In his latest column, George Will writes about the New Haven firefighters case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Ricci v. DeStefano, and quotes Chief Justice John Roberts’s question, which occurred 20 seconds into the arguments:
“Would it have been lawful if the city had decided to disregard the results of the exam to select firemen for promotion because it selected too many black and too few white candidates?”
Of course the city would not have disregarded such results.
Will summarizes the case and points out the absurdity of the city of New Haven calling what it did “race-neutral,” when the practice is racial. Ignoring the plain language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the city discriminated against individuals on the basis of skin color. The city claimed if it hadn’t tossed the results, black firefighters would have sued under the “disparate impact” theory.
This vicious cycle is the result of continually taking race into account. Instead of adopting a race-neutral approach to hiring and admissions, then dealing with inevitable disparities separately, the government tries to avoid disparities altogether by fixing the game. Cases like Ricci v. DeStefano are the result. Will adds:
Racial spoils systems must involve incessant mischief because they require a rhetorical fog of euphemisms and blurry categories (e.g., “race-conscious” measures that somehow do not constitute racial discrimination) to obscure stark facts…Some supporters of New Haven, perhaps recognizing intellectual bankruptcy when defending it, propose a squishy fudge: Return the case to the trial court to clarify the city’s motivation.
The vicious cycle will end only when the government stops taking race into account. Why is that so complicated?
Comments on this entry are closed.