Hutchens And The Gender Factor
Posted by: Jubal | 06/12/2008 9:23 AM
I read Christian Berthelsen's article in this morning's LA Times: "Critics See Bias In OC Sheriff Pick."
I am one of those "Republican men" in the article who is critical of the vote by Supervisors John Moorlach, Janet Nguyen and Pat Bates to appoint Sandra Hutchens over Paul Walters. Given the naturally charged nature of subject matter, I'll venture some comments on the story.
First, let me re-state, again, my view of the appointment so there's no confusion about I do and don't think. Hopefully, that will make my reasoning -- to quote one of my old English teachers -- obvious to even the most obtuse.
What I Don't Think
As I wrote yesterday, I don't think gender or pressure from the California Women's Leadership Association had anything to do with Sup. Moorlach's vote.
I don't think Supervisor Nguyen's vote stemmed directly from the fact Janet is a woman, or that Hutchens is a woman.
I don't think Hutchens is unqualified to to be Orange County Sheriff. Quite the opposite.
I don't think Hutchens' sex has a bearing on her ability to be Sheriff. In fact, in case anyone has missed the point, I don't think gender should have become a factor in the appointment process.
I don't think California Women's Leadership Association members should have been silent instead of vigorously advocating for their preferred candidate.
Is everyone still with me?
What I Do Think
I think gender was ultimately the decisive factor -- the tipping point -- in Hutchens selection, and that anyone denying it played a role in her appointment is blind, dishonest or deceiving themselves.
The only communication I received from the Hutchens camp was an e-mailed press release/interview request sent out May 19 by Newport Beached-based Echo Media PR, entitled: "OC's First Female Sheriff?":
The Post-June 3 Differential
Let's look at the situation before and after the Board narrowed the finalists down to Walters and Hutchens.
The names of the 9 finalists became public on May 9. The public interviews were conducted on May 27, the same day Frank Mickadeit published a complimentary column about her. She interviewed well, sparking more interest in her, and insider handicapping was either she or Richard Beamer would join Paul Walters and Ralph Martin among what was presumed would be the final three candidates.
On June 3, the Board unexpectedly narrowed it down to just two candidate, Walters and Hutchens.
At that point, an intense pro-Hutchens lobbying campaign by the California Women's Leadership Association was launched, which quickly gathered momentum and proceeded to upset the conventional wisdom that the most likely outcome was a 4-1 vote for Walters.
Sup. John Moorlach was always a "no" vote on Walters, while Supervisors Norby and Campbell were solid Walters votes.
Given that Supervisors Bates and Nguyen tend to be more consensus, go-with-the-flow oriented and believed both candidates to be qualified, the smart money was they'd likely vote with Campbell and Norby -- especially Nguyen, since Walters had the support of police chiefs and local electeds in her district.
In other words, the pre- and post-June 3 differential -- the factor which changed the dynamic of the selection process -- was the CWLA lobbying effort, which was sparked by the suddenly real opportunity to appoint a woman as sheriff. The CWLA leadership has close (and inn the case of Bates very long-standing) ties with both Supervisors and worked hard for their respective elections, and I have no doubt the CWLA effort was the tipping point that tilted their support to Hutchens.
Look at it this way, if the choice had come down to Paul Walters and Samuel Hutchens, can anyone tell me with a straight face the CWLA would have blitzed Bates and Nguyen? And absent that blitz, that bates and Nguyen would have passed over Walters?
And can anyone tell me with a straight face that the lobbying effort for Walters had anything to do with the fact he is a man?
March of the Straw Men
The most enjoyable portions of the LA Times article were the lazy, intellectually flaccid contentions that critics of the Hutchens appointment are basically misogynists:
I also supported Mimi Walters over Harry Sidhu, Diane Harkey over Tom Harman, Carolyn Cavecche for Mayor of Orange over Mike Alvarez, etc. Yep, I just hate the idea of women in power.
But the best was this gem from Tim Whitacre:
As for that latter line: Yes, Tim, every day I find myself telling my wife and four daughters how I don't believe they could ever be more qualified than a man. It's laughable riposte and absurd straw man from someone whose quiver of arguments is empty.
I'll say it once again: CWLA worked hard for their candidate and she prevailed. It's a free country, and that's a feather in their cap.
And once again, I wish Sandra Hutchens success as Sheriff, because her success is in the best interest of the county.
But none of that mutually exclusive with being disappointed that the more qualified (in my opinion) candidate was passed over due to the decisive impact of a lobbying campaign driven primarily by gender politics. And I don't see the point in denying gender was a factor.
I am one of those "Republican men" in the article who is critical of the vote by Supervisors John Moorlach, Janet Nguyen and Pat Bates to appoint Sandra Hutchens over Paul Walters. Given the naturally charged nature of subject matter, I'll venture some comments on the story.
First, let me re-state, again, my view of the appointment so there's no confusion about I do and don't think. Hopefully, that will make my reasoning -- to quote one of my old English teachers -- obvious to even the most obtuse.
What I Don't Think
As I wrote yesterday, I don't think gender or pressure from the California Women's Leadership Association had anything to do with Sup. Moorlach's vote.
I don't think Supervisor Nguyen's vote stemmed directly from the fact Janet is a woman, or that Hutchens is a woman.
I don't think Hutchens is unqualified to to be Orange County Sheriff. Quite the opposite.
I don't think Hutchens' sex has a bearing on her ability to be Sheriff. In fact, in case anyone has missed the point, I don't think gender should have become a factor in the appointment process.
I don't think California Women's Leadership Association members should have been silent instead of vigorously advocating for their preferred candidate.
Is everyone still with me?
What I Do Think
I think gender was ultimately the decisive factor -- the tipping point -- in Hutchens selection, and that anyone denying it played a role in her appointment is blind, dishonest or deceiving themselves.
The only communication I received from the Hutchens camp was an e-mailed press release/interview request sent out May 19 by Newport Beached-based Echo Media PR, entitled: "OC's First Female Sheriff?":
Good Evening,Yep. No reference to gender there.
As the only woman vying for the position of Orange County's next sheriff, Sandra Hutchens is poised to become OC's first-ever female appointed to the position.
The Post-June 3 Differential
Let's look at the situation before and after the Board narrowed the finalists down to Walters and Hutchens.
The names of the 9 finalists became public on May 9. The public interviews were conducted on May 27, the same day Frank Mickadeit published a complimentary column about her. She interviewed well, sparking more interest in her, and insider handicapping was either she or Richard Beamer would join Paul Walters and Ralph Martin among what was presumed would be the final three candidates.
On June 3, the Board unexpectedly narrowed it down to just two candidate, Walters and Hutchens.
At that point, an intense pro-Hutchens lobbying campaign by the California Women's Leadership Association was launched, which quickly gathered momentum and proceeded to upset the conventional wisdom that the most likely outcome was a 4-1 vote for Walters.
Sup. John Moorlach was always a "no" vote on Walters, while Supervisors Norby and Campbell were solid Walters votes.
Given that Supervisors Bates and Nguyen tend to be more consensus, go-with-the-flow oriented and believed both candidates to be qualified, the smart money was they'd likely vote with Campbell and Norby -- especially Nguyen, since Walters had the support of police chiefs and local electeds in her district.
In other words, the pre- and post-June 3 differential -- the factor which changed the dynamic of the selection process -- was the CWLA lobbying effort, which was sparked by the suddenly real opportunity to appoint a woman as sheriff. The CWLA leadership has close (and inn the case of Bates very long-standing) ties with both Supervisors and worked hard for their respective elections, and I have no doubt the CWLA effort was the tipping point that tilted their support to Hutchens.
Look at it this way, if the choice had come down to Paul Walters and Samuel Hutchens, can anyone tell me with a straight face the CWLA would have blitzed Bates and Nguyen? And absent that blitz, that bates and Nguyen would have passed over Walters?
And can anyone tell me with a straight face that the lobbying effort for Walters had anything to do with the fact he is a man?
March of the Straw Men
The most enjoyable portions of the LA Times article were the lazy, intellectually flaccid contentions that critics of the Hutchens appointment are basically misogynists:
But to some, the comments about the new sheriff dredged up stereotypes of what they thought was a bygone era of Orange County politics, in which Republican men called the shots and were loath to share power.
"You'll always find a few die hards out there," said Marian Bergeson, a former county supervisor, state legislator and education secretary under Gov. Pete Wilson.Funny, this "die hard" remembers voting for Sen. Bergeson over Sen. John Seymour -- a man! -- in the 1990 GOP primary for Lieutenant Governor.
I also supported Mimi Walters over Harry Sidhu, Diane Harkey over Tom Harman, Carolyn Cavecche for Mayor of Orange over Mike Alvarez, etc. Yep, I just hate the idea of women in power.
Steve Wilkinson, a 26-year veteran sheriff's deputy in Los Angeles County who once worked for Hutchens, said he was surprised by the comments. "It's time for Orange County to get away from this good-old-boy syndrome," he said.I think it's time for Wilkerson to find a fresh cliché, because the expiration date on that one passed a long time ago.
But the best was this gem from Tim Whitacre:
"The only reason Walters was supported is because the good ol' boys wanted him to be the sheriff," said Tim Whitacre, a longtime Hunt supporter and member of the Orange County GOP."It's sour grapes. What else can they say? These men don't want to dare admit that this woman is more qualified than a man."Looks like Tim had just polished off a bottle of "Old Straw Man" when he spoke to the LAT. Just who are these good ol' boys pulling the strings? Since Tim seems to know who they are, perhaps he can enlighten us?
As for that latter line: Yes, Tim, every day I find myself telling my wife and four daughters how I don't believe they could ever be more qualified than a man. It's laughable riposte and absurd straw man from someone whose quiver of arguments is empty.
I'll say it once again: CWLA worked hard for their candidate and she prevailed. It's a free country, and that's a feather in their cap.
And once again, I wish Sandra Hutchens success as Sheriff, because her success is in the best interest of the county.
But none of that mutually exclusive with being disappointed that the more qualified (in my opinion) candidate was passed over due to the decisive impact of a lobbying campaign driven primarily by gender politics. And I don't see the point in denying gender was a factor.
CATEGORY:
OC Sheriff's Department, OC's Next Sheriff
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
Matt, in your fervor to make an important point, you missed another important lesson to be learned -- one that Carlos Bustamante won't make again.
If you are going to be politically incorrect in your quiet comments to someone at a public meeting, try to avoid doing it within earshot of a newspaper reporter.
Classic.
Matt/Jubal,
I won't pretend to have any inside knowledge of what the supes were thinking or who pressured them, but what I will accept as true is...
All of the 9 finalists passed the minimum qualifications for consideration for the job.
The final 2 candidates were considered the best by the 5 supe's.
One candidate had a lot of Orange County experiance and connections.
One candidate had a lot Los Angeles County experiance and connections.
After following the political and legal ramblings of OCSD for the last 9 years, not to mention Gates issues, it makes a lot of sense to go outside of Orange County.
That does not change the fact that Sheriff Hutchens is a woman. She is what she is, why are so many bitter because she is a woman? And yes, if a male outsider had her skills and background and was in the final two I would have supported him over another insider.
Just...asking:
What seems to be getting lost here is no one is bitter that Hutchens is a woman. It is immaterial to me -- and that's the point: it should have been immaterial to the process, and it wasn't.
Excellent post, Jubal
The Hutchens crowd used the gender card, while the rest of us focused on qualifications and reform. Then when we pointed out what they were doing, they trotted out the tired "good old boys" cliche. I only care about departmental reform, yet one county staffer seriously questioned whether I am sexist for believing that Hutchens' experience is not as impressive as Paul Walters'. I know South County Republican women are an oppressed and disenfranchised minority these days, but I still find the whole thing distasteful. But then again my refusal to admit to my sexism is only proof of how deep it really goes!
Jubal...
Please tell me you guys aren't as shocked as you sound that "there's gambling going on in this establishment." The OCS is a political office. And in politics, gender wields a huge gravitational pull. Shoot, the entire Democratic primary season was nothing if not about gender and race. Your post seems to suggest that because some folks in the pro-Hutch camp played the gender card, Walters wasn't given a fair shake. Well, that's politics. And politics isn't fair. It seems to me that if anyone would know that, Matt, it would be you.
Maybe I should write about this issue in primer, "Dick and Jane" format.
A candidate's sex shouldn't have been a factor in this decision. But it was. And the proponents of the candidate that factor benefited pretend it wasn't.
Two observations:
1. In recent weeks I've read media opinions that suggested this appointment process for the office of Sheriff was an opportunity to do it right and that maybe the Board of Supervisors could do it better than the voters. Now I don't quibble with the end result, and I believe Hutchens will make a terrific Sheriff but this process was nothing more than a circus filled with grandstanding and double speak. In the future I say leave it to the voters. They may get it wrong, but at least they own it.
2. I don't understand the criticism by Jubal and Greenhut that the South County Republican women improperly influenced the supervisors who were swayed away from the more qualified candidate (Walters). The same criticism could be leveled at the Lincoln Club and the Orange County Chiefs of Police, both are male dominated and identify better with a white male in his 60's as opposed to a woman and therefore feel a comfort level with him that they might not feel with Hutchens. If nothing else, it leveled he political playing field.
As for the best candidate isn't that subjective? Only time will tell for certain.
Only when the chickens come to roost, do the most obtuse find fault with the very system and policies that have favored them for over 230 years. CHANGE gives me HOPE!
GM:
As I said in the post:
"I don't think California Women's Leadership Association members should have been silent instead of vigorously advocating for their preferred candidate."
"I'll say it once again: CWLA worked hard for their candidate and she prevailed. It's a free country, and that's a feather in their cap."
Like JF said "Classic". Particularily since it looks like he was appointed by the Govenator to the Fair Employment and Housing commission.
Jubal...
Let me explain this to you in "Dick and Jane" format: This was a POLITICAL appointment. In the rabbit hole where Alice lives, it may well be true that gender shouldn't have played a role in the process. But since we're dealing with politics here, your protest just rings so naive. And that you are incredulous that the CWLA won't cop to its play of the gender card suggests to me that you're in the hole with Alice.
Mr. Greenhut...
So are you asking me to believe that if Mr. Walters was the less qualified candidate but received the appointment anyway that you would be howling in protest in favor of Ms. Hutchens? I'm not buyin' it. In fact, you couldn't give that one away.
Anon:
A gentle suggestion: read all the posts I have written on this topic. That should stop the circular straw man argument you're having.
No. I get it Jubal. You wrote: "I think gender was ultimately the decisive factor -- the tipping point -- in Hutchens selection, and that anyone denying it played a role in her appointment is blind, dishonest or deceiving themselves." I'm simply suggesting that denying gender played a role is not blind, dishonest or deceiving. It's simply smart politics. Why? Because it baits the opposition into a response (your post, for instance) that's childish at best, and hypocritical at worst.
I'm simply suggesting that denying gender played a role is not blind, dishonest or deceiving. It's simply smart politics.
In other words, I'm right. You just think being blind, dishonest or self-deceptive is smart politics. Glad we have guys like you raising the standard.
"Glad we have guys like you raising the standard." Yup...me and Lee Atwater.
Who recanted his tactics after being diagnosed with terminal cancer.
Jubal,
Looks like Parsons devoted an article to Red County today.
I wasn't around when Gates was Sheriff. What kind of Sheriff was he, and what happen to him?
Rocket:
Thanks. I missed it during my go-round this morning.
Hugh,
Sheriff Gates was the Sheriff for my first 15 years on the Department. I liked him. He was always cordial to me. He had his faults as many of these people on here will probably point out. He did his job and stayed out of the media limelight. He would have never used the death of a child for his own political benifit. I recently attended a retirment party where Sheriff Gates returned to give the retired Sergeant his retirement badge. I have nothing but respect for Sheriff Gates.
Where I tend to agree with much, if not all of what Jubal has posted, I think everyone is missing a great political point. What would have happened if Janet had not won the primary outright on June 3rd? I think that she would have been forced to select Walters due to her needing the Santa Ana POA endorsement for November. Just another point of view.
Bottom line, this illustrates why we (conservatives) prefer market solutions to government solutions - because government solutions are motivated by politics.
Let's please remind our representatives of that.
Matt -
I think you're missing one thing. Men and women are different. Sure, gender is a spectrum running from completely male to completely female with most of us falling somewhere in between, but gender should be a consideration in a selection process depending on what traits are being sought.
In this case, there have been concerns about the militarization of OCSD and Walters' 'good ol' boy' attitude certainly wasn't going to help things, especially after the train-wreck that was Mike Carona. By naming Walters Sheriff the Supes would have essentially been installing Mike Carona to replace Mike Carona.
They wanted someone of Walters' or Hutchens' experience, which is why they were both finalists, but they didn't want the OC political baggage, and yes, they wanted someone with a seemingly lighter touch. In fact Nguyen and Moorlach both recently praised Hutchens' interview skills indicating that she is probably a better communicator as well. It's like when a mom tells her children, 'don't hit; use your words.'
Could a man have had these qualifications? Sure... but Paul Walters doesn't.
SMS
Oh, and Fatal Conceit -
Bottom line, this illustrates why we (conservatives) prefer market solutions to government solutions - because government solutions are motivated by politics.
... and 'market solutions' are motivated by greed and money. Each system has its pros and cons. My motto is 'fair trade, not free trade,' and a similar line of thinking could be employed here.
How do you figure the market vs. government debate is even relevant here? I'm not sure what you're trying to imply exactly.
SMS
Sarah:
If a business made its decision based on gender sterotypes, as you suggest, it would violate California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), as well as the protections of the U.S. and California Constitutions. I guess equal protection applies only to women?
The point of the post is this - what do you expect in this decisions but politics? A business decision wouldn't drag in all of this controversy. (Market solutions are motivated by "greed and money"? How about self-interest?)
Ah, leftists...
SMS:
If a Supe wants to include gender as a factor in their decision, that's their prerogative. I disagree with it, but that's their prerogative.
But they should acknowledge they are doing so, not pretend otherwise.
I have been making that point ad nauseum, to no apparent avail.
FC -
First of all, I am not a leftist. I'm a centrist.
Secondly, FEHA only goes so far. For instance, it's not illegal for a casting director to turn down a woman to play a man's role in a dramatic production. Furthermore... and I'll say this again, it's more about traits than gender. The Supes were looking for someone with Hutchens' traits.
I've already stated, 'Could a man have had these qualifications? Sure... but Paul Walters doesn't.' Does this make me a sexist? No. I submit that instead it makes Paul Walters a Neanderthal gender stereotype (i.e. Carona Part Duex).
And how about self-interest? Without at least a safety net in society (i.e. government) we are left with Darwinism. It's always funny to me how Conservatives feel that Darwin was wrong but humans evolving from apes, but they love to spout off about his 'survival of the fittest' crap. Sorry hon, he was talking about species, not people.
Matt -
Sorry. I see your point and I agree with it completely. I was just trying to add to it and possibly contribute a little political cover for any Supervisor who might want to come clean... but I still think they made the right choice regardless.
SMS
Sarah:
You said, "But gender should be a consideration in a selection process depending on what traits are being sought." That says gender (stereotype) is the criteria, not the traits.
That is unlawful gender discrimination. And how is that "fair"? (And you want to be the judge of "fair trade"? I don't think so.)
Sorry, your words, dear.
Don't apologize; there's nothing to be feel sorry for. I think 'depending on what traits are being sought' was a reasonable qualifier... and I'm pretty sure you got my point if picking on barely-questionable wording is your basis of argument. I'm glad we agree. :P
SMS
Ha ha. Have a nice weekend! ;)