|
• Snow Closings
|
|
| Tue, Feb. 09 - - Mobile - RSS | |
| YOUR TOWN: Caroline | Culpeper | King George | Fredericksburg | Orange | Spotsylvania | Stafford | Westmoreland | |
|
|
Isn't it time for a truly colorblind society?
Charles Krauthammer's column on the Supreme Court ruling on the Ricci case, discrimination, and the Civil Rights Act
Date published: 7/5/2009
WASHINGTON --The Supreme Court's ruling in the Ricci case--that white firemen suffered illegal discrimination when a promotional test on which they did well was thrown out because not enough blacks did well--will have no effect on Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court. While overturned on Ricci, she is protected by the four dissenting justices who upheld the side of the case she had taken as a Circuit Court judge. Sotomayor was additionally helped by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's insistence on reading her dissent from the bench, as if to emphasize the legitimacy of her position--and, by implication, Sotomayor's.Ricci left Sotomayor relatively unscathed. But not affirmative action. Ricci raised the bar considerably on overt discrimination against one racial group simply to undo the unintentionally racially skewed results of otherwise fair and objective employment procedures (in this case, examinations). It's not enough for a city to say, as did New Haven, that it was afraid of being sued by black firefighters. The evidence was irrefutable that the tests were put together in a conscientious, race-neutral way. Not only were minority firefighters over-sampled in devising the questions. The designers established nine oral exam boards, each a three-person panel, each consisting of precisely one white, one black, and one Hispanic. (Such is the extreme race consciousness that the Civil Rights Act, of all things, has brought upon us.) Nor will it do, as New Haven tried, to throw out a test on the pretext that another test with less racial impact might theoretically exist out there in the ether. The defenders of the old racial order, led by Ginsburg, objected sternly, declaring that the white firemen "had no vested right to promotion." Of course they didn't, but they did have a vested right Of course no one has a vested right to promotion. Isn't that why they gave those tests in the first place? Isn't that why for the last, oh, 125 years we have been using objective civil service exams to allocate government jobs not on the basis of right--or patronage or favoritism or racially discriminatory advantage--but on the basis of merit and job-related skill?
Date published: 7/5/2009
|
 |
|||
|
|||
