A Tangled Web: Part II (Thomas Sowell)

Much of the backlog of cases in our over-burdened courts has been created by the courts themselves, with adventurous judicial "interpretations" of laws that leave a large gray area of uncertainty around even the most plainly written legislation. Lawyers of course fish in these troubled waters, creating much needless litigation, but it is judges who have troubled the waters in the first place.

Nowhere is this more true than in civil rights cases. Since the Constitution of the United States and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 both decree equal treatment for all, there should not be nearly as much basis for litigation in civil rights cases as there is— at least not in cases where the facts are well known and undisputed, as in the recent New Haven firefighters' case that made it all the way up to the Supreme Court.

What was it that required three different levels of federal courts to try to figure out whether what actually happened was or was not racial discrimination— with a decision finally being reached by the narrowest possible margin of 5 to 4 in the Supreme Court?

At the heart of much of this legal complexity and moral angst is a judge-made theory that a "disparate impact" of any job requirement on different groups is evidence of discrimination.

With two very different theories of what constitutes job discrimination— either different treatment or different outcomes— it is no wonder that courts have tied themselves into knots trying to figure out whether a particular case shows racial discrimination, even when the facts are known and plain.

The same notion— and the same confusion— applies in many other situations. If a higher proportion of blacks than whites get turned down for mortgage loans, then that too has been taken as evidence of racial discrimination.

It doesn't matter if blacks and whites are different on innumerable factors that go into mortgage loan decisions, as are Hispanics or Asian Americans as well.

All these groups have different credit scores, different incomes and many other differences. Why is it surprising that they have different loan approval rates? While the issue is often posed in terms of whites versus non-whites, whites also get turned down for mortgage loans more often than Asian Americans, who usually have higher credit scores than whites.

Only the underlying dogma that different outcomes for different groups are evidence of discrimination makes this an issue— and a source of unending controversy and polarization.

It is not that judges are incapable of seeing through the intellectual flaw in the "disparate impact" dogma. But that dogma is too central to efforts at social engineering to be given up for the sake of mere logic or facts.

That is why courts split along ideological fault lines in cases like the New Haven firefighters' case, where the crucial facts are not even in dispute. The only real dispute is over whether a test is automatically biased if different groups pass it at different rates. Apparently the groups themselves cannot possibly be different, according to "disparate impact" theory.

Facts play a very small role in such issues— including the facts as to whether social engineering— especially a lowering of standards for blacks— actually helps blacks on net balance. But empirical studies indicate that black students do better at colleges and universities where their qualifications are similar to those of the other students at those institutions and worse where they are admitted with wide disparities in qualifications.

Where in fact have blacks been most successful? Sports and entertainment come to mind immediately. These are areas where blacks have to meet the same standards as anybody else.

If Derek Jeter swings at three pitches and misses, he is out, just like any white ballplayer. If people stop watching Oprah Winfrey's program, it will get cancelled, just like anybody else's.

The biggest beneficiaries from the "disparate impact" dogma are those who claim to be helping minorities. They benefit by feeling noble, winning votes or attracting money. The actual consequences for blacks— or for the polarization of American society— seems to be of little concern.

I saw my first movie at the theater owned by this old time major league pitcher and I attended high school in his home town though I didn’t live there. The high school close to my home was consolidated and I had to ride the bus ten miles to school. Van Lingle Mungo’s brother taught and coached baseball at the high school. Although not mentioned in Wikipedia Mungo was once listed in the Guinness book as having the worlds fastest fast ball. He was known for a high kicking pitch that started with one foot above his head and the ball hand nearly touching the ground. That is how his brother pitched at the high school. Back in the fifties I used to see a cartoon with a pitcher modeled on Mungo, they had a lot of fun with his pitching style.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Van Lingle Mungo (June 8, 1911 - February 12, 1985) was a Major League Baseball right-handed pitcher known for his long career with the Brooklyn Dodgers. Mungo played for the Dodgers from 1931 to 1941. At the end of his baseball career, he played with the New York Giants.

Mungo was fairly successful in his early career, averaging 16 wins per season from 1932 through 1936 and leading the National League in strikeouts with 238 in 1936. He was named to the All-Star team in 1934, 1936, and 1937. However, following an arm injury in 1937, he only won 13 Major League games over the next six seasons. He completed his Major League career with a 120-115 won-lost record over 2113 innings pitched, with a 3.47 earned run average.

Stories and anecdotes about Mungo tend to emphasize his reputation for combativeness, including episodes of drinking and fighting. The most widely told story concerns a visit to Cuba where, supposedly, Mungo was caught in a sexually compromising position with a married woman by her husband. Mungo punched the husband in the eye, leading the husband to attack Mungo with a butcher knife or machete, requiring Dodgers executive Babe Hamberger to smuggle Mungo in a laundry cart to a seaplane waiting off a wharf in order to escape the country.

Mungo was largely forgotten after he retired from baseball after the 1945 season, but was brought back into considerable notoriety in 1969 because of the use of his prosodic name as the title of a novelty song by Dave Frishberg. The song lyrics consist entirely of the names of baseball players of the 1940s, strung together with a bossa nova beat, but Mungo is one of only five players mentioned more than once and his name functions as a kind of refrain. According to Frishberg, The Dick Cavett Show arranged to have him sing the song to Mungo in person, and Mungo asked him backstage if there would ever be any financial remuneration for the use of his name in the song. Frishberg told him no, but maybe Mungo could make some money if he wrote a song called “Dave Frishberg.” Ironically, today Mungo is remembered primarily because of the song.

Mungo’s place of birth is Pageland, South Carolina, where he also died. During his retirement in Pageland, he owned and operated the Ball Theatre until it burned down in the fifties. During its time, the theatre played such films as The Outlaw, starring Jane Russell, and was a popular entertainment center for the town. Since this was before integration, V.L. Mungo provided balcony seating for the African-American population, then referred to as “colored”. This seating arrangement was an innovation; the other small movie theatre in town was segregated.

The Sporting News reported on September 13, 1961, that Van Mungo’s son, Ernie Mungo, was signed as a player by the Washington Senators organization.

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.