would adversely affect members of the Latino community

(see White House, 2010). Leading into the summer, the administration filed a

lawsuit to stop the bill in its tracks with Attorney General Eric Holder citing the

supremacy of federal jurisdiction over immigration policy. Not long after,

District Court Judge Susan Bolton ―struck down key portions of the law in late

July 2010—a clear ruling against Arizona‘s bid for expanded state level control

over immigration policy, thereby reinforcing the interpretation of the

Constitution‘s Supremacy Clause that confers federal government dominance

over the states‖ (Villalobos, 2011:164; see also Archibold, 2010; Curtis, 2010).

Despite these efforts, activists, academicians, and other observers have

also noted that in lieu of directly addressing the needs of Latinos on

immigration, the administration has, ironically, in some ways become more

aggressive on the enforcement of existing policies that negatively affect the

Latino community. For instance, the Obama administration has continued

enforcing law 287(g), which was previously instituted by the Clinton

administration in 1996 as a means for having deputized police officers capture

and turn over suspects or criminals to ICE or other immigration authorities for

their possible deportation. Although the law has long been criticized for its

José D. Villalobos

46

tendency towards civil rights violations and racial profiling, both George W.

Bush and Barack Obama have expanded its use (see Gorman, 2009). In fact,

deportations during Obama‘s first two years in office have exceeded those

recorded during the last two years of George W. Bush‘s term (Allan, 2010;

James, 2010).

Elsewhere, with respect to Cuban Americans, the Obama

administration has taken some notable strides in lowering the travel restrictions

between Cuba and the U.S. and, more generally, has moved towards more

normalized relations with the Cuban government, now headed by Fidel Castro‘s

brother, Raul Castro. While this has been seen as a positive step by some left-

leaning Cuban Americans (and liberals in general), most Cuban Americans tend

to be more conservative in their views towards the Castro regime and thus, to a

certain extent, lie in disagreement with some of the administration‘s new

policies, preferring instead the more traditional, hard-line approach taken by

previous administrations.

More recently, the administration attempted to pass the Dream Act

through Congress, showing its support for allowing young, undocumented

immigrants (many of Latino descent) attend college as they seek a passage way

for amending their legal status. Perhaps coming too late in the aftermath of the

2010 midterm losses, this latest effort to move legislation failed in the Senate in

December 2010. These efforts aside, it seems that the administration is currently

more preoccupied in attending to the economic recession and numerous foreign

affairs issues than on more aggressively tackling Latino issues, particularly

beyond the issue of immigration.

CONCLUSION

In this study, I surveyed the current state of descriptive representation

under the Obama presidency and the extent to which the president‘s policy

agenda has substantively addressed the needs of historically underrepresented

groups. Whereas most previous studies on descriptive representation have

focused on other institutions while looking at a single underrepresented group,

this study provides new insights and points of comparison concerning the

presidency across several underrepresented groups. Descriptively, there is little

doubt that President Barack Obama has been symbolically progressive in

adopting an inclusive approach for staffing the upper echelons of his

administration. However, concerning substantive policy outcomes, the current

administration has been more willing to take direct, substantive action on gender

issues than it has in attending to the numerous societal challenges facing

minorities. Going forward, it will be interesting to see to what extent the Obama

administration may or may not move to further and more directly attend to key

issues affecting underrepresented groups through the remainder of the president‘s

term in office.

Staff of the People

47

While this study focused on issues pertaining to women, African

Americans, and the Latino community, further research should explore the topic

as it relates to other groups, such as the LGBT community, Asian Americans,

Native Americans, and those that fall into the low-income stratum. In the

coming years, scholars should also be mindful of whether and to what extent

access to the White House may become more attainable for female and minority

presidential candidates and administrative personnel, and the implications such

changes may have on an administration‘s ability and willingness to be

responsive to the needs of underrepresented groups in the United States.

NOTES

1 Scholars also make comparisons at the individual level between citizens and their

representatives, as well as with respect to more collective acts of representation.

For instance, some scholars have considered the effects of ―caucus‖ descriptive

representation wherein state and national-level lawmakers form groups such as the

Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) to

address minority group needs more broadly (see Menifield & Shaffer, 2005).

REFERENCES

Ali, S. (2009). Obama vs. Bush: Scorecard on cabinet diversity. DiversityInc.

Retrieved from http://www.diversityinc.com/content/ 1757/article/6319/

Allan, N. (2010). Obama has deported more immigrants than Bush. The Atlantic.

Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/ 2010/07/obam

a-has-deported-more-immigrants-than-bush/60433/#

Archibold, R.C. (2010). Judge blocks Arizona‘s immigration law. New York

Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us/29 arizona.

html

Banducci, S.A., Donovan, T., & Karp, J.A. (2004). Minority representation,

empowerment, and participation. Journal of Politics, 66(2):534-556.

Bedard, P. (2009). Secret service opens up on protecting Obama, McCain.

Washington Whispers. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/blogs/

washington-whispers/2009/08/17/secret-service-opens-up-on-protecting-oba

ma-mccain.html

Bobo, L. & Gilliam, F.D. (1990). Race, sociopolitical participation, and black

empowerment. American Political Science Review, 84(2):3777-3393.

Borrelli, M. (2002). The President’s cabinet: Gender, power, and representation.

Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.

_______. (2010). Gender desegregation and gender integration in the president‘s

cabinet, 1933-2010. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 40(4):734-49.

Bratton, K.A. (2002). The effect of legislative diversity on agenda-setting: Evidence

José D. Villalobos

48

from six state legislatures. American Politics Research, 30(2):115-142.

_______. (2005). Critical mass theory revisited: The behavior and success of token

women in state legislatures. Politics & Gender, 1(1):97-125.

Bratton, K.A. & Haynie, K.L. (1999). Agenda setting and legislative success in state

legislatures: The effects of gender and race. Journal of Politics,

61(3):658-679.

Broendel, K. (2011). AAUW Report assesses President Obama‘s second year,

AAUW action fund measures 111th Congress‘ support for pay equity. AAUW.

Retrieved from http://www.aauw.org/media/pressreleases/

publicPolicyReports_012410.cfm

Browning, R., Marshall, D.R., & Tabb, D.H. (1984). Protest is not enough: The

struggle of blacks and Hispanics for equality in urban politics. Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press.

Burrell, B.C. (1994). A woman’s place is in the house: Campaigning for

Congress in the feminist era. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan

Press.

Carroll, S.J. (2002). Representing women: Congresswomen‘s perceptions of their

representational roles. In C.S. Rosenthal (Ed.), Women transforming

Congress, pp. 50-68. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

CBS. (2009). Glenn Beck: Obama is a racist. CBS News. Retrieved from

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/29/politics/main5195604.shtml

CNN. (2008a). Obama win sparks celebrations outside White House. CNN.

Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-05/politics/us. reaction

_1_celebrations-barack-obama-election-returns?_s=PM:POLITICS

_______. (2008b). Obama victory inspires Harlem students, principal. CNN.

Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com/2008-110-6/politics/harlem.

_1_mock-election-barack-obama-first-african-american-president?_s=PM:PO

LITICS

_______. (2008c). In poll, African-Americans say election a ‗dream come true.‘

CNN. Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-11/politics/

obama.poll_1_african-american-whites-black-respondents?_s=PM:POLITIC

S

Council on Women and Girls. (2011). Council on women and girls. The White House.

Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ cwg

Curtis, J.M. (2010). Arizona‘s immigration law slapped by feds. LA City Buzz

Examiner. Retrieved from http://www.examiner.com/x-45268-

LA-City-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m7d31-Arizonas-Immigration-Bill-Slapped-

by-Feds

Daily Kos. (2010, January 20-31). Republican views of President Obama.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos.

Dodson, D.L., Carroll, S.J., Mandel, R.B., Kleeman, K.E., Schreiber, R., & Liebowitz,

D. (1995). Voices, views, votes: The impact of women in the 103rd

Congress. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for the American Woman and

Politics (CAWP), Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers, The State University

of New Jersey.

Dovi, S. (2002). Preferable descriptive representatives: Or will just any woman,

black, or Latino do? American Political Science Review, 96(4):745-754.

Staff of the People

49

_______. (2007). The good representative. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Gay, C. (2001). The effect of black congressional representation of political

participation. American Political Science Review, 95(3):589-602.

_______. (2002). Spirals of trust? The effect of descriptive representation on the

relationship between citizens and their government. American Journal of

Political Science, 46(4):717-732.

Gilliam, F. (1996). Exploring minority empowerment: Symbolic politics,

governing coalitions and traces of political style in Los Angeles. American

Journal of Political Science, 40(1):56-81.

Gilliam, F. & Kaufman, K. (1998). Is there an empowerment life cycle? Urban

Affairs Review, 33(6):741-766.

Griffiths, A.P. & Wollheim, R. (1960). How can one person represent another?

Proceedings of the Aristotelian and Society, Supplementary Volumes,

34:182-208.

Grim, R. (2010). African-American protest against Obama jobs policy heats up in

House. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.

com/2009/12/02/african-american-protest_n_376982.html

Grose, C.R. (2005). Disentangling constituency and legislator effects in legislative

representation: Black legislators or black districts? Social Science

Quarterly, 86(2):427-443.

Hamilton, C.V. (1986). Social policy and the welfare of black Americans: From

rights to resources. Political Science Quarterly, 101(2):239-255.

Harnden, T. (2009). Barack Obama faces 30 death threats a day, stretching U.S.

Secret Service. The Telegraph. Retrieved from

http://www.telegraph.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/5967942/Barack-Ob

ama-faces-30-death-threats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html

Haynie, K.L. (2001). African American legislators in the American states. New

York: Columbia University Press.

Hawksworth, M. (2003). Congressional enactments of race-gender: Toward a

theory of raced-gendered institutions. American Political Science Review,

97(4):529-550.

Hero, R. (1998). Faces of inequality: Social diversity in American politics. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Hero, R. & Tolbert, C.J. (1995). Latinos and substantive representation in the U.S.

House of Representatives: Direct, indirect, or nonexistent? American

Journal of Political Science, 39(3):640-652.

Illinois Department of Labor. (2011). Equal pay act of 2003. IDOL. Retrieved

from http://www.state.il.us/agency/idol/news/epa.htm

James, F. (2010). Deportations higher under Obama than Bush. NPR. Retrieved

from http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/07/26/

128772646/deportations-higher-under-obama-than-bush

Jones, J.M. (2006). Six in 10 Americans think U.S. ready for a female president.

The Gallup Poll. Retrieved from http://www.galluppoll.

com/content/?ci=24832&pg=1

Jones, M. (1978). Black political empowerment in Atlanta: Myth and reality.

Annals Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 439(1):90-117.

José D. Villalobos

50

Keiser, L.R., Wilkins, V.M, Meier, K.J., & Holland, C. (2002). Lipstick and

logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy.

American Political Science Review, 96(3):553-564.

Kellough, J.E. & Rosenbloom, D.H. (1992). Representative bureaucracy and the

EEOC: Did civil service reform make a difference? In P.W. Ingraham &

D.H. Rosenbloom (Eds.), The promise and paradox of civil service reform,

pp. 245-66. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

King, J.D. & Riddlesperger, J.W. (1996). Presidential management and staffing:

An early assessment of the Clinton presidency. Presidential Studies

Quarterly, 26(2):496-510.

King-Meadows, T. & Schaller, T.F. (2006). Devolution and black state legislators:

Challenges and choices in the twenty-first century. Albany, NY: SUNY

Press.

Kingley, J.D. (1944). Representative bureaucracy. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch

Press.

Knox, S. (2011). An Obama report card: State of the union for women and

children. NAWBO. Retrieved from http://www.nawbo.org/content

_12984.cfm?print=1

Krislov, S. & Rosenbloom, D.H. (1981). Representative bureaucracy and the

American political system. New York: Praeger.

Lee, J. (2010a). President Obama signs the Claims Resolution Act of 2010. The

White House Blog. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/

blog/2010/12/08/president-obama-signs-claims-resolution-act-2010

_______. (2010b). President Obama speaks out for paycheck fairness. The White

House Blog. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/

2010/07/20/president-obama-speaks-out-paycheck-fairness

MacAskill, E. (2009). Jimmy Carter: Animosity towards Barak Obama is due to

racism. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.

co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/jimmy-carter-racism-barack-obama

Manin, B. (1997). The principles of representative government. Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press.

Manning, J.E. (2010). Membership of the 111th Congress: A profile.

Congressional Research Service (Report filed December 27, 2010).

Manning, J.E., Shogan, C.J., & Smelcer, S.N. (2011). Women in the United States

Congress: 1917-2011. Congressional Research Service (Report filed

February 24, 2011).

Mansbridge, J. (1999). Should blacks represent blacks and women represent

women? A contingent ‗yes.‘ Journal of Politics, 61(3):628-657.

Mansbridge, J. (2003). Rethinking representation. American Political Science

Review, 97(4):515-528.

Meier, K.J. (1975). Representative bureaucracy: An empirical analysis. American

Political Science Review, 69(2):526-542.

Meier, K.J., Eller, W.S., Wrinkle, R.D., & Polinard, J.L. (2001). Zen and the art of

policy analysis: A response to Nielsen and Wolf. Journal of Politics,

63(2):616-629.

Meier, K.J. & Stewart, J. (1991). The politics of Hispanic education. Albany, NY:

Staff of the People

51

SUNY Press.

Meier, K.J., Wrinkle, R.D., & Polinard, J.L. (1999). Representative bureaucracy and

distributional equity: Addressing the hard question. Journal of Politics,

62(4):1025-1039.

Menifield, C. & Shaffer, S.D. (2005). Politics of the new South: African Americans

in southern state legislatures. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Michelson, M. (2000). Political efficacy and electoral participation of Chicago Latinos.

Social Science Quarterly, 81(1): 136-150.

Mosher, F.C. (1968). Democracy and the public service. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Naff, K.C. (1998). Progress toward achieving a representative bureaucracy. Public

Personnel Management, 27(2): 135-150.

Naff, K.C. & Crum, J. (2000). The president and representative bureaucracy: Rhetoric

and reality. Public Administration Review, 60(2): 98-110.

Newell, E. (2010). Hispanics, white women remain underrepresented in federal offices.

governmentexecutive.com. Retrieved from http://www.govexec.

com/dailyfed/0710/072610e1.htm

Oakland Post. (2011). Obama speaks on African American unemployment, need for

jobs. Oakland Post Online. Retrieved from http://content.

postnewsgroup.com/?p=11993

O‘Connor, K., Sabato, L.J., Yanus, A.B., Gibson, L.T., Jr., & Robinson, C. (2011).

Essentials of American and Texas government: Roots and reform, 4th

ed.

New York: Longman.

Overby, M.L., Brown, R.D., Bruce, J.M., Smith, C.E., & Winkle, III, J.W. (2005).

Race, political empowerment, and minority perceptions of judicial fairness.

Social Science Quarterly, 86(2): 444-462.

Pachon, H. & DeSipio, L. (1992). Latino elected officials in the 1990s. PS: Political

Science and Politics, 25(2): 212-217.

Pantoja, A.D. & Segura, G.M. (2003). Does ethnicity matter? Descriptive

representation in legislatures and political alienation among Latinos. Social

Science Quarterly, 84(2): 441-460.

Pitkin, H.F. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.

Pitts, D.W. (2005). Diversity, representation, and performance: Evidence about race

and ethnicity in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory, 15(4): 615-631.

Polsby, N.W. (1978). Presidential cabinet making: Lessons for the political system.

Political Science Quarterly, 93(1): 15-25.

Preuhs, R.R. (2006). The conditional effects of minority descriptive representation:

Black legislators and policy influence in the American states. Journal of

Politics, 68(3): 585-599.

_____. (2007). Descriptive representation as a mechanism to mitigate policy backlash:

Latino incorporation and welfare policy in the American states. Political

Research Quarterly, 60(2): 277-292.

Reingold, B. (2000). Representing women: Sex, gender, and legislative behavior in

Arizona and California. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina

Press.

José D. Villalobos

52

Riccucci, N.M. (2002). Managing diversity in public sector workforces. Boulder,

CO: Westview Press.

Selden, S.C. (1997). The promise of representative bureaucracy. Armonk, NY:

M.E. Sharpe.

Shirley Chisholm Presidential Accountability Commission (SCPAC). (2010). Report

card on President Obama: Year two – policy and legislative impacts on the

black community. Institute of the Black World. Retrieved from

http://ibw21.org/initiatives_projects_programs/shirley-chisolm-

commision/report-card-on-obama-year-two

_____. (2011). SCPAC President Obama‘s 2011 State of the Union Address. Institute

of the Black World. Retrieved from

http://ibw21.org/initiatives_projects_programs/shirley-chisolm-commision/20

11-state-of-the-union

Sirin, C.V. (2011). From Nixon‘s war on drugs to Obama‘s drug policies today:

Presidential progress in addressing racial injustices and disparities. Race,

Gender & Class, 18(3-4): 82-99.

Stewart, K.W., England, R., & Meier, K.J. (1989). Black representation in urban

school districts: From school board to office to classroom. Western Political

Quarterly, 42(2): 287-305.

Supreme Court. (2011). Members of the Supreme Court of the United States. Supreme

Court of the United States. Retrieved from

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members.aspx

Swain, C.M. (1995). Black faces, black interests: The representation of African

Americans in Congress. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Swers, M.L. (2002). The difference women make: The policy impact of women in

Congress. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Tate, K. (2001). The political representation of Blacks in Congress: Does race matter?

Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26(4): 623-638.

Thomas, S. (1994). How women legislate. New York: Oxford University Press.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). USA quick facts. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

U.S. Department of State. (2011). Secretary Clinton launches ―100 women initiative:

Empowering women and girls through international exchanges.‖ U.S.

Department of State. Retrieved from

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/03/157730.htm

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (2009). Annual report on

the federal work force fiscal year 2009. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission. Retrieved from http://eeoc.gov/

federal/reports/fsp2009/index.cfm#exec

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2007). Federal civilian workforce statistics:

The fact book 2007 edition. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Retrieved

from http://www.opm.gov/feddata/factbook/ 2007/2007FACTBook.pdf

_____. (2011). 2006 demographic profile of the federal workforce. U.S. Office of

Personnel Management. Retrieved from http://www.opm.gov/

feddata/demograp/table1-1.pdf

U.S. Secret Service. (2008). Fiscal year 2008 annual report. U.S. Department of

Staff of the People

53

Homeland Security, United States Secret Service.

van Riper, P.P. (1958). History of the United States civil service. Evanston, IL: Row,

Peterson and Company.

Villalobos, J.D. (2011). Promises and human rights: The Obama Administration on

immigrant detention policy reform. Race, Gender & Class, 18(1-2): 151-170.

Villalobos, J.D. & Vaughn, J.S. (2010). Understanding and appraising the leadership

role of Barack Obama‘s science czars. Paper presented at the Dupont

Summit at the Carnegie Institution for Science, Washington, D.C., December

2010.

Wallechinsky, D. & Brinkerhoff, N. (2010). White women and Latinos

underrepresented in federal workforce. allgov.com. Retrieved from

http://www.allgov.com/Where_is_the_Money_Going/ViewNews/White_Wo

men_and_Latinos_Underrepresented_in_Federal_Workforce_100728

Washington Post. (2011). Executive office of the president. whorunsgov.com.

Retrieved from http://www.whorunsgov.com/Institutions/White_House/

OrgChart

Whitby, K.J. & Krause, G.A. (2001). Race, issue heterogeneity and public policy: The

Republican revolution in the 104th U.S. Congress and the representation of

African American policy interests. British Journal of Political Science,

31(3): 555-572.

White House. (2010). Remarks by President Obama and President Calderón of Mexico

at joint press conference. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/

the-press-office/2011/03/03/remarks-president-obama-and-president-calder-n

-mexico-joint-press-confer

White House. (2011a). The cabinet. The White House. Retrieved from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet

White House. (2011b). Civil rights. The White House. Retrieved from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil-rights

White House. (2011c). Health reform in action. The White House. Retrieved from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform

White House. (2011d). The recovery act. The White House. Retrieved from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/recovery/

White House. (2011e). Women. The White House. Retrieved from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/women

Williams, M.S. (1998). Voice, trust, and memory: Marginalized groups and the

failings of liberal representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wolfinger, R.E. & Rosenstone, S.J. (1980). Who votes? New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.

Young, I.M. (1994). Gender as seriality: Thinking about women as a social collective.

Signs, 19(3): 713-738.