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.

DOJ sealWriting 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.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Washington Times on Thomas Perez

by lbarber on 09/29/2009

in Barack Obama,UC

Thomas PerezThe 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)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

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.

donutsAlthough 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.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Swim Club Discrimination?

by lbarber on 09/25/2009

in General

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.”

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Ricci Reverberations

by lbarber on 09/23/2009

in General

firefightersIn 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.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Craziest Potential Racial Discrimination Case Ever

September 23, 2009

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 [...]

Read the full article →

Jane Elliott: Diversity Training Pioneer

September 18, 2009

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 [...]

Read the full article →

Teacher Absences Connected to Achievement Gap?

September 15, 2009
Read the full article →

West Point’s Diversity Funding

September 9, 2009

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 [...]

Read the full article →

Update on Berkeley’s Race-Based Assignment Plan

September 9, 2009

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 [...]

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Read the full article →