SCOTUS has ruled that the city of New Haven was wrong to discriminate against white firefighters. Excerpt:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.
The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide and make it harder to prove discrimination when there is no evidence it was intentional.
"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Note that the vote was 5-4, with Kennedy being the swing vote between the liberal and conservative wings of the court. Kennedy's majority opinion said:
Whatever the City's ultimate aim--however well intentioned or benevolent it might have seemed--the City made its employment decision because of race. The City rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white. The question is not whether that conduct was discriminatory but whether the City had a lawful justification for its race-based action.
Ed Whelan highlights this passage from Justice Alito's concurrent opinion:
Petitioners were denied promotions for which they qualified because of the race and ethnicity of the firefighters who achieved the highest scores on the City's exam. The District Court threw out their case on summary judgment, even though that court all but conceded that a jury could find that the City's asserted justification was pretextual. The Court of Appeals then summarily affirmed that decision.The dissent grants that petitioners' situation is "unfortunate" and that they "understandably attract this Court's sympathy." But "sympathy" is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law--of Title VII's prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today's decision, has been denied them. [Emphasis added -- RD]
If you've forgotten the circumstances surrounding the Ricci case, here's Wikipedia's summary. The New York Times reported it here. Excerpt:
NEW HAVEN -- Frank Ricci has been a firefighter here for 11 years, and he would do just about anything to advance to lieutenant.The last time the city offered a promotional exam, he said in a sworn statement, he gave up a second job and studied up to 13 hours a day. Mr. Ricci, who is dyslexic, paid an acquaintance more than $1,000 to read textbooks onto audiotapes. He made flashcards, took practice tests, worked with a study group and participated in mock interviews.
Mr. Ricci did well, he said, coming in sixth among the 77 candidates who took the exam. But the city threw out the test, because none of the 19 African-American firefighters who took it qualified for promotion. That decision prompted Mr. Ricci and 17 other white firefighters, including one Hispanic, to sue the city, alleging racial discrimination.
Today is a great day for race-blind justice in America.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Turmarion, a flaw in your logic.
What if the most rigorously neutral, color-blind, ethnicity-blind, objective criteria for school slots or hiring still produce egregiously disparate results?
So what if they do? You are making a sweepingly general statement without any regard to the skill sets necessary for any given type or class of jobs. You must examine the type or class of job before making such a statement, or your statement becomes trivial and irrelevant.
Meritocracy is truly blind, by definition. It's the people making hiring decisions who drive discrimination.
Sorry about the dup post. Yes, Captcha sucks. Here's the actual reply:
Turmarion, before we go on: I am likely to be the most emphatic proponent of affirmative action you are likely to meet outside of the lobbying and activism realm. I was, for 14 years, an expert in employment regulations (focused on pension plans, but I had to know much more to do my job). I know these things from the inside.
Not that I can claim to be an expert any more, and I do regret if that looks patronizing, but here's the real deal: AA was established to stop the routine practice of nepotism and arbitrary favoritism based on race, ethnicity and gender. In practice, it has been sabotaged from both sides, both maliciously and inadvertently.
So, in a case like the NH firefighters, there are questions that must be asked (in no particular order and not intended to be complete): how much counseling (mentoring) did the minorities receive in their current positions and towards advancement? Is there a prima facie determination that the test was biased? Is there evidence that those deciding on the promotions were biased?
Meritocracy and fairness are contradictions. One is an objective measurement, the other consists of arbitrariness and subjectivity. AA was created (by executive order, not by legislation) to give everyone recourse when arbitrary and subjective judgments were used in hiring practices. It was not intended (though it is used) to govern every microscopic hiring and promotion decision. The last time I looked at EEOC claims stats (I think it was 2002), the mean was around 65% of all claims were found to be without merit. It had been flat for a while up to that point.
Your thought experiment fails to address context. If we raise our children to expect to earn their accomplishments, to do their best and applaud when someone else's best is better, then self-esteem becomes a trivial consideration in this.
Square peg, round hole. When lives are on the line -- and firefighters will tell you as much -- I'd rather have a white, dyslexic all-out committed captain who worked his ass off to be qualified directing the work than a nice, black guy of average accomplishment who means well but couldn't do the math as well or as quickly. If the black guy sees that as a blow to his self-esteem, or a racist attitude, then that is his problem, not mine.
Back in the day, I read weekly and monthly reports showing routine discrimination in favor of white males over women and minorities who were as qualified as the white males. That is what AA is about, not that we have a black fire captain in New Haven.
BTW: SCOTUS ruled properly, I have no doubt of it. The CT law is a fiasco as written, and the NH bureaucrats cowards. Do the right thing, and if someone wants to bring a bad lawsuit against you, this AA proponent will be right there with all the right catch phrases to shoot down the people bringing the suit. AA is not about sympathy jobs, and I don't personally know one black person who wants one.
Andrea: "I believe there is, on average, a noticeable gap between test scores (both IQ and standardized academic tests) in most countries between the privileged class and the group of people that is looked down upon by the majority."
http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/2946002.aspx?ArticleID=2220927
Franklin, in general I'd agree with your post. The issues I'd point out are as follows:
If we raise our children to expect to earn their accomplishments, to do their best and applaud when someone else's best is better, then self-esteem becomes a trivial consideration in this.
If we raised our kids that way, your point is valid, but I don't see this as being common in contemporary America. We encourage kids to "succeed", to go for the bucks, etc., but there is less emphasis on earning anything. There is way too much "shoot for the stars", "you can do anything if you put your mind to it", "you can be anything you want to be", "live your dreams", etc. out there. And to "applaud when someone else's best is better"--laudable, but rare!
I agree that I'd want the competent firefighter to save me, regardless of race--same for doctor, lawyer, whatever.
AA is not about sympathy jobs, and I don't personally know one black person who wants one.
Also agreed. My point is that affirmative action seems, after forty years, to have been unable to erase aggregate disparities between groups. This means one of two things: 1. AA hasn't been done properly yet, or extensively enough, or 2. There are ineradicable differences between groups that can never be erased no matter what.
You seem to be saying that if it's 1, we'll get it right eventually, and that if it's 2, then this should not make people upset if they have the right attitude. If 1 is indeed the case, then I agree. If it's 2, however, I think you're maybe too sanguine (or idealistic!) about human nature. I can't think of any cases in a complex society in which a group that is disproportionately relegated to the underclass (for whatever reason) is OK with it.
Of course, part of the problem gets back to some of the posts here on college. Our culture currently despises trades and blue-collar work. Thus, to get a job in a factory or some such is seen as demeaning and not "being all you can be". If our culture had the right attitude in this area, it might be less of a problem if some racial or ethnic groups were disproportionately blue-collar or trade workers. Even if this were so, though, I wonder if it's not corrosive to a society to have such a situation. I wonder if the fact that group X is largely composed of, say, janitors, doesn't slide over into viewing them as fit to be nothing but janitors.
Anyway, I repeat that I tend to agree with your analysis--I am just skeptical that human nature in general or current American ideology in particular is well-suited to dealing with different outcomes between different groups in a constructive and rational manner.
Turmarion, that was a thoughtful and thought-provoking reply. Some clarification:
I personally believe that there is a third "option", one that cannot be managed or accelerated: social change. It is exemplified by the ubiquitous, immigrant credo of my parents' generation. "Go to America so your children can have a better life."
People want relief and surcease now. I don't blame them. The counter to my idealism ("you were quite right about me, Luke") is knowing that for the vast majority of them there will not be such relief, or not to the extent that they want (or need, even).
What too many of them don't have, and for whom I fervently wish they acquire, is that immigrant credo. Instead, as we both observe, they perpetuate the entitlement attitude. Bill Cosby is the pre-eminent voice in this context, and we can see how little respect and attention he gets. :-(
Anyway, AA was the best that could be done at the time. It is past due for retooling, replacement or renewal. It got a couple of kicks in the butt along the way (Nixon and Clinton), and perhaps Obama will get good advice on the next kick... though it is highly unlikely for him to call on one of us, eh? ;-)
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.