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.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

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)

bye-byeThe 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.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Sonia SotomayorI 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)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

groceriesYou 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.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

LA Times Changes Tune?

by lbarber on 05/19/2009

in Column

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.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Fix Inequality By Improving Ghettos

May 18, 2009

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 [...]

Read the full article →

Ending the Vicious Race-Based Cycle

May 18, 2009

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 [...]

Read the full article →

LA County Fails to Reach Racial Spoils Goal

May 14, 2009

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 [...]

Read the full article →

Ricci v. Perez

May 14, 2009

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 [...]

Read the full article →

Pat Buchanan on ‘Jim Crow Liberalism’

May 11, 2009

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: Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy In his latest column, Buchanan says Republicans [...]

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Read the full article →