Posted on 06/05/2009 8:10:17 PM PDT by neverdem
How Obama's Supreme Court pick revived the affirmative action debate
The debate over the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor has revived the debate over racial preferences—not only because of speculation that Sotomayor herself is an "affirmative action" pick as a Hispanic woman, but also because of her role in the controversial case of Ricci v. DeStefano. It involves a lawsuit by 18 firefighters (17 whites and one Hispanic) in New Haven, Connecticut, denied promotions to lieutenant and captain because no black applicants passed the test. Fearing charges of race discrimination, the city threw out the test and left the vacancies unfilled.
Three weeks before the Sotomayor selection was announced, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote that the one issue on which he most wanted to know the future nominee's opinion was Ricci. As it happens, we know where Sotomayor stands on the case: She was one of three federal judges who, in a one-paragraph opinion, voted to dismiss the lawsuit.
Like some college admission policies that have awarded extra points for race or ethnicity and produced vast racial gaps in acceptance standards, the Ricci case—named after lead plaintiff Frank Ricci—starkly demonstrates the perniciousness of race-based preferences. It illustrates the fact that so-called "reverse discrimination" is not simply a violation of some abstract principle of justice but a system that penalizes real people. It also shows how demeaning the underlying assumptions of this form of affirmative action really are to minorities.
Ricci, who is dyslexic, had to work extra hard to pass the test. He quit a second job so that he could study up to 13 hours a day. In addition to spending $1,000 on the recommended textbooks, he paid extra to have them read on audiotape. Other plaintiffs also paid money and sacrificed time with their families to study for the promotion.
At the hearing, Judge Sotomayor suggested that the test in question was arbitrary and that the city could have devised "a fair test" to measure job-related knowledge without producing a disproportionate failure rate among minorities. But, as an attorney for the plaintiffs pointed out, the city had actually hired an expert to ensure that the test was both fair and valid as a job qualification measurement. African-American fire department officials were also consulted.
Yet, according to Judge Sotomayor, the test is unacceptable if it "is always going to put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so they're never ever going to be promoted." That's a startlingly pessimistic assessment of black candidates' chances.
Writing in The New Republic last April, the outstanding black writer and scholar John McWhorter argues that, due to cultural differences, blacks are less likely than white or Asian Americans to grow up in an environment where writing and reading skills are emphasized. Yet McWhorter also asserts that, if Frank Ricci could overcome the effects of a cognitive disability, African-Americans can surely overcome the effects of cultural disadvantage. To expect any less and to perpetuate the notion that tests involving mental aptitude are unfair to blacks, he says, is "nonsensical at best and gruesome at worst."
There is an increasingly popular though hotly contested theory that minorities' test performance is often negatively affected by "stereotype threat," anxiety generated by the belief that members of one's group do badly on such tests. If this is true, then claims that standardized tests are biased against blacks or that blacks should be held to lower standards until the legacy of racism can be fixed (openly articulated by some commenters on McWhorter's article on the New Republic website) can only aggravate the problem.
The issue of racial preferences is surrounded by a great deal of obfuscation. Defenders of such policies commonly assert that outlawing race- and gender-based preferential treatment in education, hiring, and public services would mean an end to outreach and training programs designed to help minorities and women advance. But extra encouragement for underrepresented groups is hardly the same thing as outright discrimination against members of the majority. If New Haven city officials had instituted an outreach program to help more African-Americans pass the firefighter promotion test, a lawsuit from disgruntled whites would have found no support except on the racist fringe. Ricci and his fellow plaintiffs, on the other hand, have a strong case that, apart from its legal merits, appeals to most Americans' sense of justice.
Judge Sotomayor should not be tagged as the villain of the Ricci case. Her opinion was shared by several other federal judges. Still, her views of the issue of race and gender preferences and discrimination should be explored during the confirmation hearings.
With all the domestic and international problems we are confronting today, affirmative action may seem like a relatively minor issue. And yet it has major implications for individual rights, justice, and race relations in America. The legacy of racism, and particularly the dehumanizing oppression of generations of blacks, is a terrible blot on our history. If we try to remedy it by maintaining a new system of racial spoils—not at the expense of affluent, well-educated white elites, but of working-class, disadvantaged people who happen to be white—the blot will only deepen. So will racial division.
Cathy Young writes a weekly column for RealClearPolitics.com and is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. She blogs at http://cathyyoung.wordpress.com/.
“speculation that Sotomayor herself is an “affirmative action” pick as a Hispanic woman”
“Speculation”? Picking this “wise Latina” surprised who? How many white males were on the short list?
They don't call him "Zero" for nothing.
Gun Issue Heats Up for Sotomayor as NRA Appeals to Supreme Court
Sotomayor Failed to Disclose to Senate Memo in Which She Argued Death Penalty is 'Racist'
Judge Sotomayor, in Her Own Words
Reid Dares Fellow Democrats to Oppose Sotomayor (Dingy Alert!)
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
The legacy of racism, and particularly the dehumanizing oppression of generations of blacks, is a terrible blot on our history. If we try to remedy it by maintaining a new system of racial spoils—not at the expense of affluent, well-educated white elites, but of working-class, disadvantaged people who happen to be white—the blot will only deepen.
Why is it more acceptable if a racial spoils system comes at the expense of "affluent, well-educated white elites"?
The reason they are elites is, in many cases, because they have educated themselves and worked hard to become experts in their professions.
This is pernicious Marxist class envy.
Affirmative Action: Poisoning the future to correct the past.
My “over-represented” Asian daughters learned a bit about the new system of racial spoils in college. Their Mom’s an immmigrant, and one of the girls was even born overseas, but they’re ineligible for the acceptance boosts and tuition reductions that many other racially-denoted subgroups freely receive. Japanese business types were “honorary whites” in apartheid South Africa; Asians are often unwillingly classified as “minority, but undeserving of free stuff” in American government and academia.
And Latina Sotomayor is certainly showing some more true colors, isn’t she, if she truly believes that any written test “is always going to put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so they’re never ever going to be promoted.”
Thanks for the ping!
Not me, she didn't express this part that well.
"The legacy of racism, and particularly the dehumanizing oppression of generations of blacks, is a terrible blot on our history. If we try to remedy it by maintaining a new system of racial spoils—not at the expense of affluent, well-educated white elites, but of working-class, disadvantaged people who happen to be white—the blot will only deepen."
Think of the William Ayers and John Kerry types, kids of privilege and no good accomplishments.
Why is it more acceptable if a racial spoils system comes at the expense of "affluent, well-educated white elites"?
She was using it to draw a distinction in trying to show how evil reverse discrimination now is against middle and working class whites that were never able to profit from their station in life.
The reason they are elites is, in many cases, because they have educated themselves and worked hard to become experts in their professions.
Bill Ayers, John Kerry and the Kennedy clan?
This is pernicious Marxist class envy.
I doubt it. The author grew up in the Soviet Union. Put yourself in the shoes of someone that's a white male from humble origins who is discriminated against and mocked without rest or mercy. They just want a fair chance. Don't you want it based on merit?
I’m quite sure we are the only country with an official racial classification system that is legally binding. Some company we keep with that.
Welcome to Obama's Amerika.
I very much want it based on merit.
Calling John Kerry and Ted Kennedy “well-educated” makes a mockery of “education”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.