Ricci v. Sotomayor
***Scroll down for update***
The American Prospect’s Adam Serwer thinks the Ricci v. DeStefano case is all about white men complaining that they “can’t get a break.” Apparently, studying for and passing a test for a promotion in one’s career and having the results thrown out because too many people in your racial group also qualified for promotions is much ado about nothing.
In his post, Serwer mixes apples and oranges. He says that based on critics’ comments about Judge Sonia Sotomayor being unqualified for the U.S. Supreme Court, America must keep discriminatory practices in place to balance such beliefs. An excerpt:
This is exactly what affirmative action is meant to correct: People coming to the arbitrary conclusion that someone is “an idiot” despite all evidence to the contrary, except if you consider not being a white man evidence. Sotomayor’s detractors see themselves as Frank Riccis, white men whose greatness isn’t recognized because we’re too busy giving brown people who can’t tie their shoes certificates of achievement. But the truth is that in life and in employment, discrimination rarely manifests itself the way it did against Ricci, as something as easy to quantify as an unfair test. It’s far more insidious — a rumor, a feeling, a notion that the person standing in front of you who doesn’t look like you is just “dumb and obnoxious.” So you throw their resume in the “no” pile because you don’t like their name, you seat them in the back of the class, you promote another person. You just can’t really explain why. It’s… just a feeling.
Notwithstanding Serwer’s over-the-top reaction to race preferences opponents’ reasonable concerns about individuals like Frank Ricci being penalized because of skin color, Serwer seems to be saying that racial discrimination against whites is justified to guard against racial discrimination against blacks. Does that make sense? Racial discrimination is okay because racial discrimination exists.
If I’m reading him wrong, I’m sure he’ll let me know.
Incidentally, Sotomayer is connected to the Ricci case. She was on the panel of judges that ruled against the New Haven firefighters, a decision that resulted in the Supreme Court’s review of the case.
Proponents of lowered standards for blacks, whether they think it’s necessary to make up for past discrimination or to increase minority representation, have nowhere to go but in a circle. To justify preferences is to ignore the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the entire Civil Rights movement. The purpose was to put the government out of the skin color business, and for almost two generations, the government has remained in business.
Serwer (disparagingly) links to an excellent article by Richard Cohen, Washington Post columnist. A liberal, Cohen not so much sides with Ricci as he does with fair treatment. He makes the point that Ricci was in no way personally responsible for racial disparities in the fire department and shouldn’t be penalized for them. He writes:
We should never confuse unfair with illegal. Still it would be nice if every once in a while they coincided. That is especially the case in matters such as this because the justification for affirmative action gets weaker and weaker. Maybe once it was possible to argue that some innocent people had to suffer in the name of progress, but a glance at the White House strongly suggests that things have changed. For most Americans, race has become supremely irrelevant. Everyone knows this. Every poll shows this. Maybe the Supreme Court will recognize this.
Liberalism, a movement in which I hold a conditional membership, would be wise to get wise to what has happened. Blatant affirmative action always entailed a disturbing and ex post facto changing of the rules — oops, you’re white. Sorry, not what we wanted. As a consequence, it was not racists who were punished but all whites. There is no need to cling to such a remedy anymore. There is, though, every need to retain and strengthen anti-discrimination laws, especially in areas such as fire departments, where racial discrimination was once endemic. Sufficient progress has been made to revert to treating individuals as individuals. After all, it is not some amorphous entity called “whites” who will suffer: It is un-lieutenant Ricci.
I doubt people on either side of the preferences debate will ever see eye-to-eye. One side believes individuals should be equal before the law regardless of race, and the other side believes racial discrimination in the other direction is justified based on an arbitrary notion of diversity. Speaking only for myself, the issue is black and white, with no shades of gray. A government with the power to discriminate in favor of blacks can use that same power to discriminate against blacks. The issue is not whether pockets of bigotry still exist. The issue is whether racial discrimination is emanating from the government. Everything else is negotiable.
Let’s hope the Supreme Court makes the right decision in Ricci.
Update: When the liberal Los Angeles Times sees the unfairness of throwing out test results because too many whites passed, you know the times are a-changing (pun not intended).
1
Susan
Friday, May 8th, 2009 at 9:01 am
This has been going on all over the country for years. Ricci has just brought this unfair practice to the surface. There is a similar – almost identical -case to Ricci out of the Memphis PD:
In May, 2005, the City of Memphis (Memphis) decided to promote additional officers within the Memphis Police Department (MPD) to the rank of major. Memphis developed a content-valid exam that was relevant to the duties of the position. The promotional exam was given and the participants were ranked based on their test scores. However, Memphis cancelled the promotion list because too few minority candidates scored well enough to be promoted and because it wanted to avoid liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Plaintiffs, who are black, white, male, and female MPD officers, brought suit alleging that Memphis intentionally discriminated against them by using race as a basis for cancelling the valid promotional process in violation of Title VII. Under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground that as a matter of law, the City’s desire to avoid a potential lawsuit was a legitimate nondiscriminatory intent. The plaintiffs intend to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.