Supreme Court Tackles Race

[Kilmer17]

It's a great hypothetical, but I'm not sure that, even in our long history of liberal social engineering, that anyone has managed to create a test (that isn't discriminatory on its face) that disproportionately favors black applicants over white applicants on a consistent basis.

There have been many tests, however, that tend to favor white applicants over black applicants, and that's why results in one direction merit stricter scrutiny.

That's a big if ... and I think it likely would have sparked an investigation as well, because having the top 15 scorers all be black would likely have raised suspicions (since I think the majority of the firefighters are white). I don't know what the outcome of that investigation would have been, but no matter which way they went, I think they would have been guaranteed lawsuits.

The lesson for employers: Don't try to give objective tests to determine promotions. Bribery, sexual favors, and cronyism are definitely the way to go.

I agree totally. Which is a pretty good reason for the Court to take the case and address the issue.

[DjTj]

I agree totally. Which is a pretty good reason for the Court to take the case and address the issue.

Which would be great if the Court actually sets out a clear rule that people can follow. Unfortunately, what's going to happen is that Ginsburg or Stevens will write some opinion about how this wasn't what the Civil Rights Act was intended for, Roberts will write some opinion about how a strict reading of the laws shows that the Fourteenth Amendment does apply here, Scalia will write a scathing opinion about the colorblind Constitution and will point out how he was really right in all those earlier cases where he dissented, Thomas will point out how liberals are assuming that black people can't succeed on their own, and Kennedy will be the deciding vote, going one way or the other but using such wishy-washy language that nobody will understand what the rule really is.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

[Larry]

It's a great hypothetical, but I'm not sure that, even in our long history of liberal social engineering, that anyone has managed to create a test (that isn't discriminatory on its face) that disproportionately favors black applicants over white applicants on a consistent basis.

There have been many tests, however, that tend to favor white applicants over black applicants, and that's why results in one direction merit stricter scrutiny.

I think my just-previous post has relevance to your post.

OTOH, I also think that that example may well have been taken too far.

To me "no black in the history of the Chicago Fire Department has ever been promoted" proves discrimination.

But does "15% of the county elevator inspectors are black, but blacks are 17% of the population of the county"?

I think that the main reason we have quotas, today, is because it's become accepted belief that any deviation from quota proves that discrimination is happening. That, in order for me to prove that your company discriminates, no other proof is needed than a statistic showing that the percentage of short, left handed, lesbians doesn't exactly equal the percentage of the population as a whole.

Again, in the case of the test, the standard of proof that's used is that the test didn't produce racially-equal results.

If the results don't result in (group x) receiving (x%) of the prizes, then the test discriminates, no other proof necessary.

I think part of the reason we're being so sensitive, to race and other forms of discrimination, is because we're too quick to claim that it's present.

I'm not saying that discrimination doesn't exist, except in cases where a Vulcan Mind Meld has revealed which specific person did which specific things.

I'm just saying that not every case in which unequal results occurs, is because of discrimination.

[Spec138]

Interesting answer Larry. I like your definition of discrimination- I'm just not sure it holds up every time.

Personally, I'm okay with discrimination- if it is in response to righting a wrong that was done.

For instance (I've used this ex before)- if you have two guys running a marathon, and one of the runners jumps out to a HUGE lead. You discover halfway through the race that the runner with the lead has illegaly weighted down his opponents shoes.

So what then? Do you simply remove the weights from the runner who is a mile behind, and make the proclomation that "weights should not be used!"... while the guy who is way out in front because he broke the rules gets off scott free with no repurcussions? Or do you penalize the front runner a bit- to allow the race to be even? Which is fair?

That's exactly what we're dealing with here. And why I think crying about "reverse discrimination" from angry white middle class males is ridiculous. IMO of course.

....

I personally don't have to pay for tuition, but my gf does, just like tons of other college students out there. Is it fair to take a graduate who worked their ass off for four years or more and is paying loans and the such back that helped them pay for school, and then make everything fair for the other races because the student's great-great-great grandfather owned a slave (even though the majority of whites didn't own slaves), or was racist somehow and kept the other races down? Smells like socialism, especially when a black student can receive grants and loans as well.

[Skins24]

bump...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090629/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_firefighters_lawsuit

Court rules for white firefighters over promotions

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has ruled 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, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

[prophet]

Good to hear! This was a horrible ruling to begin with.

[techboy]

Which would be great if the Court actually sets out a clear rule that people can follow. Unfortunately, what's going to happen is that Ginsburg or Stevens will write some opinion about how this wasn't what the Civil Rights Act was intended for, Roberts will write some opinion about how a strict reading of the laws shows that the Fourteenth Amendment does apply here, Scalia will write a scathing opinion about the colorblind Constitution and will point out how he was really right in all those earlier cases where he dissented, Thomas will point out how liberals are assuming that black people can't succeed on their own, and Kennedy will be the deciding vote, going one way or the other but using such wishy-washy language that nobody will understand what the rule really is.

Have you read the decision yet? How close were you? The 5-4 thing was dead on...

[JMS]

If there's a reason, it's not discrimination.

I disagree with that. I think folks who discriminate can always find lame reasons for doing so. Discrimination is the act of treating some of your citizens different than others as a demographic; for any reason.