Last month, the Department of Justice sued New Jersey and its Civil Service Commission for using an exam that “discriminates” against blacks and Hispanics, because these groups scored “statistically significantly lower” than whites.
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez (pictured) said, “This complaint should send a clear message to all public employers that employment practices with unlawful discriminatory impact on account of race or national origin will not be tolerated. The Justice Department will take all necessary action to ensure that such discriminatory practices are eliminated and that the victims of such practices are made whole.”
Speaking at the left-leaning American Constitution Society, Perez said his department has “dusted off the disparate impact theory. If the fact support the use of disparate impact theory, whether it’s in the housing context, the voting context, the employment context, we will use the disparate impact theory because every court that has ruled on this has said that it is permissible to do so.”
The Center for Equal Opportunity’s Roger Clegg writing at NRO’s The Corner points out that during Obama’s recent State of the Union speech, he said his administration “will once again” file suits against civil rights violation and workplace discrimination, implying that the Bush administration didn’t file such suits. If that’s the case, Obama missed a big one. In 2007, Bush’s DOJ sued the New York City Fire Department for discrimination.
Furthermore, “‘the employment discrimination’ that the Obama administration is challenging is not really discrimination at all,” Clegg writes, “it’s the use of written and physical tests that are nondiscriminatory by their terms, in their design, and in their application, but which have a politically incorrect ‘disparate impact’ on this or that racial, ethnic, or gender group.”
Disparate impact creates are a no-win situation, figuratively speaking. Racial disparities in employment tests typically result in discrimination charges, and the employer ends up watering down the test. But the disparity remains. Just short of eliminating tests altogether, which fire and police departments seem reluctant to do, the employer will face discrimination complaints. If the employer tosses test results or adjusts them based on race, he’s in violation of the law.
The solution carries such a high and convoluted burden of proof. The employer must make sure the test is job related, a business necessity, and there are no less discriminatory alternatives for selecting employers.
Thursday, February 4th, 2010,
by La Shawn Barber,
Filed under: Barack Obama, Judiciary, Roger Clegg| |
Comments off
Aside from eliminating civil service tests altogether, what can be done to lessen the adverse impact such tests have on racial minorities? Should there be more emphasis on preparation, tinkering with the test to “ensure” more or less equal outcomes, or rigging the results? Fewer multiple choice questions and more oral testing?
My view on the issue probably is in the minority among minorities. I believe men and women who seek promotions should bear the responsibility of preparing themselves for the tests and be willing to accept the consequences of failing or not scoring high enough to qualify for promotions. Such a simple, common sense opinion earns one scorn and accusations of naiveté.
The Department of Justice has filed suit against New Jersey, alleging racial discrimination against black and Hispanic police officers. The plaintiff seeks to bar the state from using the test. (Source) Download the 10-page complaint. (PDF)
Barack Obama’s assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, the same man who advocates sending lesser qualified doctors to predominately minority areas said, “This complaint should send a clear message to all public employers that employment practices with unlawful discriminatory impact on account of race or national origin will not be tolerated. The Justice Department will take all necessary action to ensure that such discriminatory practices are eliminated and that the victims of such practices are made whole.”
What is it about the promotional multiple choice test that “discriminates” against minorities? In the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, the city of New Haven tinkered with the test to lessen the adverse impact it had on minorities before Frank Ricci filed sued, and whatever the city did to the test apparently didn’t work.
Tuesday, January 12th, 2010,
by La Shawn Barber,
Filed under: Judiciary| |
1 Comment
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)
Tuesday, September 29th, 2009,
by La Shawn Barber,
Filed under: Barack Obama, UC| |
Comments off
The House of Representatives’ version of the so-called health care reform bill contains several references to racial preferences. Here’s an example, found on pages 881-882 (emphases added):
“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.”
For the record, “disadvantaged backgrounds” isn’t referring to individuals of any race; it means racial minorities. This practice, illegal under the U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights Act, provides medical schools with a perverse incentive: lower standards for black applicants and assess their qualifications on a separate track to get more taxpayers’ money.
All in a day’s work for the Obama administration. After all, Thomas Perez, the president’s nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights, believes medical schools should drop standards for black applicants because they’re more likely to work in “underserved” communities than white doctors. In other words, he wants to send lower quality doctors to poor communities.
Nice.
You may download the 1,018-page document here.
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009,
by La Shawn Barber,
Filed under: General| |
Comments off
Thomas Perez, President Barack Obama’s nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights, the same man who believes medical schools should drop standards for black applicants because they’re more likely to work in “underserved” communities than white doctors, also believes in watering down firefighters recruitment tests.
The Center for Equal Opportunity’s Roger Clegg posted on The Corner blog a press release from 2004 when then Montgomery County, Maryland, Councilmember Thomas Perez called for an investigation into the fire department’s written firefighter aptitude test. The problem? Too few blacks were being recruited. From the release:
“These statistics are unacceptable…But I have confidence that we can get back up to the original number of minorities in the Department, and develop a comprehensive plan to recruit diversely…I have worked closely with Fire and Rescue Chief Carr and several other leaders on this issue…We have formed a partnership and the commitment from the department is clearly there.”
I remember covering this story on my personal blog in 2004. According to the Washington Post, 89 percent of class recruits in that fire department were white. Because the county’s population was 60 percent white, elected officials like Perez criticized the department. There was a drop in minority recruits, which likely was caused by the county implementing a race-blind hiring process. For the sake of skin deep-only diversity, people like Perez favor lowering standards to recruit minorities, but call the practice something else: affirmative action.
I also blogged about the New York City Fire Department (FDNY) lowering standards in a “pro-diversity” campaign to attract blacks. FDNY reduced the college credit requirement and considered changing the way the employment test was scored.
In the same post, I mentioned the Denver Fire Department’s new watered down test. I spoke with Chief Larry Trujillo, who said a Denver newspaper article left the impression that he favored the dumbed-down test, but he told me he did not. He said as a minority, he was proud to have gone through the same process as other recruits, but believed “something” needed to be done to bring in more blacks. The fire department hired a consulting firm to create a new test, and I spoke with three people (conference call) at the firm to try to find out what made the new test easier. All they would say is the test would evaluate a broader range of abilities than traditional written tests. The answers were vague on purpose. I suspected the firm watered down portions of the test on which blacks performed poorly.
Finally, years ago I read about one fire department that dropped its swimming test because too few black applicants knew how to swim!
The absurdity is too astounding for words.
I guess the Civil Rights Act and other civil rights legislation – and the entire movement – were pointless. The American people strived to eliminate racial considerations in government hiring and admissions. Almost two generations later, the government still considers race in hiring and admissions.
Thursday, May 14th, 2009,
by La Shawn Barber,
Filed under: Judiciary, Quotas, Roger Clegg| |
Comments off
Paul Mirengoff of the Power Line blog has an op-ed in the Washington Times about the Obama administration’s selection of people who will all but ensure continued racial discrimination. Thomas Perez has been nominated to head the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Justice. Among other things, he believes in lowering standards for minority medical school applicants. See Obama Nominee Suggests Lower Quality Doctors for Minorities for more information.
Mirengoff writes:
Mr. Perez …is best-known for his efforts to develop cutting-edge theories with which to defend discrimination in favor of blacks and other minority groups.
In a 2006 article in the University of Maryland’s Journal of Health Care Law and Policy, Mr. Perez argued for the preferential treatment of minority applicants for medical school admission on the theory that minority medical school graduates are significantly more likely than their white counterparts to provide care to the poor.
…
However, Mr. Perez’s analysis is not intellectually honest because it fails to acknowledge that those admitted through racial preferences also are disproportionately likely to do poorly in medical school and, thereafter, disproportionately less likely to obtain important board certifications. In other words, lowering admission standards for minority applicants reduces the number of well-qualified doctors.
Mirengoff takes the analysis a step further by offering this insight: that black doctors serve the poor disproportionately may be the result of fewer options because of lesser qualifications (and not necessarily because of an altruistic impulse). Poorer communities are therefore being served by doctors admitted to medical schools under race preferences and are, by definition, less qualified than doctors who had to compete with everyone else.
Perez believes and advocates such a practice. If confirmed, he’ll continue advocating lower standards for minority medical school applicants. Occupying a high position in the Justice Department, he’d have a powerful platform from which to spread his ideas of “medical apartheid,” as Linda Chavez correctly calls it.
Tuesday, April 28th, 2009,
by La Shawn Barber,
Filed under: General| |
Comments off
President Barack Obama’s nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom 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.
Yes, that’s what he said.
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 latest column (emphasis added):
“[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.”
So Perez believes medical schools should produce lower quality doctors to serve poor people. If a conservative had suggested such a thing, he’d be called a racist for pushing less qualified doctors on poor minorities. But because Perez is a leftist, he gets a pass.
Chavez points to a study conducted by CEO on lowered standards for medical school admissions at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. Blacks were admitted with much lower grades and scores than whites, Asians, or Hispanics.
Sadly, Tom Perez probably will be confirmed, barring any tax problems.
(Baltimore Sun photo by Glenn Fawcett / March 18, 2009)
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009,
by La Shawn Barber,
Filed under: General| |
Comments off
