I Don't Have The Answer
July 3rd 2009 13:01
On June 30, George Will wrote an article for the Washington Post, “On Race, The Slog Goes On,” which surprisingly, I found myself agreeing with until I got to the last sentence: “This is the predictable price of failing to simply insist that government cannot take cognizance of race.”
Mr. Will argued in his article that the recent 5-4 Supreme Court victory of the New Haven firefighters was extremely disappointing because the minority liberal justices who voted against the firefighters did not consider the law, just ultimate results; Mr. Will felt the vote should have been 9-0. So did I.
He goes on, in the article to give us the “undisputed facts:” 1) 118 firefighters, 27 of them black, took the New Haven promotional exam, 2) the exams were validated by independent experts, according to federal law, 3) when none of the black firefighters taking the exam qualified, a black minister threatened the city with “dire political ramifications” if the city did not void the exam results, 4) the city caved in and voided the results of the exam, refusing to promote anyone who took the exam, “calling this a race-neutral outcome because no group was disadvantaged more than any other.”
Mr. Frank Ricci, one of the firefighters, sued the city based on violations of Amendment XIV of the Constitution which guarantees equal protection under the law and violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in public facilities, government and employment. The city argued that if it awarded promotions based on the test results, representatives of minorities who took the test and failed would have sued.
The Supreme Court’s four conservative justices, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, predictably sided with the firefighters, while its four liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer, predictably joined with the city. Anthony Kennedy provided the swing vote, joining the conservatives and voting for the firefighters. Justice Ginsburg defended her liberal vote by citing past racial discrimination in choosing promotions among firefighters, while Justice Alito argued that the veiled racial threats against the city were no excuse for violating the civil rights of the firefighters.
In his 1970 book, Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers, Tom Wolfe talks about a party given by Leonard Bernstein and attended by his uber liberal friends (Barbara Walters, Otto Preminger), the “radical chic” in the title, for the Black Panthers. Mr. Bernstein went so far as to give his black maid and butler the night off so as not to offend the chic and the Panthers. The essay is generally critical of white guilt, which is in line with the conservative voting block of the Supreme Court, and Mr. Will.
In the second essay in the book, Mr. Wolfe is critical of the minorities who know how to work the system to get money from the San Francisco Office of Economic Opportunity. If all they are doing is working the system, and no change is really being made, do we really need such programs, or is this just another example of assuaging white guilt?
Are we at a point in time where minorities don’t need advantages to rectify past injustices? I don’t know; “Scalia, concurring separately, said Monday's ruling "merely postpones the evil day" on which the court must decide "whether, or to what extent," existing disparate-impact law conflicts with the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.”
Mr. Will’s argument that this can all be solved if all governments would just ignore race in making their decisions is naïve; he ignores the history of this country. The governments of this nation, particularly the federal government, caused and permitted the problem we have to live with today by allowing and even encouraging slavery to exist for 350 years. It is the responsibility of governments to rectify the problems they cause.
Mr. Will argued in his article that the recent 5-4 Supreme Court victory of the New Haven firefighters was extremely disappointing because the minority liberal justices who voted against the firefighters did not consider the law, just ultimate results; Mr. Will felt the vote should have been 9-0. So did I.
He goes on, in the article to give us the “undisputed facts:” 1) 118 firefighters, 27 of them black, took the New Haven promotional exam, 2) the exams were validated by independent experts, according to federal law, 3) when none of the black firefighters taking the exam qualified, a black minister threatened the city with “dire political ramifications” if the city did not void the exam results, 4) the city caved in and voided the results of the exam, refusing to promote anyone who took the exam, “calling this a race-neutral outcome because no group was disadvantaged more than any other.”
Mr. Frank Ricci, one of the firefighters, sued the city based on violations of Amendment XIV of the Constitution which guarantees equal protection under the law and violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in public facilities, government and employment. The city argued that if it awarded promotions based on the test results, representatives of minorities who took the test and failed would have sued.
The Supreme Court’s four conservative justices, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, predictably sided with the firefighters, while its four liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer, predictably joined with the city. Anthony Kennedy provided the swing vote, joining the conservatives and voting for the firefighters. Justice Ginsburg defended her liberal vote by citing past racial discrimination in choosing promotions among firefighters, while Justice Alito argued that the veiled racial threats against the city were no excuse for violating the civil rights of the firefighters.
In his 1970 book, Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers, Tom Wolfe talks about a party given by Leonard Bernstein and attended by his uber liberal friends (Barbara Walters, Otto Preminger), the “radical chic” in the title, for the Black Panthers. Mr. Bernstein went so far as to give his black maid and butler the night off so as not to offend the chic and the Panthers. The essay is generally critical of white guilt, which is in line with the conservative voting block of the Supreme Court, and Mr. Will.
In the second essay in the book, Mr. Wolfe is critical of the minorities who know how to work the system to get money from the San Francisco Office of Economic Opportunity. If all they are doing is working the system, and no change is really being made, do we really need such programs, or is this just another example of assuaging white guilt?
Are we at a point in time where minorities don’t need advantages to rectify past injustices? I don’t know; “Scalia, concurring separately, said Monday's ruling "merely postpones the evil day" on which the court must decide "whether, or to what extent," existing disparate-impact law conflicts with the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.”
Mr. Will’s argument that this can all be solved if all governments would just ignore race in making their decisions is naïve; he ignores the history of this country. The governments of this nation, particularly the federal government, caused and permitted the problem we have to live with today by allowing and even encouraging slavery to exist for 350 years. It is the responsibility of governments to rectify the problems they cause.
| 11 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
