Archive for May, 2009
The Center for Equal Opportunity’s Roger Clegg, blogging at The Corner, dubs the coming months “Civil-Rights Summer,” because of several related issues. “Wise Latina woman” Sonia Sotomayor faces what I predict will be an easy confirmation process, and the Supreme Court will hand down rulings in the Ricci v. DeStefano and Voting Rights cases.
In Ricci, New Haven decided not to promote white firefighters who qualified for promotions because too few minorities qualified for promotions. In the Voting Rights case, the plaintiff seeks to eliminate Section 5’s pre-clearance requirement for changing voting procedures.
Clegg, who’s heard the oral arguments in both cases, says liberals won’t be too happy about the rulings. (I’m holding out hope the court properly interprets the Constitution and leads us in the direction of colorblind government policy.) Leftists will want the decisions in those cases overturned, naturally. Nothing new here to see. But here’s the novelty: a biracial president is on the hot seat. Clegg writes:
I think it’s fair to describe this as a crisis. The way it plays out will determine (not finally, since nothing is ever final in politics) but for some time whether America has shrugged off the principle of E pluribus unum. This, notwithstanding the fact that, in an increasingly multiracial and multiethnic society, it is untenable to have a legal regime in which citizens are sorted according to skin color and the national origin of one’s ancestors, and treated better or worse depending on which box they check.
We know that the Democrats in Congress will do the wrong thing — that is, they will do whatever they can to advance the use of racial preferences to the nth degree. They are hopeless. The question is, what role will the Republicans play — and what will President Obama do?
It’s going to be an interesting summer.
Filed under: Judiciary, Roger Clegg | |Comments off
Texas developed a way to get around explicit use of race in admissions by crafting the Ten Percent Plan, which guarantees Texas high school students graduating in the top 10 percent of their class admission to public colleges and universities in the state.
Last month, the Texas Senate voted 24 to 7 to modify the law to remove the admissions guarantee and cap admissions at 50 percent. On Monday, the Texas House approved a compromise bill that would cap students admitted under the plan to 75 percent, effective 2011. The law expires after six years, so the legislature can examine the changes. (Source)
The Texas Ten Percent Plan was developed after a federal appeals court ruled that Texas colleges could not use race as a factor in admissions. In order to attract and admit more minority students, the state came up with a way to achieve “diversity” without using race explicitly. The only reason the plan is being modified is capacity problems. UT President William Powers recently complained that his school would run out of room for students not admitted under the plan. Will a 75 percent admissions cap alleviate the problem?
According to the Dallas Morning News, some say the 10 percent plan has caused a “brain drain” at UT, because students who may have had the grades and scores but didn’t land in the top 10 percent of their schools went to different colleges. To put it another way, underqualified students who placed in the top 10 percent of their high schools were admitted over more qualified students who did not, even though the latter attended high schools with higher academic standards.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
So says Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court. She said that a woman like herself would make better decisions in court cases than white men, and, by implication, that sex and ethnicity should factor into court decisions.
Such a woman, if all goes swimmingly with her nomination, will sit on the highest court in the land.
The ultimate irony is that our Constitution is supposed to guard against writing laws and making decisions that take race or sex into account. Original intent and meaning, equal justice – these aren’t abstract concepts. They are (or should be) the lifeblood of our system of justice. It doesn’t matter whether the Constitution’s drafters owned slaves or believed blacks were subhuman. It really doesn’t. What matters is the U.S. Constitution, as ratified, provides the best protection against discrimination based on the color of one’s skin.
But Sotomayor believes one’s skin color should influence how one interprets the Constitution. Chilling, and so is the double standard that allows her to say it and get away with it. The National Journal’s Stuart Taylor said this about Sotomayor’s statement:
So accustomed have we become to identity politics that it barely causes a ripple when a highly touted Supreme Court candidate, who sits on the federal Appeals Court in New York, has seriously suggested that Latina women like her make better judges than white males…Indeed, unless Sotomayor believes that Latina women also make better judges than Latino men, and also better than African-American men and women, her basic proposition seems to be that white males (with some exceptions, she noted) are inferior to all other groups in the qualities that make for a good jurist.
Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority…Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: “I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life” — and had proceeded to speak of “inherent physiological or cultural differences.”
(The double standard is maddening. Try this: “I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn’t lived that life.”)
Identity politics, as Taylor says, is so strong in our mind-numbingly politically correct atmosphere that Sotomayor’s remarks will do nothing more than make headlines. They will have little impact on the confirmation process.
Taylor goes down the list of similar statements attributed to Sotomayor, statements useful for columnists, commentators, and bloggers. The best ammunition confirmation opponents will have against Sotomayor, if they choose to use it, is the Ricci v. DeStefano case, in which she supported discrimination against whites and lower standards for blacks.
(Photo credit: AFP)
Filed under: Barack Obama, Judiciary | |Comments off
You don’t read about this every day. A white man sued a grocery store because he was fired for being white (or for not being Hispanic). The store replaced him with a preferred Hispanic worker.
The Virginia Business Litigation Lawyer Blog links to the complaint filed by Robert Bruce (any relation?) against Compare Foods. The company has agreed to settle with Bruce in the amount of $30,000, and, among other things, it will craft an anti-discrimination policy.
Download the five-page complaint (PDF).
This isn’t Compare Foods’ first time at the discrimination rodeo. According to the Charlotte Business Journal, the store previously fired three non-Hispanic workers because of their race. The store settled that lawsuit as well. You’d think hiring/firing managers at Compare Foods had more sense by now.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
You know the times they are a-changing when the liberal Los Angeles Times implies it was unfair to deny white firefighters promotions on account of race.
Last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Ricci v. DeStefano, a case in which over a dozen white firefighters and one Hispanic filed suit against the city of New Haven, Connecticut, claiming racial discrimination. In the name of “affirmative action,” the fire department decided that Frank Ricci and other firefighters who scored high enough on the promotions test would not be promoted, because no black firefighters qualified for promotions.
Read the rest at Townhall.
Filed under: Column | |Comments off
Richard Thompson Ford, author of The Race Card: How Bluffing About Bias Makes Race Relations Worse, makes the case that America needs to leave behind the old-style civil rights approach in fighting so-called racial discrimination, where it was overt, in favor of a subtler approach. Ford believes the decline of inner-city neighborhoods and isolation of inner-city poor are main causes of inequality between the races. (Source)
In 2009, black Americans are free to live wherever they can afford, visit any restaurant they desire, and ride in the front of planes, trains, and buses. They may seize opportunity and work hard to take care of their families and enjoy the benefits of living in the wealthiest country on the planet. The bias and bigotry of white people are no longer impediments for blacks who want to get ahead. The biggest impediment in 2009 is the ghetto, says Ford.
[M]any of the reforms needed to improve the ghettos – job creation, more effective schools, better public infrastructure – would benefit poor and working class people of all races, striking a blow against class stratification as well as racial inequality.
…
If we confront and overcome these last vestiges of America’s racist past, if we can break the cycle of poverty and dysfunctional behavior, we can not only turn the corner on America’s shameful racist history; we can also turn millions of people who now drain resources in our jails and on public assistance rolls into productive citizens who will contribute to a vibrant economy and healthy civic culture.
Ford makes good points, but I don’t agree with the entire piece. For example, I believe the moral component of marrying before having children and doing whatever it takes to stick around and raise the children one sires shouldn’t be left out of the discussion. Regardless of the country’s economic condition or where we live, we are moral agents who ought to be responsible for the choices we make and ready to face the consequences of those choices. Ford’s “Deprived of legitimate job opportunities, many hustle in the quasi-legal gray market” excuse is part of the problem, not a cause of the problem.
I am convinced that family structure (or lack thereof), and not bigotry, overt or otherwise, is integral to whether children end up poor and underachieving and/or in the criminal justice system.
But I digress.
Ford strikes a balance between casting blame on whites and blacks for racial inequalities, though he clearly believes forces outside oneself – and not individual fortitude – has the greater bearing on one’s life outcome. He contends that inequality must be overcome not by focusing on white bigotry (although he doesn’t use the word white) but on creating job opportunities in the inner-city, improving schools, and overhauling drug laws.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
Daphne Eviatar, writing for The Washington Independent, unintentionally makes the case for race-blind laws. Eviatar provides background on the Ricci v. DeStefano case and points out the obvious: our government isn’t colorblind; therefore, it was permissible for the city of New Haven to deny promotions based on race.
If the reverse were true, however, New Haven’s actions would not be seen as permissible.
To prevent lawsuits like the one in Ricci and instances of racial discrimination in general, the government must adopt a colorblind stance. People perceive and are influenced by differences. It’s human nature. But governments are instituted to protect citizens from the darkest elements of human nature through laws and by penalizing those who break laws. It is essential for the government to treat citizens equally as individuals before the law, regardless of race, even if its race-focused intentions are good.
One of the problems with race-based laws are the unintentional consequences. In a case like Ricci, for example, black firefighters who failed to qualify for promotions could sue the city under the disparate impact theory. New Haven pre-empted such a lawsuit by intentionally discriminating against those who qualified for promotions, based on race. The first instance of “discrimination” isn’t discrimination at all, while the second one clearly is discrimination.
Whites like Frank Ricci who’ve been discriminated against should fight back. It’s a double standard to view discrimination against minorities as bad, while discrimination against whites is “good” or necessary to prevent racial disparities.
It’s a vicious cycle. How do we end it? By demanding a colorblind goverment.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
In the comment section of an LAT blog article on racial quotas in Los Angeles County contracting, Roger Clegg asks, “Why do race, ethnicity, and sex need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract?”
Apparently, the county is not reaching its minority contract set-aside goal of 25 percent. Since discriminating against or preferring individuals or groups based on factors like skin color and sex in government hiring, contracting, and admissions is illegal in California, the county is an a quandary.
The article mentions several race-neutral ways to possibly increase minority-owned business representation among contracting ranks: make the bidding process more accessible and easier to understand; hold workshops to instruct business owners how to apply for contracts; and notify business owners of new projects via e-mail.
Will these approaches satisfy quota proponents? Probably not, but they don’t have much choice. Why is awarding contracts to the lowest bidders regardless of the business owner’s race wrong? Isn’t it the best way to ensure that no one, regardless of race, is subjected to racial discrimination?
Oops. My naivety is showing again.
Filed under: Quotas, Roger Clegg | |Comments off
Thomas Perez, President Barack Obama’s nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights, the same man who believes medical schools should drop standards for black applicants because they’re more likely to work in “underserved” communities than white doctors, also believes in watering down firefighters recruitment tests.
The Center for Equal Opportunity’s Roger Clegg posted on The Corner blog a press release from 2004 when then Montgomery County, Maryland, Councilmember Thomas Perez called for an investigation into the fire department’s written firefighter aptitude test. The problem? Too few blacks were being recruited. From the release:
“These statistics are unacceptable…But I have confidence that we can get back up to the original number of minorities in the Department, and develop a comprehensive plan to recruit diversely…I have worked closely with Fire and Rescue Chief Carr and several other leaders on this issue…We have formed a partnership and the commitment from the department is clearly there.”
I remember covering this story on my personal blog in 2004. According to the Washington Post, 89 percent of class recruits in that fire department were white. Because the county’s population was 60 percent white, elected officials like Perez criticized the department. There was a drop in minority recruits, which likely was caused by the county implementing a race-blind hiring process. For the sake of skin deep-only diversity, people like Perez favor lowering standards to recruit minorities, but call the practice something else: affirmative action.
I also blogged about the New York City Fire Department (FDNY) lowering standards in a “pro-diversity” campaign to attract blacks. FDNY reduced the college credit requirement and considered changing the way the employment test was scored.
In the same post, I mentioned the Denver Fire Department’s new watered down test. I spoke with Chief Larry Trujillo, who said a Denver newspaper article left the impression that he favored the dumbed-down test, but he told me he did not. He said as a minority, he was proud to have gone through the same process as other recruits, but believed “something” needed to be done to bring in more blacks. The fire department hired a consulting firm to create a new test, and I spoke with three people (conference call) at the firm to try to find out what made the new test easier. All they would say is the test would evaluate a broader range of abilities than traditional written tests. The answers were vague on purpose. I suspected the firm watered down portions of the test on which blacks performed poorly.
Finally, years ago I read about one fire department that dropped its swimming test because too few black applicants knew how to swim!
The absurdity is too astounding for words.
I guess the Civil Rights Act and other civil rights legislation – and the entire movement – were pointless. The American people strived to eliminate racial considerations in government hiring and admissions. Almost two generations later, the government still considers race in hiring and admissions.
Filed under: Judiciary, Quotas, Roger Clegg | |Comments off
Chris Matthews recently hosted columnists Clarence Page and Pat Buchanan on MSNBC’s “Hardball” as the two men trade opinions and predict which side would prevail in the Ricci v. DeStefano case. Check out the 8-minute-35-second video:
In his latest column, Buchanan says Republicans can win back “Middle America” and Reagan Democrats by getting rid of preferences based on race. Buchanan understands the difference between affirmative action, the casting of a wider net, and racial preferences, which, by definition, is discrimination based on race. He writes:
If the Republican Party wants a future, it will become again the party that stands on the principle that “No discrimination means no discrimination,” that stands with the victims of state bigotry, and that stands up to hypocrites like the Jim Crow liberals of New Haven.
…
In Michigan, Washington and California, none of them red states, majorities have voted to abolish affirmative action. Only Colorado failed in a dead heat last fall. A Republican drive to write into federal law an end to all race and gender preferences, as well as to all race and gender discrimination, is a cause whose time has come.
Buchanan’s called a racist and everything else for speaking out against racial discrimination against whites and for telling the truth about preferences. Those aren’t popular positions for a white man in America or a black woman, but I’m glad he’s not allowing his accusers to shut him down or control the debate. I certainly won’t.
Buchanan is controversial to the mainstream, but whatever motivates him to oppose racial preferences, he and I are on the same side. They are demeaning and unfair and should be abolished. Anyone who opposes discrimination against blacks but supports discrimination against whites is a hypocrite, regardless of motives.
Filed under: Judiciary | |Comments off
« Previous Entries||
