Archive for December, 2009
Update (1/5/09): Nice Instapundit link to the Berkeley High article.
***
On international science tests, American students perpetually lag behind their peers in other developed countries. A logical response might be to beef up science programs in government schools, but logic is hard to come by in skin-deep-only-diversity-obsessed bureaucracies.
One school seeks to do the opposite, and for the most insulting of reasons. Berkeley High’s School Governance Council, a body of teachers, parents, and students, proposes to eliminate before- and after-school science labs at Berkeley High School (BHS) and divert resources to narrowing the intractable racial academic achievement gap. According to the East Bay Express, an alternate parent representative on the council said “information presented at council meetings suggests that the science labs were largely classes for white students,” although black students take science classes. One teacher said she has 12 black male students in her Advanced Placement classes, and black and Hispanic students account for a third of her four environmental science classes.
BHS purportedly has the widest racial academic achievement gap in California, which the council deemed “unconscionable.” Depriving students of science lab instruction because the labs benefit mostly white students apparently isn’t unconscionable.
Read the rest at Townhall.
Happy New Year, everybody!
Filed under: Column | |Comments off
The Washington Times editorializes about racially discriminatory provisions in the health care reform bill (see our previous coverage here):
“Not only are these provisions morally suspect, but they also fly in the face of recent (and wise) Supreme Court precedent. Even in the one recent case where the high court did allow limited racial preferences, Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, the court went to great lengths to note that ‘racial classifications, however compelling their goals, are potentially so dangerous that they may be employed no more broadly than the interest demands. Enshrining a permanent justification for racial preferences would offend this fundamental equal protection principle.’
…
“Other cases, such as Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Ricci v. DeStefano (2009), make clear that racial preferences by government are presumptively illegal. The Ricci case was the one in which the court ruled in favor of white firefighters who previously had been denied promotions that all agreed they had earned. Although not a direct constitutional challenge, it succinctly stated the guiding principle: ‘No individual should face workplace discrimination based on race.’”
The strangest part of all of this is people inherently understand that the provisions are discriminatory, even if the intent is to rectify the past or “fix” under-representation. Americans cannot invoke our country’s history of discrimination to justify such practices today. Government-mandated discrimination was wrong then, and it’s wrong now.
These aren’t mere platitudes intended to downplay this country’s previous treatment of blacks. We will never come to terms with the past if we continue allowing our government to rationalize racial discrimination for whatever reason.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
While I’m working on an article about Berkeley High School proposing to cut before- and after-school science labs because they benefit white students, I wanted to point you to this story. A group of white teachers is suing the Board of Education in Peoria, Illinois, alleging racial discrimination.
According to the complaint, the board adopted “policies, practices, and plans” to hire more black teachers and staff, and to avoid discrimination lawsuits by black employees and citizens, which lead to discrimination against whites. Examples of the alleged disparate treatment:
White employees were told they didn’t have the skills or competence to teach black children because they’re white; white employees were prevented from attending school functions because they’re white; white employees were reprimanded for the way they dressed and blacks weren’t; (“One black employee regularly wore pajamas to the workplace with no action being taken to correct his attire.”); white employees assaulted by blacks; and white employees allege that black teachers and staff were hired based on race and not competence.
Download the 12-page complaint for details.
Is the board intentionally discriminating against whites to avoid liability for unintentional discrimination against blacks? The Supreme Court addressed the issue in Ricci v. DeStefano. In the context of employment tests, before employers decide to discriminate against one group to avoid disparate impact liability from another, they must have a “strong basis in evidence” to believe they would be liable.
“Fear of litigation alone,” contended the court, “cannot justify the City’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.”
Filed under: Judiciary | |1 Comment
Hans A. von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation writes about racially discriminatory provisions in the most recent version of the health care reform bill. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sent letters to Senate and House leadership and the president advising them to remove the language.
The provisions would grant funding priority to institutions that prefer and discriminate based on race. From National Review:
“The Senate bill even creates a federally funded and administered medical school called the United States Public Health Services Track to ‘grant appropriate advanced degrees,’” von Spakovsky writes. ‘Priority in admissions is to be given to ’students from rural communities and underrepresented minorities.’ (‘Underrepresented minorities’ is liberal code for ‘Asians need not apply.’)
“Naturally, other sections of the bill require lots of data collection regarding race, ethnicity, sex, and so on. Those data will be used to implement quotas of all kinds and put providers at risk of being sued. For example, the data will help trial lawyers pursue “disparate impact” cases against physicians and hospitals — even if the differing health outcomes of patients have nothing to do with actual discriminatory treatment by providers. One provision even requires the secretary of health and human services to consult with “representatives of racial and ethnic minorities” about the content of promotional labels or print ads for drugs. Racial politics is poised to trump scientific accuracy in drug labeling.”
The commission cited research that showed improving quality of care at hospitals in minority areas would improve minority care more than eliminating racial disparities. Poor quality care and qualifications, and not the provider’s race or ethnicity, play greater roles in disparities.
“In, sum, the kind of care you get — and your individual health outcome — is determined by your doctor’s skill, not by his race or “cultural sensitivity,” writes von Spakovsky. “Unfortunately, the Democrats’ health-care legislation will force medical institutions to hire based on race and sex, not qualifications, and to lower their admission standards, which will lead to even more ‘low-quality’ doctors. Medical students admitted based on lower qualifications generally perform more poorly on licensing exams.”
Von Spakovsky invokes the late Patrick Chavis as an example of race over qualifications. Admitted to the University of California at Davis with lower qualifications than the rejected Allan Bakke, plaintiff in University of California v. Bakke, Chavis was sued for malpractice and lost his license.
If the provisions are unchallenged (legally speaking), they will pass along with the rest of the bill.
And race will retain its place in American law.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
Why would adding an eight-point credit to the exams of high school graduates or GED holders applying to the New York City Fire Department (FDNY) result in more black firefighters? (Source)
New York City Councilman Leroy Comrie is proposing such a bill. FDNY requires applicants to have at least 15 college semester credits earned at an accredited college or university, full time military service with an honorable discharge, or six months of full time, satisfactory paid work experience.
Giving applicants extra points merely for graduating high school certainly would benefit applicants, but why would doing so result in more black firefighters?
Ah, there’s the rub! It may result in more black firefighters if the credit were applied only to blacks.
And that would be illegal.
Mark Daly, communications director for the Department of Citywide Administrative Services, said the bill “would not pass legal muster, but we are willing to work with the council to create a proposal that can be upheld by the courts. The state constitution requires candidates be chosen by fitness and merit. Just graduating from a New York City high school is not enough.”
Talk about lowered standards!
Veterans, NYC residents, parents of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty, and siblings of officers and firefighters killed on September 11, receive extra points. But these race-neutral credits are legal.
One councilman who opposes the bill gets to the heart of the issue: obsession with skin deep-only diversity. “I don’t think it’s fair,” said City Councilman Eric Ulrich. “If they want it to be all inclusive why don’t they have it apply to graduates of city Catholic schools and Yeshivas as well.”
It’s obvious Comrie and supporters haven’t thought this through. They should read Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950, one of my favorite books, as well as heed the lessons in the Supreme Court case, Ricci v. DeStefano.
Filed under: Diversity | |1 Comment
In the previous post, I blogged about a New York Times story highlighting Chicago’s new plan to consider social and economic factors while assigning students to magnet and selective government schools.
The Chronicle of Higher Education cites a new study that purportedly shows the main reason students quit college is financial. In this context, the Chronicle asks scholars and experts whether schools should admit students based on socioeconomic status rather than skin color.
The Center for Equal Opportunity’s Roger Clegg says no. “[I]f people are dropping out of college for financial reasons, that certainly would argue for better need-based aid for those admitted,” but not for preferences.
Diversity proponents tend to focus on skin color, but Clegg notes that socioeconomic preferences may provide the so-called educational benefits schools seek, but “without the ugliness, divisiveness, and myriad other costs” of racial preferences.
Contrast Clegg’s answer with NAACP chairman Julian Bond’s, who wants everyone to know that poverty is not a proxy for race. He supports socioeconomic considerations in admissions, but believes the government should retain racial preferences and discrimination.
Oddly, Bond evokes the murder of Bill Cosby’s son to bolster his support for racial preferences and to show “how feeble the Cosbys’s great wealth was in protecting their son against this ugly virus.”
Is Bond saying that discriminating against whites and lowering standards for blacks protects blacks from violent crime committed by “racist” whites? Interesting, since most crimes of violence against blacks are committed by other blacks.
Bond’s bringing up the murder of Cosby’s son in such a context is irrelevant, disingenuous, puzzling, and nutty.
Pope Center director George Leef believes admitting students based on socioeconomic status could raise the drop-out rate.
“Students who struggle in college because they can’t handle the combination of course work and part-time employment will not have an easier time if they’re enrolled at a more-selective institution, where the work is usually more difficult and the costs greater…Class-based affirmative action merely shuffles a small number of students from poorer families up into more-prestigious colleges, where they receive an education that isn’t necessarily any better than they’d have received elsewhere.”
Lee Bollinger, former president of the University of Michigan, parrots the pro-preferences line, but attempts to obscure his skin color-diversity obsession.
“One thing I’m concerned about is that we not be forced to make a false choice between admission policies that focus on wealth and class and those that seek to achieve greater diversity based on race and ethnicity,” he said. We want our colleges and universities to reflect many kinds of diversity, and we cannot assume that focusing on one will address the other.”
Bollinger was the defendant in two racial preferences cases that reached the Supreme Court. Michigan awarded minority students applying to the school an automatic 20 points just for being minorities (Gratz v. Bollinger). The court ruled this practice unconstitutional.
Calling Bollinger’s remarks insincere, plaintiff Jennifer Gratz said that during the trial, he tried his best to characterize her as a “rich white girl,” although she says she grew up in a low to moderate income home.
“I don’t believe anything will ever reach the level of importance that racial diversity does in the mind of Lee Bollinger.”
To quote a Supreme Court justice, I concur.
Filed under: Jennifer Gratz, Socioeconomic AA | |Comments off
Racial preferences proponents in Chicago are panicking, if you believe this story, over a plan to consider a student’s socioeconomic status rather than his skin color when assigning to magnet and selective government schools.
In recent years, courts have ordered school districts to keep race out of the assignment equation. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled two years ago that schools in Jefferson County, Kentucky, and Seattle, Washington, could not use race as a tiebreaker when assigning students. Bureaucrats must be subtler about discriminating and preferring certain races over others.
On the other hand, California’s First District Court of Appeal ruled earlier this year that Berkeley Unified School District’s race-based assignment plan did not violate the state’s ban on racial preferences.
A 1980 consent decree, which allowed Chicago to assign students by race, was vacated in September. Affected schools will consider socioeconomic and legacy factors to assign students. Minority parents fear (strong word) the change will negatively impact their children. An excerpt:
“The data obtained by the Chicago News Cooperative shows that where race was not used as a factor in admissions, 85 percent of either black or white students would have to change schools to achieve an even distribution between the two groups across the entire school system. But in schools where race is allowed to be a factor in admissions, only 62 percent of either black or white students would have to change schools.
“Similarly, to achieve a balanced mix of black and Hispanic students throughout the district, 69 percent of either group would have to move at schools where race is considered in admissions. Where race is not taken into account, 81 percent of such students would have to switch schools.
The practical challenges to school integration are substantial, in part because white students make up only about 9 percent of the public school population, compared to a white population of 31.5 percent in the city. But at magnet, gifted, classical and selective-enrollment schools, 17 percent of the students are white, nearly double their presence throughout the public school system, according to data from the Illinois State Board of Education.”
After all, a balanced mix of races is what’s most important. According to “research,” the performance of lower-income students can be improved when they attend classes with higher-income students. But there’s a problem. The majority of students in Chicago are from low-income homes.
This is one of the reasons some racial preferences proponents prefer race-based assignments over socioeconomic status assignments. Is socioeconomic preference, or poverty, to be precise, a proxy for race?
Filed under: Legacy Preferences, Socioeconomic AA | |Comments off
Back in August, I blogged about racial preferences provisions (and wrote about them in a Townhall column) in the House of Representatives’s version of the health care reform bill. Found on page 881 of a bill of over 1,000 pages, for example:
“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of…Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”
The Washington Times reported that the U.S. Civil Rights Commission intended to send a letter to the president and Congress, asking them to rewrite the provisions and to inform members the programs mentioned in the bill were “unlikely to reduce health care disparities among racial and ethic groups.”
The wheels of bureaucracy turn very slowly. The commission sent the letter to House leadership in October and a similar letter to Senate leadership on December 11. (Hat tip: Heritage)
An excerpt of the seven-page letter (emphasis added):
“No matter how well-intentioned, utilizing racial preferences with the hope of alleviating health care disparities is inadvisable both as a matter of policy and a matter of law. This is not to suggest that more cannot or should not be done to attract highly qualified physicians and other health care professional of any race to practice in underserved areas, where they are in short supply and badly needed. But any recruitment, training, or assessment of such health care professionals’ qualifications, and any federal funding thereof, must be accomplished without regard to race.
…
“As we noted in our October 9, 2009 letter, it is generally illegal for the government to show favoritism or even use classifications based on race, ethnicity, or sex. Indeed, such classifications and favoritism are ‘presumptively invalid.’…To withstand…[strict scrutiny], a racial classification must be necessary to serve a compelling state interest and must be narrowly drawn to serve that end…It is unlikely that the Senate Health Care bill’s racial classifications…would survive legal scrutiny.”
Filed under: General | |Comments off
The Center for Equal Opportunity’s Roger Clegg writes about tenure discrimination allegations against Emerson College and DePaul University at Minding the Campus.
Two blacks at Emerson and four women at DePaul claim they were refused tenure based on race and sex. “In neither case has direct evidence of discriminatory intent been alleged, such as racist or sexist comments,” writes Clegg. “Instead, statistical disparities of one sort or another are cited.”
Statistical disparities? Sounds like the makings of disparate impact claims. Clegg believes race and sex discrimination exists, but in academic settings, it typically takes form against whites, non-preferred minorities, and men.
“But no doubt there remain aberrant instances of old-fashioned discrimination against ‘underrepresented’ minorities and women. And perhaps the plaintiffs here will be able to marshal persuasive evidence that this is what happened to them.”
Clegg points out that some who say they oppose discrimination nonetheless support racial preferences, the “politically correct kind” of discrimination. When it’s against blacks, it’s obviously wrong. Discrimination against whites, on the other hand, is wrong only to those who believe race should play no part in hiring, promoting, or admitting. Pro-preference folks have argued that the use of race-based preferential treatment for hiring and promoting is justified based on the “role model” rationale. No matter how well intentioned, it doesn’t justify discrimination. Besides, says Clegg, the Supreme Court rejected the argument.
Turning the role-model rationale on its head, Clegg writes:
“[I]n Hazelwood School District v. United States, the Court had similarly noted that a school district could not point to the racial makeup of its student body as a justification for the racial makeup of its faculty. And rightly so. As Justice Powell wrote in Wygant, ‘Carried to its logical extreme, the idea that black students are better off with black teachers could lead to the very system the Court rejected in Brown v. Board of Education.’
“Likewise, are Idaho universities entitled to avoid hiring African Americans, Maine colleges Latinos, and Nebraska schools Asians—to ensure that those states’ natives are not taught by someone who may not look like they do? Should Ruth Simmons have been disqualified as president of Brown University, on the grounds that she is an unsuitable role model for all those white male students there?”
Of course, avoiding hiring preferred minorities as faculty in overwhelmingly white schools (or states) would be the wrong kind of discrimination, despite its consistency with the “role model” argument.
Consistency is the bane of PC’s existence.
Clegg reminds readers that schools should “simply hire the best professors they can. Period.” Unless the court strikes down or Congress repeals the disparate impact provision of the code, race will be relevant. Unfortunately.
Filed under: Roger Clegg | |Comments off
Seven years ago, a group of black employees filed suit alleging the Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany (MCLB) discriminated against them. The story contains no details about the allegations, although it notes the case involved “more than 387,000 documents totaling more than 810,000 pages; interviews of numerous witnesses; extensive written discovery; and depositions of approximately 20 fact and expert witnesses.” (Source)
I’d really like to get a copy of the group’s allegations against the MCLB. Based on the context of the story, it sounds like a case of unintentional discrimination. The court approved a settlement in September, and a final settlement agreement was executed in October. Curiously, the settlement “is not an admission of liability or fault.” Why not? From the article:
“Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that the merit-staffing process had disparate impact on African-American applicants. The disparate-impact theory of discrimination addresses employment practices that are not intended to discriminate but in fact have a disproportionately adverse effect on a protected minority. Thus disparate-impact claims do not involve the issue of intentional discrimination.”
So, the group claims MCLB’s hiring and training practices had a disparate impact on black employees, and the terms of the settlement no doubt will entail changing hiring and training practices. You don’t have to hold a degree in rocket surgery to guess how these practices will change to eliminate disparate impact. But let’s pretend such a degree is required and take our best guess. Employers may drop standards for everyone (not likely) or assess blacks on a lower standard than everyone else.
If employers choose the latter, they may avoid disparate impact lawsuits, but could face a disparate treatment scenario similar to Ricci v. DeStefano. The U.S. Supreme Court found that New Haven intentionally discriminated against white firefighters to avoid liability for unintentional discrimination against black firefighters.
Filed under: Judiciary | |Comments off
« Previous Entries||
