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.
Comments on this entry are closed.