Who do you think you are Desirée Rogers?

I'd argue that in the nation's capital, most people don't know it. Moreover, not a single one of these "friends" is named. The only actual person named, contradicts the main narrative. I realize that this is a story about the "social secretary" and not an investigation of loose nukes--but that only makes the point. If you're not quoting people who have something to lose--friendship and social standing do not count-- you need to get these people on the record. Otherwise, you're just gossiping.

via ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com

Ta-Nehisi Coates articulates exactly what I have been thinking about the recent gleeful sniping at White House Social Secretary, Desirée Rogers. I believe the Secret Service should bear the brunt of the primary responsibility (as they have) for the security lapse that allowed Tareq and Michaele Salahi to intrude at the recent State Dinner for India. I also believe that it is perfectly reasonable to question why a member of the Rogers' staff was not stationed at each entrance with a guest list.  But what is the purpose of constantly harping on the designer clothes that she chooses to wear (on her own dime, long before the Obamas were in the White House), her Vogue feature ("beating the first lady's appearance in the fashion bible by a month") or the WSJ magazine article where she dares to be photographed in (as so many are careful to mention) Cartier earrings and a Viktor & Rolf trench.  

The undercurrent in most of the backlash against Rogers is the fervent wish for her to fail (and by extension in the eyes of some critics, Michelle Obama). After all, she is not a "glittering blonde" and she is certainly no stranger to the spotlight, so she must be taken down a peg.  The Who do you think you are? undercurrent has been there from the day Roger's position was announced. Think about it: Most stories you have heard involving black women this year have been about how nobody wants to date us, how we waste thousands of dollars trying to get "Good Hair" or how we are constantly absent or misrepresented in Hollywood or fashion magazines.  A Desirée Rogers, well-educated, confident and good-looking, is still confusing and even offensive to some people (and not just white people) because she doesn't have "the look" of someone leading the life she lives.  In fact, prior to the parade of stylish, educated black women who came in with the Obama administration, many people were quite comfortable in the notion that (multiple!) black women like this did not exist.  The Obamas have known Desirée Rogers for more than twenty years and I doubt they would have tapped her for this position if they had a problem with her skills, style or personality - all things they knew about long before the rest of the world. 

My primary concern with this debacle is that the Salahis do not get off scot-free.  The three Secret Service agents who allowed the Salahi's into the dinner have been put on paid administrative leave until the end of the investigation. 

Comments

[Danielle]

Thank you for this. You perfectly articulated how I've been feeling about the sniping at Desiree Rogers lately. It makes you want to stand in the middle of Pennsylvania Ave (or at the corner of 15th & L) and scream "Wake up!" School Daze-style. For real.

[Jackie]

Certainly there is shared blame for the fiasco and I believe Ms. Rogers should shoulder her share. It isn't that she is glamorous and attractive that galls me. Rather it is that her lapse in not ensuring that her staff were properly trained potentially put our government at risk. How many people in the line of succession were in that room while uninvited and possible harmful people gained close access to the President? What if the Salahi's weren't just celebrity whores, but had "evil intent?" She shouldn't avoid responsibility by hiding behind executive privilege. Based on how this whole matter is being handled my impression of Ms. Rogers is diminished. She does not appear to be a stand-up woman. This is Washington DC, the nation's capital, not Chicago. She has shown disrespect for him as the leader of our country and as his friend.

[Nichelle]

Danielle: I agree wholeheartedly. Many people are simply being disingenuous about their real problem with Desiree Rogers.

Jackie: I disagree that Desiree Rogers has shown "disrespect" for the president and that her lapse "put our government at risk." The social office is not responsible for security - that is the job of the Secret Service.

As far as your other statements/questions - I address both of them in previous posts.

1.) How many people in the line of succession were in that room while uninvited and possible harmful people gained close access to the President?

Seven. See 7 Reasons The White House "Crashers" Are A Big Deal and The Original White House Crashers: Mother and Son Murder Team Sante and Kenny Kimes .

2.) What if the Salahis weren't just celebrity whores, but had "evil intent?"

See What if Michaele Salahi were not a "glittering blonde?"

There is indeed shared blame - most of it going to the Secret Service since they are responsible for security and protecting the president and the first family. And Desiree Rogers (in my opinion) should get some of that blame for not making sure some of her staffers were assisting the Secret Service. However, I still maintain that the undercurrent of the criticism of Ms. Rogers is a strong dislike for her (because she is not what most people expect out of a black woman) and a fervent wish for her to fail.

[BluTopaz]

Thank you for writing this. The attacks on Ms. Rogers has been nothing but let's put that uppity gal back in her place, by many whites and blacks as you have noted. And I am so glad you posted that video of Desiree and Valerie almost being turned away from that event. I don't understand the constant discussion about Desiree's designer wardrobe and society parties either, in the context of this security breach. It's like there are a lot of folks who could not wait to cut into an attractive, confident and highly educated Black woman just for being who she is. The fact that she is not the cliched 300 pound, unattractive, angry black woman loser angers a lot of people, and I have been very disheartened to read from many Black posters on blogs comments like 'even if she didn't do anything wrong, that stuck up b---- needs to resign'. Sigh. She would get more support if she was a man peeing on little girls. WTF is wrong with people.

[Nichelle]

@BluTopaz - Thank you for your comment. I think that your statement ("She would get more support if she was a man peeing on little girls") is sad - and true. Her critics seem far more peeved at Rogers than the Salahis (and would probably watch if they ended up on a reality show). It's really pathetic...