Archive for August, 2009

‘To Argue the Essential Weakness of His Own People’

FDNYLast month, a federal judge ruled that New York City’s Fire Department (FDNY) discriminated against blacks and Hispanics with its recruitment exam. The court contended that paper-and-pencil tests given from 1999 to 2007 unfairly excluded minority recruits. (Source)

In plain-speak, it means blacks and Hispanics performed disproportionately poorly on the exam.

In 2007, the Department of Justice filed a suit against FDNY for violating the Civil Rights Act, claiming that two pass-fail written exams and the rank ordering process disparately impacted minorities and weren’t job-related or consistent with business necessity. The Vulcan Society, a fraternal organization of black FDNY firefighters, joined the lawsuit.

At the time, the black firefighter’s group claimed that “the SAT-style test has little to do with fighting fires and has prevented many black and Latino applicants from getting the jobs they deserve.”

I’m reminded of an article author Shelby Steele wrote a decade ago about a racial preferences debate between the American Civil Rights Institute’s Ward Connerly and law professor Christopher Edley on C-SPAN. In Harper’s Magazine via (CIR-USA.org), Steele lamented over what he called the “disappearance of the black individual.” A black Harvard student rose to “challenge” Connerly during the question and answer period. Steele writes (emphasis added):

“Now consider what this Harvard student is called upon by his racial identity to argue in the year 2002. All that is creative and imaginative in him must be rallied to argue the essential weakness of his own people. Only their weakness justifies the racial preferences they receive decades after any trace of anti-black racism in college admissions. The young man must not show faith in the power of his people to overcome against any odds; he must show faith in their inability to overcome without help. As Mr. Connerly points to far less racism and far more freedom and opportunity for blacks, the young man must find a way, against all the mounting facts, to argue that black Americans simply cannot compete without preferences. If his own forebears seized freedom in a long and arduous struggle for civil rights, he must argue that his own generation is unable to compete on paper-and-pencil standardized tests.”

This is one of the many things that bother me about preferences. They require, in no uncertain terms, lowering standards for blacks. Proponents must argue—like the cocky black Harvard student—that blacks cannot and should not be expected to compete with whites or held to the same standards. Individuality is erased, and group entitlements emerge.

Preference proponents implicitly make the case, despite their purported support for racial equality, that equality is not what they really want. Special treatment is the goal, disguised behind euphemisms like diversity.

There was a time that black America believed in individuality and longed to be treated as free men and women. Today, it’s the opposite. Once people realized how advantageous it was to re-assert group membership, the importance of the individual was minimized. Those who try to assert their individuality over racial group membership must face the Uncle-Tom-epithet consequences.

“[T]here is another ‘little gulag’ for the black individual,” Steele writes, “He lives in a society that needs his race for the good it wants to do more than it needs his individual self. His race makes him popular with white institutions and unifies him with blacks. But he is unsupported everywhere as an individual. Nothing in his society asks for or even allows his flowering as a full, free, and responsible person. As is always the case when ‘the good’ becomes ascendant over freedom, and coercion itself becomes a good thing, the individual finds himself in a gulag.”

More Whites Filing Discrimination Suits

blind justiceIt may surprise some people to know that the U.S. Constitution and subsequent civil rights legislation protect every individual, regardless of race or sex. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, etc., applies to all citizens.

Kansas.com reports that discrimination suits filed by whites are on the rise:

“From 1998 to 2008, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recorded a 45 percent rise in race-based discrimination claims filed by whites. (The agency shuns the term “reverse discrimination.”) Today, complaints from whites of racism make up 10.4 percent of all complaints to the agency, up from 8.5 percent in 1998.”

Ricci v. DeStefano didn’t start the fire, but the ruling favorable to white and Hispanic firefighters whose rights were violated sends a message to government entities that believe the law protects only racial minorities.

One side says such incidents don’t mean the “playing field” is leveled and that conservatives “all of a sudden” are front and center fighting discrimination. The obvious implications are that the government is free to discriminate against whites until all disparities disappear, and conservatives, who understand the true meaning of equal justice, don’t care about discrimination against blacks.

The two camps approach the issue of racial discrimination in different ways. While conservatives believe skin color should be left out of the equation, liberals believe blacks and other minorities should receive special treatment. Justifications for this special treatment vary—from rectifying past discrimination to increasing proportional representation.

To some degree, the Ricci case likely will embolden more whites to seek protection of the law from what they perceive as racial discrimination.

DeKalb County’s Darker Administration

About five years ago, one black and three white current and former DeKalb County, Georgia, employees sued Chief Executive Officer Vernon Jones for racial discrimination. The plaintiffs alleged that Jones fired white employees and replaced them with blacks to reflect the percentage of blacks in the county.

Last week, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals cited evidence that showed there was “an overt and unabashed pattern of discrimination,” refused to dismiss the complaint, and sent the case back to trial court. (Source)

One can’t miss the irony involved in these kind of cases. Decades ago, few blacks occupied positions that allowed them to wield such power. Times have changed, but human nature hasn’t. Blacks with hiring/firing power can and do discriminate against non-blacks. Cases like Michael Bryant v. CEO DeKalb County and Ricci v. DeStefano show that the law is no respecter of persons. It protects any individual, regardless of race, whose rights have been violated.

Ward Connerly Says…

beer summitThe American Civil Rights Institute’s Ward Connerly was recently quoted in several news stories. Examples below.

Commenting on the Henry Louis Gates story, Connerly said, “We’ve reached a point where white males are saying, ‘We’ve done all that we need to do in terms of treating black people with kid gloves and giving them deference. Now let’s do what’s right regardless of race.’” (Source)

In the Seattle Times, Connerly said this about the Ricci v. DeStefano case: “What has changed, and it’s been growing, is frustration on the part of whites, especially white males, about remaining silent on what they regard as very unfair.”

(Photo source: Stephen Crowley/The New York Times)

Related Posts with Thumbnails