Archive for September, 2009
One problem with legislation created during the civil rights era to protect blacks from discrimination is that its present-day application typically is condescending.
For example, Georgia tried to protect the integrity of the voting process by requiring voters to present state-issued identification. I was under the impression that this was standard practice, but groups cried discrimination and compared this requirement to poll taxes and literacy tests, which whites used against poor and illiterate blacks to keep them from voting. Detractors claimed the ID requirement was discriminatory to old, low-income, and black people. Black legislators in Georgia even walked out of the state capital building in protest after the law passed.
I can’t help but think of the Stepin Fetchit character, and how little regard these black politicians had for their own people—too ignorant and/or too lazy to go down to the DMV and get a state-issued ID card, which was free if they couldn’t afford it.
I’m probably in the minority of blacks who sees the stark patronizing and condescending attitude people have toward black Americans, or at least one of a few to publicly talk about it.
Writing in National Review Online, Hans A. von Spakovsky, a former counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Justice Department, writes about an example of the Voting Rights Act’s Section 5 application. This law is a holdover from the civil rights era that requires certain states to seek federal approval to make changes in voting procedures. Regarding the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division:
“These highly partisan bureaucrats…typically exhibit a disturbingly patronizing attitude towards [black Americans]…The latest example of this transparent political mischief has, unfortunately, gone largely unreported by the media. It’s an outrageous objection by the Civil Rights Division to a voting change in the small town of Kinston, N.C. The case involved a referendum by the residents of Kinston to change the elections for city council from partisan to nonpartisan. The referendum passed overwhelmingly in November 2008. But the Justice Department recently refused to pre-clear it, claiming that it discriminates against minorities.
“The department’s decision is as offensive as it is inexplicable. Consider that, at the time of the November 2008 election, Kinston had about 15,000 registered voters, of whom 65 percent were black. This is actually a higher registration rate than one would expect, since the 2000 census showed that the black voting-age population is just 58.8 percent of the total population. Moreover, on the town’s five-member city council (elected at large), two of the councilmen are black and all five are Democrats. Although the current mayor is white, the longtime prior mayor was black.”
Von Spakovsky adds that DOJ lawyers use the Voting Rights Act to benefit Democrats. I certainly can believe that, as 90 percent of black Americans vote for Democrats. But partisanship aside, the government believes blacks need hand-holding and special treatment, cannot be expected to use discernment or be responsible for their choices, or deal with the consequences of those choices.
Hence, the existence of such policies as racial preferences, which hold blacks to a lesser standard.
Filed under: Barack Obama, General | |Comments off
The Washington Times recently published an editorial about Thomas Perez, Maryland’s secretary of labor and President Barack Obama’s nominee for assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
Focusing on his record on illegal immigration and comments on racial preferences, the Times writes:
“[Perez] has served as president of the board of CASA de Maryland, an immigrant-advocacy organization known for taking several rather extreme positions. For instance, CASA has fought against keeping illegal immigrants from getting state drivers’ licenses. Mr. Perez himself has supported efforts to grant in-state tuition rates to undocumented immigrants. And he has been a strong proponent of giving preferential treatment to members of some races or ethnicities in admissions to schools to train health professionals…On that latter point, Mr. Perez argued that racial preferences could be used not just for ‘remedial’ purposes — not just to make up for past discrimination.”
Indeed, Perez believes medical schools should drop standards for black applicants, because he contends they are more likely to work in “underserved” communities than white doctors. Linda Chavez of the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) tackles the topic of Perez’s strange ideas published in a law journal in 2006. An excerpt from her column:
“[Perez] cited a handful of studies purported to show that minority doctors are more likely to provide medical care to under-served poor minority populations than white physicians…He then leapt to the conclusion that the best way to improve access to medical care for underserved populations was to insist that medical schools use race or ethnicity in choosing which students to admit.
“In effect, Perez appears to be arguing for a form of medical apartheid in which minority patients should be served by minority doctors under the presumption that both groups benefit from this practice. The argument is both insulting and dangerous.”
Last month, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights called the president’s health care bill’s race-based preferential treatment provisions discriminatory and found that such efforts likely won’t reduce heath care disparities. Increasing access to high-quality doctors, regardless of race, “is the best way to mitigate such disparities.” (Source)
Filed under: Barack Obama, UC | |Comments off
The student newspaper for the University of California at Irvine published an editorial in 2003 about a racial preferences bake sale hosted by the College Republicans as a protest against racial preferences and to encourage students to vote for the Racial Privacy Initiative. The measure, which failed to pass, would have amended the California constitution to bar state and local governments from classifying residents by race.
Although the editorial’s six years old, I wanted to address the author’s erroneous conclusion, because I’m sure other opponents of such sales make the same claim.
A typical “affirmative action” bake sale: items are priced based on race. For instance, students of Asian descent are charged the most for baked goods and black students charged the least. The goal is to illustrate the inherent unfairness and offensiveness of lowering standards for certain races while keeping standards high for others.
The school’s dean asked the group to shut down the sale.
The editorial writer agreed with the dean. “Under the First Amendment, people are given the freedom of speech and the right to espouse whatever opinions they wish. However, selling doughnuts was an action.”
The First Amendment prohibits the government from making laws that curtail the freedom of speech; however, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to restrict such speech as obscenity. The court also has interpreted the amendment to extend protection to expression, and included in this category is “symbolic speech.” This category of speech is typically, though not always, non-verbal. Racial preference bake sales, actions that express an idea, can be classified as symbolic speech.
In 1974, the Supreme Court held in Spence v. Washington that displaying an American flag upside down (in protest of the Vietnam War) is protected expression, or symbolic speech. In affirmative action bake sales, students are expressing disapproval of a school policy they believe is discriminatory.
One may disagree with the court’s interpretation or my applying Spence to affirmative action bake sales on college campuses. The point is, certain actions may be considered protected forms of expression. The editorial writer’s comment that “selling doughnuts was an action” does not exclude the action from First Amendment protection.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
Back in June, The Valley Club in Pennsylvania turned away a group of 56 black day camp kids (some sources cite 65, which includes Hispanics) who came to use the private club’s swimming pool. The club gave the camp a refund.
Naturally, accusations of “racism” flew, especially when some of the children said they heard a club member ask why the black kids were there. Employees say the incident wasn’t racially motivated – too many kids, some of whom couldn’t swim, not enough bodyguards on duty, etc.
Although the club is private, turning away a group of racial minorities was bound to cause a ruckus. Last week, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission found probable cause of racial discrimination. The Valley Club may have to pony up $50,000 in civil penalties. (Source)
How does a private club fall under the jurisdiction of a government agency? The commission’s 33-page report (PDF) doesn’t answer the question. After reading the report, my view still holds: the group was too large and disruptive, and dues-paying members complained. The evidence of discrimination is pretty thin. Because the kids were mostly black, however, and some heard a club member – not an employee of the club – mentioning race, it became a racial issue.
The Valley Club may appeal the decision. I suggest the club changes its policy to expressly prohibit groups over a certain size from using the facilities or designate certain days for day camp swimming while giving dues-paying members advance notice of the schedule.
Update: John Hudson, who’s comment was deleted as spam (text retrieved), wrote:
“You indicated that you did not see how a private club could fall under the jurisdiction of this commission. Findings 10 and 11 state that the club allowed its facilities to be used by non-members on a fee for use basis. This makes it a business open to the public and not a private club for this purpose. As a result it is subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as any other business open to the public. The mere fact that it also use of its facilities based on membership does not alter the fact that it also rented out its facilities to the public and was therefore a public accommodation. If you want to have a private club that bars non-whites you have a constitutional right to do so under the freedom of association that the Supreme Court has implied into the First Amendment. However, an accommodation open to the general public is not an exercise of that right to choose your associates.”
Filed under: General | |Comments off
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of white firefighters and against the city of New Haven in Ricci v DeStefano. The city had thrown out the results of a promotions test because no blacks scored high enough to qualify for promotions. The city claimed that had it certified the test results, it could have been sued by black firefighters under the disparate impact theory.
In a 5-4 decision split along party lines, the Supreme Court held that the city violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it discarded the test. The decision was based on an analysis of Title VII’s provisions on disparate treatment and disparate impact. New Haven intentionally discriminated against white firefighters (disparate treatment) to avoid liability for unintentional discrimination against black firefighters (disparate impact).
Years ago, in an effort to make the test more “black-friendly,” New Haven hired a consulting firm to create an easier test. Since blacks disproportionately failed to qualify for promotions with the new test, government entities and test consulting firms are “more confused about compliance with the nation’s discrimination laws.” (Source) Unfortunately, many fear to simply hire people based on objective scores, as disparate impact lawsuits usually result. What are their post-Ricci options?
Some defend multiple choice civil service tests and say they “test job knowledge in many professions, including medicine and law.” Detractors cite racial disparities as evidence that the tests are unreliable.
Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. Government entities may be able to reduce disparate impact claims by doing away with paper-and-pencil or computerized multiple choice tests altogether (instead of spending money hiring firms to constantly rewrite them) and assess candidates and employees on such factors as…
No, wouldn’t work. Whatever factors hiring and promotions are based on, racial differences will become apparent, and suits will follow.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
A white cop was put on desk duty and ordered to stay off the street, because he came to work with braided hair. Although “dozens” of black cops in Philadelphia wear cornrows on the street while on duty, Officer Thomas Strain apparently looked ridiculous enough to warrant action.
It should go without saying that if police departments allow black male officers to wear their hair in braids on the street, pulling Officer Strain because he wore braids on the street is racially discriminatory. (Source)
It’s unknown whether the officers allowed to wear braids are females, who police departments give more leeway when it comes to hairstyles.
An unnamed officer said, “It’s absolutely discriminatory. Strain’s cornrows ‘do was neat. It was above his collar. It’s not like he shaved a Nazi sign or something anti-black or anti-Hispanic on his head. It’s just cornrows. I don’t know what the problem is.”
I suspect the department thought black residents and black fellow officers would consider Strain’s cornrows offensive, a sort of “That’s our hairstyle. Are you making fun of us?” attitude.
Look to the Constitution! If blacks are allowed to look ridiculous and unprofessional on the job, whites should be allowed to look ridiculous and unprofessional on the job.
It’s a different matter altogether, however, if “dozens” of black male cops are wearing braids while undercover to better “infiltrate” target groups, and Strain wasn’t undercover.
Clarification: If it’s not clear in my post, I’ll make it clear now: I don’t like cornrows on men, especially for the workplace. On women…whatever.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
The National League and Policy Center (NLPC) released a 16-page report titled, “The Authoritarian Roots of Corporate Diversity Training,” (PDF) which traces the history of so-called diversity training in corporations.
We’re all used to the government using preferences to hire, contract, and admit. The private sector, while not mandated to use preferences, nevertheless is pressured to hire and contract based on race to achieve skin deep-only diversity, especially if they want to do business with the government. The pressure includes so-called diversity training.
The diversity training idea stems from a former teacher named Jane Elliott, who required her all-white class to participate in role-playing exercises. Groups were separated by eye color. The first day, the blues were treated well and the browns were treated badly. The next day, the treatment was reversed. The point was for whites to be on the receiving end of ill-treatment and empathize with blacks.
Elliott went on to lead diversity sessions at corporations, conducting similar role-playing exercises, commanding a fee of $6,000.
Diversity training isn’t an innocuous exercise. The premise is that whites are racists and collectively guilty (in perpetuity) for crimes their ancestors committed.
“The diversity industry has come along way,” writes Dr. Carl F. Horowitz, the report’s author. “But whether the trainees are children or childlike adults, the premise is the same: Whites must accept the fact that they are guilty until proven innocent, and thus need attitudinal rewiring. And training, Jane Elliott-style, means never having the opportunity to protest one’s innocence.”
With the pressure of potential disparate impact lawsuits hanging over their heads, not to mention fear of boycotts, corporations gladly “encourage” employees to attend diversity training sessions and hiring managers to take race into account when selecting and promoting employees.
The Department of Homeland Security has put out a call to the “diversity community” to come together and brainstorm how to hire/promote more racial minorities. (Hat tip: Roger Clegg at NRO)
Filed under: General | |Comments off
So implies Thelma Jackson, a consultant and former educational advisory board member from Olympia, Washington.
The gap is blamed on everything from racism and bias to under-funding and racial isolation (implying that blacks can’t be properly educated unless they’re with whites). Why not teacher sick days? (Source)
Jackson’s 40-page report traces the city’s integration efforts during the civil rights movement and acknowledges that Tacoma’s desegregation process was relatively smooth. Part of the problem now, which is only hinted at, is that half the students in government schools in Tacoma are racial minorities. That doesn’t bode well for the idealistic and overly ambitious goal of racial balance.
At present, Americans have the right to live wherever they can afford (and not afford, unfortunately), and parents with the means and/or determination move to neighborhoods with better government schools, or opt to homeschool or pay for private schools. A social engineer’s desire for racially balanced government schools won’t happen anytime soon, unless the government begins coercing people to live in certain neighborhoods.
Barring that scenario, folks like Jackson want school districts to take a “comprehensive approach” to closing the gap, which includes raising the quality of teachers, and placing more black students in programs like Advanced Placement and the “Highly Capable” program by making “necessary changes to eliminate the gross disproportionality that currently exists for African American students.”
What sort of changes is Jackson referring to? Let’s speculate: lowering standards for black students. Lowering standards for ALL students would render such programs useless.
I’m not certain why the News Tribune article linked to in this post focuses on teacher absenteeism’s purported relationship to the gap. Perhaps the paper considers it a novel idea. According to the report, which doesn’t analyze the relationship, if any, between absenteeism and the gap:
“[O]n any given day, hundreds, if not thousands, of students in Tacoma schools are without a qualified teacher and/or substitute due to chronic absenteeism. This occurs mostly on Mondays and Fridays and before and after holidays (specific data is available from Human Resources). With no teaching there can be no learning. It is apparent that student learning cannot happen under these conditions. According to Education Trust, if districts took the simple step of assuring that African American and other low-performing students had teachers of the same quality as other children, about half of the achievement gap would disappear.”
Half the gap would disappear? First time I’ve heard that. Just about everything Jackson recommends for closing the academic achievement gap between blacks and everyone else has been tried before.
The gap still exists.
Solutions?
Filed under: Achievement Gap | |Comments off
Racial diversity as a goal is neither good nor bad. The rightness or wrongness turns on how the goal is achieved.
The latest in diversity-seeking news: the U.S. House of Representatives approved $1 million in funding for diversity recruitment at West Point. The school’s “internal goal” falls between 130 to 169 black admittees, but the average is 82 over the last 10 years. The diversity campaign supposedly will help West Point reach the goal. (Source)
How?
The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) published a study titled, “Racial, Ethnic and Gender Preferences in Admissions to the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy,” which showed that both service academies lowered standards for black admittees, and the academic qualifications gap between blacks and whites was “substantial.”
The gap between West Point admittees was smaller than the Navy’s gap, and the one between whites and Hispanics was smaller. The study concludes that Hispanics don’t benefit from admissions preferences at West Point, and there’s no evidence that Asians receive preferences at either academy.
Bruce Fleming, a professor at the Naval Academy, exposed his school’s two-tiered admissions process.
This process, from my perspective, is the wrong way to achieve racial diversity.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
Does it really require 36 pages to explain that the Berkeley Unified School District’s (BUSD) race-based assignment plan is producing more integrated schools? Apparently. (PDF)
The district “integrates” elementary and magnet schools by considering income and education levels of parents and the race and ethnicity of “planning areas.” Berkeley looks at these so-called diversity factors and gives priority to a student based on certain characteristics. Berkeley High School, the district’s only government high school, offers a general curriculum and six specialized programs. The goal is for the programs to reflect racial and socioeconomic diversity of the high school. The result is that some students are denied admission based on the color of their skin.
Five months ago, the California Court of Appeals ruled that BUSD’s plan is not discriminatory. The court contended that because all students in a residential area get the same treatment (diversity coding), the practice isn’t illegal. It’s worth noting that California law bars the state from discriminating against or preferring individuals or groups in hiring, contracting, and admissions based on race.
According to UCLA’s Civil Rights Project, the plan is a success, at least for elementary schools. The race-based plan “produces substantial racial-ethnic diversity” in those schools but isn’t as effective producing diversity of socioeconomic status. Berkeley’s elementary schools appeared integrated based on a 10 percentage-point criteria. In general, these schools have the “proper” share of races. Not so for socioeconomic status:
“Whereas the representation of low-income students varied by 10 percentage points and more from all elementary school students in just two schools, that number increases to six when applying the 5 percentage points criteria. One school had nearly 60% of students from low income families while another only had 36%. Two of the three schools where all racial-ethnic groups were balanced were schools that were out of economic balance due to having lower percentages of low-income students than among all BUSD elementary students. Thus, by this measure of student poverty, BUSD’s student assignment plan is not as effective as it is for diversifying most racial groups of students.”
Solutions to this imbalance? Simplifying the application process for low-income families, offering opportunities for these parents to learn about schools under the district’s “controlled choice” plan, and reaching out to low-income parents.
Racial diversity itself isn’t the problem. It’s the method government schools use to achieve diversity. BUSD could steer clear of legal challenges if it moved away from skin color designations and focused on socioeconomic status.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
« Previous Entries||
