Court Rejects “Reverse” Racism (Update)
John on June 29, 2009 at 9:26 am
No one is going to put it in those terms of course, but that’s what it amounts to really. From the Wall Street Journal:
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the court’s opinion, said the city of New Haven violated a section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits employment discrimination.
“Whatever the city’s ultimate aim — however well intentioned or benevolent it might have seemed — the city made its employment decision because of race,” Justice Kennedy wrote.
“The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white.”
How long before we get a similar result on other elements of affirmative action? According to former Justice O’Connor it shouldn’t be more than 19 more years. [sigh]
Update: George Will has a good column on this today:
Although New Haven’s firefighters deservedly won in the Supreme Court, it is deeply depressing that they won narrowly — 5-4. The egregious behavior by that city’s government, in a context of racial rabble-rousing, did not seem legally suspect to even one of the court’s four liberals, whose harmony seemed to reflect result-oriented rather than law-driven reasoning.
The undisputed facts are that in 2003 the city gave promotion exams to 118 firemen, 27 of them black. The tests were prepared by a firm specializing in employment exams and were validated, as federal law requires, by independent experts. When none of the African-Americans did well enough to qualify for the available promotions, a black minister allied with the seven-term mayor warned of a dire “political ramification” if the city promoted from the list of persons (including one Hispanic) that the exams identified as qualified. The city decided that no one would be promoted, calling this a race-neutral outcome because no group was disadvantaged more than any other.
The city’s idea of equal treatment — denying promotions equally to those deemed and those not deemed qualified — was particularly galling to Frank Ricci, who had prepared for the exams by quitting his second job, buying the more than $1,000 worth of books the city recommended, paying to have them read onto audiotapes — he is dyslexic — and taking practice tests and interviews. His efforts earned him the sixth-highest score.
As Will says, it’s disturbing that four of the Justices seem to be bean counters first and lawyers second. There is nothing just about this action, but don’t tell that to Sonia Sotomayor. The “wise Latina” didn’t see a problem here.
Category: Crime & the Law |
One of the more interesting comments from Ginsburg in her minority opinion was “the white firefighters who scored high on New Haven’s promotional exam understandably attract the court’s sympathy”………….”but they have no vested right for promotion”.
Now, wait one minute here, Obama has specifically stated he hoped for more “empathy” from his choices and his selectee has stated how she felt ‘a latina woman would be wiser in her decisions’ than a white male.
So, the bottom line is the sympathy factor has nothing to do with who deserves the promotion based on objective tests. It is strictly relegated to the minority, gender or sexual orientation du jour.
Another aspect of this is there were two latinos who also passed the test but Ginsburg did not mention that particular group as deserving “sympathy”.
I do not know how these people think but am firmly convinced if this philosophy was prevalent at the beginning of the nation none of us would have the liberties we enjoy today, even though they are eroding fast.
June 29, 2009 @ 6:32 pmNo vested right for a promotion?
As opposed to the seemingly oft very REAL or assumed “vested rights”, one might think, for other groups to be plunked into positions that might not be suitable, or the vested rights of illegal migrant workers to “free” health care, or for some people to the products of labor from others?
Ralph is correct. It was actually less about “empathy” (though that would be wrong as well and an Extra-legal notion itself) but about rightsizing some numbers regarding race, ethnicity, and gender, etc.
What Ginsberg ends up saying in effect is that if you qualify for a position you actually don’t qualify for certain. Just a vague probability zone of ability according to the fancy of the law.
Wonder if this should apply also to airline pilots and neurosurgeons and cardiac specialists as well as college administrators, college attendeed, pharmaceutical research and high-level military command?
Hmmm.
June 29, 2009 @ 9:42 pmSotomanure’s earlier ruling on this case proves what a total abortion she will be on the high court.
June 29, 2009 @ 10:35 pmInteresting note in today’s LA Times: the 2nd Circuit dismissively handled the appeal in a three-paragraph perfunctory affirmance. By contrast, the Supreme Court’s opinion spanned over 100 pages. As you said, John, Sotomayor (and her colleagues) couldn’t (and wouldn’t) see the issue.
June 30, 2009 @ 9:06 amSotomanure is a liberal – plain and simple. We’re trading one hambone (Souter) for another. At her confirmation hearings, Sotomanure can claim that four of the justices were on her side. If the ruling were 8 to 1 then maybe we’d have something to go after. It’s much ado about nothing. She’ll get confirmed and be an awful justice, just like Souter.
June 30, 2009 @ 9:49 am