Let's Stop Racial Discrimination In Hiring And Promotion
A bunch of white firefighters were promoted ahead of black firefighters even though the black firefighters got better test scores. Outrageous, right? Disgusting, huh? Plain old wrong, isn't it?
Remember what Martin Luther King said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character..."
I'm with him. Which is why I'm as outraged by the real story as I'd be by the switcheroo'y one I posted above. The real deal is that white firefighters (and a few Hispanics) in New Haven, CT, scored much better than black firefighters, so New Haven found itself stuck. They threw out the test and promoted no one.
Adam Liptak writes in The New York Times:
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.
Their case, which will be argued before the Supreme Court on April 22, is the Roberts court's first major confrontation with claims of racial discrimination in employment and will require the justices to choose between conflicting conceptions of the government's role in ensuring fair treatment regardless of race.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has repeatedly noted his hostility to what he has called the "sordid business" of "divvying us up by race." In 2007, diverging from an important Rehnquist court decision that allowed public universities to consider race in admissions decisions, the Roberts court forbade public school systems to take race explicitly into account to achieve or maintain integration.
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," Chief Justice Roberts wrote.
I'm with him. There's more on the case here, at adversity.net, an organization dedicated, as I am, to stopping discrimination on the basis of race.
Comments
The Supreme Court ruling that confused everyone was Bakke: he was a white man who applied for entrance to medical school to be an anesthiologist. He sued for reverse discrimination when he was denied entry (based on race). The court decided in his favor, but left the affirmative action for college entrance quotas in place.
Bakke vs. Regents of the University of California.
It was in the 70's or early 80's.
Posted by: Norman L. at April 11, 2009 1:13 AM
I remember the case -- read about it in the paper when I was growing up, when they still had two papers in Detroit.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 11, 2009 5:13 AM
This will be an interesting thing to see; White people questioning and outright suing organizations enforcing affirmative action politics. I am ready to bet we will see more of those within the next few years as a spin-off of the Obama effect. If Black-Americans can reach the White House on their own merits, why do they need preferential hiring practices everywhere else?
Posted by: Toubrouk at April 11, 2009 8:13 AM
I wonder if this should be breach of contract rather than racial discrimination. The unfairness of it all is certainly racially motivated, but the problem goes back to the fact that these men acted in reliance of a deal- they pass this test, they get the promotion, that the employer broke (for a really bad reason).
Posted by: Lyssa at April 11, 2009 8:30 AM
There are a few professions in which I think race is a valid consideration.
Acting, for example... you generally want to cast a black guy as Othello.
I can see an argument for needing black teachers and policemen, since they need to serve certain communities. (I've worked at a lot of programs for urban youth, and having an all-white staff is a handicap).
But firefighting?
Posted by: NicoleK at April 11, 2009 9:24 AM
I know a really great police officer who's blonde and about as fair as I am, and she worked Rampart (the inner-city, where the riots started) and flourished there. I think we need to stop with the idea that people's skin color must match those of the people around them.
Posted by: Amy Alkon 
at April 11, 2009 9:43 AM
IIRC, Bakke was in his late thirties or something, and wasn't a top-tier student anyway. Ironic, no?
(So I just went to Wikipedia to look up his D.O.B., but he doesn't have his own page! Don't you hate it when wikipedia let's down?)
Posted by: Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 11, 2009 9:49 AM
It is frightening to realize the extent to which our laws and government policies are based on failed or failing "social engineering" ideologies.
Posted by: Jay R at April 11, 2009 2:09 PM
Amy, it isn't that the skin color of one individual needs to match that of the people around them... it's that if you have a police department that is ALL-blond in a black neighborhood, it creates tension. Was the entire department where your friend worked blond?
I've worked in places that have all-white upper-middle-class teaching staffs for an all-minority, all-poor student population and it was a problem. Each teacher was good individually, but as a group it was problematic. There's also the issue of having role models.
But certainly, on an individual level, of course a white person can be a good cop or teacher in a bad neighborhood.
Posted by: NicoleK at April 11, 2009 4:51 PM
Posted by: d at April 11, 2009 7:22 PM
I checked the above web site..I can't tell for sure, but it looks like a cross between the Onion and the subtle pushing of some sort of agenda.
Posted by: Norman L. at April 11, 2009 7:44 PM
The usual crud from a victim feminist. Here's the essential bit:
I read Alkon’s latest blog post, knowing full well that it would be like unto 47 toothpicks jabbing me in the corneas. As it turned out, it was more like 48 toothpicks.The Alkon! It’s indescribable. She is outraged over racial discrimination. Discrimination against white dudes, that is.
What’s got her lipstick in a smear is this: back in 2003, 77 applicants took a promotion-qualifying test at the New Haven, Connecticut fire department. 19 African-American firefighters were among the hopefuls. None of the 19 scored high enough to win a promotion, so New Haven threw out the test. Naturally the high-scoring-yet-unpromoted white guys filed suit against the city. “Racial discrimination!” was their embittered cry. The District Court judge said, no, since nobody was promoted, there was no harm. Now the Supremes are on the case.
So Alkon does what any deluded self-promoting misogynist right-wing gasbag would do: she sides with the white dudes and backs herself up by quoting Martin Luther King!
It’s always hilarious when racists defend the Master Race against “reverse discrimination,” and simultaneously attempt to present themselves as non-racists, by trotting out Martin Luther King on judging people not “by the color of their skin by by the content of their character.” It appears to elude these patriarchy-denying chumps that, when the social order privileges a ruling class over a subordinate one based on skin color, there can be no such thing as true discrimination against the ruling class. That’s what makes them the ruling class, dumbshit! Discrimination, like all putrefied shit, can only flow in both directions if the classes in question are of equal status, which, obviously, they fucking well aren’t.
“I’m with him,” says Alkon. She means that she and Martin Luther King are two hearts that beat as one. Yeah, she’s with him, because when King said “I have a dream” what he actually meant was not “End racism,” but “Reward the deserving white guys who skunked the stupid black guys on the test.”
Look, if none — not a single one — of the black guys scored high enough for a promotion, something ain’t right. Something that looks suspiciously like racism. Maybe the test was fucked up. Maybe the white dudes cheated. Or maybe, you know, the black dudes, as members of an oppressed class, were marginalized from the git-go. Ya think?
My black friends, just like my white and other-colored friends, are smart and did really well in school and are impressive people in what they do and have done in life. This chick has a really insulting and racist view of black people if she thinks they need to have special treatment to get ahead in life.
And um, anybody notice the president's skin color? Now that there's a black guy in office, and a female Secretary of State, and a female Speaker of the House...can we agree that people can get ahead on merit...if they work really hard, like that guy Rizzi from the article, who, with dyslexia, had a lot to surmount?
I speak to a lot of black kids at an inner city school, and I don't tell them they're less, or they need extra help to do just as well as white kids -- the message this femininny is putting out. How insulting. I talk to all the kids, black, white, and Latino, the same -- telling them that if you work hard, you can get make something of yourself.
Posted by: Amy Alkon
at April 11, 2009 8:10 PM
okay.
I think there is also some amount of guilt feeling on the part of the writer. Since feminism is really an elitist movement, it by nature looks down on blacks, especially black males. So to compensate, the feminists consciously 'big up' and defend blacks, no matter what the situation.
Deep down these women know that blacks can sense the elitism, that's why there are so few black women who are feminists. Most of them (at least the influential ones) are in academia, or are writers (like Alice Walker).
Posted by: Norman L. at April 11, 2009 10:06 PM
Bakke was in his late thirties or something
actually that's a good point. Age discrimination is more prevalent than race discrimination, but (and because) it's much harder to prove, Bakke would have been a fool to sue based on age...even if he'd been turned down for a job.
I remember my own experience being a late 20's college student. I was turned down for all four 'co-op' jobs I interviewed for. I'd get weird looks from the inteviewers, and from the employees when taken on plant or office tours; and questions like "why haven't you gotten further in your career by now?" (one of the company's owner actually did asked me that).
For a co-op job there's pretty much nothing you can do, at least not back then - and if you did try to sue, the college itself would find some way to dump you.
Age discrimination at 28. Who woulda thunk it?
Posted by: Norman L. at April 11, 2009 10:21 PM
one of the company's owner actually did asked me that
I guess I would have been screened out by the company's writing test anyway.
Posted by: Norman L. at April 11, 2009 10:24 PM
"...Or maybe, you know, the black dudes, as members of an oppressed class, were marginalized from the git-go. Ya think?..."
I don't care who was oppressed or not. I still don't want some dumb@ss to come fight my fire, operate on my brain or teach my kids.
Incompetence due to 'oppression' doesn't obligate me to place my life, or my loved ones' lives, in incompetent or even dangerous hands any more than incompetence due to 'laziness' or 'low iq' or 'physical incompatibility with the rigors of the job'.
There are standards to be met in the world for good very reasons.
Posted by: ShyAsrai at April 12, 2009 12:42 AM
Somehow the military has imposed competency testing for achieving ranks -- and race has no factor in it. Its how you do that gets you ahead.
Armed Forces Equal Opportunity Survey
Posted by: Jim P. at April 12, 2009 6:17 AM
"Age discrimination is more prevalent than race discrimination"
I doubt whether that is true, but even if it was true it ignores an obvious point. Age is transitory, whereas race is more permanent. That is, most people experience life in different age groups at different times. Whereas a person's race is fixed for life. So even if age discrimination was more prevalent, the effects would be more likely to even out over the life cycle.
Whenever I catch the bus, I often get the chance to test the hypothesis. Suppose a young woman gets on the bus. There is a Sudanese man sitting next to a vacant seat in one spot. Elsewhere there is an aging white guy. More often than not, people find it a hell of a lot easier to overcome their age prejudices than their race ones.
Indeed, common sense would suggest that for a significant proportion of the population, hostility and suspicion towards certain races is more deeply ingrained than prejudice against certain age groups. I can't think of a country that has experienced major civil disruption among different age groups, but there has been plenty of civil conflict along ethnic/racial lines.
Norman, what you really mean is: you don't care about anything other than age discrimination because it doesn't affect you personally.
Posted by: Nick S at April 12, 2009 7:58 AM
hostility and suspicion towards certain races is more deeply ingrained than prejudice against certain age groups
The topic is discrimination, not prejudice.
So even if age discrimination was more prevalent, the effects would be more likely to even out over the life cycle
That's true at least with respect to the kind of mentality of the person making that statement: 30 years from now you'll be whistling a different tune.
what you really mean is: you don't care about anything other than age discrimination because it doesn't affect you personally.
oh oh, Nick's trying to insert thoughts into my head again. Perhaps he is an idiot.
Posted by: Norman L. at April 12, 2009 8:03 AM
There is a Sudanese man sitting next to a vacant seat in one spot. Elsewhere there is an aging white guy. More often than not, people find it a hell of a lot easier to overcome their age prejudices than their race ones.
Women, who evolved to fear sexual assault, are going to take the seat next to the man they find less physically threatening. Young white guy versus old white guy. Young woman instead of an old man.
People tend to favor their own in groups -- whether racially, religiously or just journalists hanging out with journalists. This isn't a sign of hatred or fear of others. It's a natural human preference.
None of this means discrimination on the basis of race in hiring is okay. You don't make discrimination right by discriminating. Furthermore, the notion that my friend Richard, whose mind just delights me and who always impresses me with the level of thought he puts into any question -- the notion that he somehow needs some extra help in the world because he has dark skin is really insulting and disgusting. P.S. He graduated from University of Michigan law school probably 30 years ago, but doesn't practice law.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 12, 2009 8:08 AM
Here's the comment I left over at the femininny's site -- first referencing some chick who felt compelled to lie about me. Interesting, and not at all surprising to see the underhanded approach.
As anyone who's e-mailed me has probably observed, I'm pretty proper in the language I use to respond to people; in fact, when people write me for advice using "ur," etc., I sometimes make them rewrite their e-mail in proper English (you're getting free advice, put some effort in, ya yob).
Kind of a fanatic for proper English -- just love the stuff --which is why this victim feminist's accusation is so obviously a lie.
So, here's my comment left there:
she screamed for a dense and long paragraph without punctuation of any kind and capital letters only to increase her volume.Um, am I not awful enough without making up lies about me? If there’s anything I am, it’s fanatic about punctuation. I tried to find the e-mail but I don’t have it. Pity.
You ladies are pretty cute. Or is that lydys? Or Wymn?
FYI, I get letters constantly from men who’ve been tricked into fathering children. Got one yesterday. Woman told him she had a tipped uterus or something, and couldn’t get pregnant, and the guy was dumb enough to believe her.
Of course men should use condoms — and bring their own and maintain custody of them every step of the way, unless they have good reason to believe a woman is ethical. But this TV bit wasn’t the Amy Alkon show — I just answered the questions — and I didn’t go into a comprehensive lecture on what should be common sense for any man having sex. Really not that interesting.
Furthermore, regarding your other post — found it when one of your terrified commenters (too terrified to post as anything more than “d”) came over to leave the link on my site. Too afraid to actually engage with the commenters on my site, not surprisingly. Should I start an affirmative action program for your commenters to make it okay for them to speak their minds in the midst of people who actually put reason behind their comments?
Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 12, 2009 8:29 AM
"...people who actually put reason behind their comments"
Such as the recurring bit of reasoning popping up here that, now that the President is black, why on earth would we need affirmative action?! Good point, guys. Ah, January 20th 2009, the date when racial discrimination was forever ended in this land.
"If you’re a woman it’s totally your responsibility to take care of birth control."
Yeah, sounds fair. What I find a lot more frightening than the spectre of women deviously getting pregnant behind men's backs (so to speak) is women actually taking your "advice" seriously.
Posted by: Toots at April 12, 2009 10:52 AM
Such as the recurring bit of reasoning popping up here that, now that the President is black, why on earth would we need affirmative action?!
Why would you be so racist to assume that black people aren't smart enough or talented enough to make it without some infantilizing hand not given to other people?
It seems to me that the people who need a little bit of help are those who come from poor neighborhoods -- and I started a program to help kids from those neighborhoods. One where I tell kids they have what it takes to make it in the world -- with hard work -- not that they aren't as good as white kids. (Although a number of them are white, but they're mostly black and brown.)
Of course, a poor white boy who's buckling under student loans will never get one of those minority journalism fellowships like an upper-middle class black girl who attended Harvard did.
Try thinking instead of simply spouting victim-think like a big whiney blow-whale.
As a woman, since I would be the one to get pregnant, I've always seen it as my responsibility to take care of birth control. Is that "fair"? Um, fair? How silly. It's what you do if you don't want to get pregnant. If you can get an IUD, I suggest you do. Condoms can break or get left inside a woman and are often misused.
Many women do rope men into pregnancy. I get several letters and e-mails about it a week, and I know it happens. I realize you prefer not to believe such things, there in the Women's Studies ghetto, but it happens. And, very often, it leads to children without intact families and involved daddies -- a situation in which they have very poor outcomes.
"Single mothers by choice" -- a particularly nasty and selfish thing I am very much against. Unfortunately, the kids don't get a choice in the matter.
Unless you get a man's consent that he'll form a family with you and wants a child, you have no right to have one with him, and must take every measure to see that YOUR body does not get pregnant.
Posted by: Amy Alkon
at April 12, 2009 11:27 AM
So Amy is pro-choice? I'm glad to hear it. I'll put you on my literature lists for donations!
Posted by: delagar at April 12, 2009 12:54 PM
Amy is pro-choice. Put me on a list for anything and I'll track down your home number and call you at three in the morning and wake you up to complain about it.
What amuses me is the assumption that I wouldn't be, probably simply because I don't parrot the victim feminist dogma on various issues.
I'm an atheist, fiscal conservative, for small government and against socialism. I'm socially libertarian and a "personal responsibilitarian." When it comes to what people owe children they bring into this world, I'm just to the right of Dr. Laura, who I think gives some pretty good advice -- though we're rather far apart on a number of issues (for example, my business card reads "godless harlot," and I don't believe in marriage and would never live with anyone). Also, I see to it that I always look sexy when my boyfriend comes over or we're going out -- boys like that, and I like boys, so there you have it. There are so many ways I'm sure you feminists all find me completely offensive, and that pleases me to no end.
Posted by: Amy Alkon
at April 12, 2009 1:18 PM
"The topic is discrimination, not prejudice."
Yeah right. As if the two subjects are completely separate and mutually exclusive. Discrimination is in no way related to prejudice apparently.
"oh oh, Nick's trying to insert thoughts into my head again. Perhaps he is an idiot."
Says the same person who has previously argued ad absurdum not on the basis of what I actually write, but on the basis of what he insists I really think.
In the very same post, Norman claims to know what I'll be thinking in the future (i.e. "in 30 years from now he'll be whistling a different tune"). Apparently Norman's psychic powers extend to not only knowing what I currently think, but what I'll be thinking in the future.
Posted by: Nick S at April 12, 2009 8:51 PM
"That's true at least with respect to the kind of mentality of the person making that statement: 30 years from now you'll be whistling a different tune."
But one could just as easily say: 'Well, if Norman was black, or a woman, or gay he'd be whistling a different tune'.
Of course it's true that, on average, people are more likely to support a position that suits their self-interest or current perspective on life. But then, so what? This proves nothing as to which position is more sound.
The problem with this kind of lazy relativist position is that if everyone adopts this way of looking at things, nothing will ever be resolved. If everyone's perspective is just as valid, and there is no objective truth, then there is little point to any debate.
It's a standard feature of the current politically correct victimhood mantra to argue that the subjective feelings of designated victim groups are more valid than logic or evidence. It's a bit like in the women's studies classes where they claim that logic is a male invention to suppress women's voice and feelings.
Also, it's ridiculous for anyone to claim to speak for everyone in a designated group. According to Norman, when I am older I will see things differently. But Norman doesn't speak for everyone in a particular age group, any more than NOW speaks for all women or the NAACP speaks for all blacks.
Posted by: Nick S at April 12, 2009 9:26 PM
