Earlier this year I told you about a case called Ricci v. DeStefano. The fire department in New Haven, Connecticut, threw out the results of a promotions test because no blacks scored high enough to qualify for promotions. In other words, white firefighters (over a dozen) and two hispanics who qualified were denied promotions because of their race.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the firefighters and against New Haven. (Also see video)
Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, was one of the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit who sided with New Haven. In other words, she ruled against the firefighters denied promotions because of skin color.
A developing meme is that the Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor. Will it make a difference during confirmation hearings? I’m not hopeful Sotomayor-reversed will generate much steam. I doubt Republicans have the heart to grill Sotomayor the way they should. They’re not of stout heart.
For a little light reading, download the 93-page opinion. (PDF)
Race preferences bake sales (Asians pay a buck for a donut, women 50 cents, blacks 25 cents, and so on) are demonstrations that illustrate the demeaning nature of race-based preferences as practiced by colleges and universities across the country.
Earlier this month, Bucknell University closed down such a demonstration because of a technicality. Deans Commerford and Marrara cited a discrepancy between prices at the time of application and at the time of sale.
Hideously stupid, but when the Bucknell University Conservatives Club (BUCC) applied for a second demonstration, the school decided to suppress free speech altogether. The school said no dice. From the article:
“I concluded that this activity was a discriminatory fundraising event, which violates our stated, and legally required, nondiscrimination policy that is applicable to all sponsored or authorized events,” said Gerald Commerford, associate dean of students.
The BUCC’s choice to file another sales and solicitation form was an attempt “to test the University’s commitment to the issue of free speech,” Roesch said. He doubted that the only reason the original sale was shut down was because of a paperwork issue.
After this incident, Commerford said the rationale behind the decision to stop the event is consistent in both cases.
“When I closed the club’s prior event, I did so because their registration form was incorrectly filled out.
Right, Dean Commerford. Then he covers his politically correct butt:
However, upon reflection and review after taking that action, I concluded that even with a correctly completed registration form, the affirmative action bake sale was not a fundraising activity and is in violation of the University’s nondiscrimination policy,” Commerford said.
Bucknell is a private university, but students have free speech rights. Students ought to be allowed to demonstrate the unfairness and ridiculousness of race-based admissions, which I assume their school practices, by conducting race-based bake sales. One is offensive and the other isn’t?
Keep bucking the system, BUCC. As a black American turned totally off by government-sanctioned lowered preferences for blacks, I unequivocally side with you.
Is FIRE on top of this? Good.
Last month I mentioned that the fire department in New Haven, Connecticut, threw out test results and canceled promotions because too few black firefighters scored high enough to receive promotions. The department was concerned about promoting too many whites, a clear case of racial discrimination.
Firefighter Frank Ricci and others (one hispanic and more than a dozen whites) who scored high on the test sued the city, citing equal protection violations. After a district court judge dismissed the case, a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court affirmed the dismissal. Conservative judges on the court sought to have it re-heard. Judge Jose Cabranes defined the issue this way:
“May a municipal employer disregard the results of a qualifying examination, which was carefully constructed to ensure race-neutrality, on the ground that the results of that examination yielded too many qualified applicants of one race and not enough of another?”
The appeals court declined to hear the case by a vote of 7 to 6. Download the 72-page opinion (PDF).
Ricci petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, and last week, the court agreed to hear the case.
I’ve written about this issue before. A few years ago, I spent an hour on a conference call with three people at a consulting firm hired by the Denver Fire Department to water down the test so black applicants could pass it at higher rates. They told me, somewhat proudly, they’d been hired to create watered down tests for fire departments in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland, too. I asked them repeatedly what changing the test would entail: more pictures, fewer words, no math…what? I just got jargon. No straight answers. My request for a copy of a sample test was denied.
According to the firm’s web site, the new test would measure a “broader range of job related abilities than traditional written tests” to identify “well-rounded, motivated, and qualified” applicants. In other words, the goal was to play down what apparently made blacks look bad — abstract reasoning ability — and play up “interpersonal” skills.
I also blogged about a fire department that eliminated a swimming test because too many black applicants can’t swim. Can you believe it? Instead of eliminating non-swimming applicants or even doing the paternal thing – sending them to swimming lessons like dependent children – the department eliminates an important requirement for the job!
I wish blacks would protest in the streets and burn cars over this. How much more demeaning can you get? Lowering standards for black applicants? What happened to “We shall overcome” and being treated equally? And all that talk about being given a chance, the same chance as everyone else? Black America should be in an uproar over being perceived as stupid and incapable.
But, no. Government-wide lowered standards for blacks don’t raise anyone’s blood pressure but mine.
Ricci v. DeStefano is an important case. Even if the Supreme Court sides with Ricci and rules that throwing out the test results because too many whites would get promotions is unconstitutional, however, the practice won’t disappear altogether. In some form or another, the government will find a way, any way, to lower the bar for blacks and keep it raised high for everybody else.
Those who fought and died during the civil rights movement must be so proud.
In New Haven, Connecticut, the fire department threw out test results and canceled promotions because too few black firefighters scored high enough to receive promotions. A group of firefighers who achieved high scores is suing.
I’m at a loss for words, but here’s one, repeated three times: shame, shame, shame. 
Ah! More words. If I were a betting woman, I’d wager that the New Haven Fire Department already watered down the test, ala New York City and Denver.
I don’t know why these things happen. I just blog and link (and provide reams of commentary!).
I, personally, me, La Shawn Barber, couldn’t care less that retired Army General Colin Powell, black Republican, endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama for president.
For those who do care, let me ease your mind. As confusing as it may be, you shouldn’t be surprised. That is, if you know anything about Colin Powell.
Did you know Colin Powell is pro-choice? He believes women have a right to choose to have their unborn babies slaughtered in the womb.
Did you know Colin Powell believes colleges and universities should admit and reject applicants based on the color of their skin? Race should play a role in admissions, he thinks, an idea totally contrary to the very spirit of the civil rights movement.
(Incidentally, black Republican Condoleezza Rice is also pro-choice and pro-race preferences.)
I would not be surprised if I learned Colin Powell opposes California’s Proposition 8, a measure that would amend the constitution to define marriage as between only one man and one woman.
Colin Powell, endorser of BHO, is a Republican, but he’s not socially conservative. That should clear up any confusion or answer most questions you have about why he did such a thing.
Update: Speaking of race preferences, check out the American Civil Rights Institute’s (ACRI) new blog. If you’re interested in reading about ACRI’s efforts to end race- and sex-based preferences in government hiring, contracting, and admissions, bookmark it or subscribe via RSS or e-mail.
Thanks to Ward Connerly’s efforts, voters in Colorado and Nebraska will decide on November 4 whether their state and local governments may continue discriminating against and granting preferences to people based on race and sex.
Update (9/11): Some readers are under the mistaken impression that I attended the HBCU conference. I didn’t.
The photo below of me and Justice Thomas was taken last October at the Heritage Foundation. Thomas spoke about his experiences and signed copies of his memoir, My Grandfather’s Son.
——————————————————————-
At the recent Annual Conference of the White House Initiative on National Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said it was “not acceptable” that there aren’t more black people in her meetings at the State Department. (Source)
Based on the context of the entire speech, which I read, she wasn’t insinuating “racism” had anything to do with it. It sounded like she was encouraging blacks to become involved in Foreign Service.
There’s nothing wrong with encouraging blacks to consider certain careers, but it sounds too much like pandering to me. If I were giving a speech in front of a black audience (which I hope to do on my book tour), I wouldn’t complain about the paucity of blacks at blog conferences. Who cares?
No matter what the topic, I’d take time to address substantive issues that blacks, not the government, need to fix, like the outrageous levels of illegitimacy and crime among blacks. That is not acceptable. There are more pressing concerns than not seeing other blacks at a conference or in meetings. I wouldn’t waste time, not one second, “lamenting” that there aren’t more people “who look like me.”
[click to continue…]
I’ll bet it was like pulling a tooth, but John McCain finally answered a question about where he stands on the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, a measure that seeks to ban preferential treatment by the government based on race, sex, etc., in his home state.
Asked point-blank whether he supported the ballot initiative, McCain said, “Yes, I do…I’ve always opposed quotas.” (Source)
(Michelle Malkin is skeptical of McCain’s endorsement.)
Activist Ward Connerly is on a mission to ban preferences from hiring, contracting, and admissions in state governments. His efforts have proved fruitful in three states so far. Californians approved a ban on preferences with 54 percent of the vote in 1996. Voters in Washington state approved a similar measure by 58.3 percent in 1998, and Michigan voters approved the ban by 58 percent in 2006.
As expected, Barack Obama believes governments should treat people differently based on skin color. In response to McCain’s comments, BHO said:
[click to continue…]
En route to California to visit my sister and attend a conference on civil rights, hosted by Ward Connerly of the American Civil Rights Institute.
I count myself among many Americans who loathe race preferences, known in politically correct jargon as affirmative action. I join like-minded others to eradicate this demeaning, unfair, and unconstitutional practice from state government policies across the country.
Rest easy, everybody, and thanks for reading LBC.
Related:
On November 4, 2008, the people of Colorado will vote on whether their state government may continue preferring one group over another based on race and sex in hiring and admissions.
The Secretary of State has determined that the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative has received enough signatures to be placed on the November ballot. Said Ward Connerly, the man behind the anti-preferences machine:
“The people in Colorado who have the desire to end race and gender preferences are to be commended for their success. I am delighted that the Super-Tuesday for Equal Rights effort has achieved another milestone towards success in November.”
The Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, a state constitutional amendment, will appear on the ballot as Amendment 46. Vote YES on Amendment 46 to bar the state from hiring, contracting, and admitting people based on skin color or genitalia. The push for equal treatment continues in states like Arizona, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
Connerly, of the American Civil Rights Institute, spearheaded campaigns against race and sex preferences in several states. Liberal Californians voted against preferences in government hiring, contracting, and admissions by 54 percent in 1996. So did 58.3 percent of voters in Washington state in 1998 and 58 percent of Michigan voters in 2006.
Related posts:
…who’s the blackest of them all?
You can dredge up the horrors of American slavery. You can keep stirring the Jim Crow pot, constantly reminding everyone how horrible it was that a country forcibly segregated its citizens by race and discriminated against blacks because they were black. You can wail and gnash teeth all day long, wallowing in abject bitterness because others have more than you do: looks, money, influence, opportunity, or whatever.
But you cannot, even if you lived 1,000 lifetimes, make a coherent and logically sound argument in favor of racial discrimination in the other direction. Nothing, not even the most heinous act committed against a black person by our government, justifies discriminating against other races in favor of blacks.
Let me put it this way: I have yet to read or hear a coherent and logically sound argument in favor of so-called reverse discrimination. Perhaps one exists. If you’ve read or heard such an argument, do let me know.
This post was inspired by a blogger I met last summer, John Rosenberg, who blogs about racial discrimination. John is just as anti-skin color preferences as I am. He picked apart a pro-skin color preferences editorial in the Muskogee Phoenix, a community newspaper in Oklahoma.
[click to continue…]
Update: Hmmm…A federal investigation was warranted when they thought white firefighters hung the noose and wrote the note. Does “hate crime hoax” fall under federal jurisdiction? Will Donald Maynard be brought up on federal charges? Poor, victimized, put-upon, stressed out black man. Probably not.
————————————————————————-
This is sad.
Turns out that a black firefighter in Baltimore who said he found a noose and “threatening note” in the fire station last month planted both himself. (Source)
Why did he do it? Let’s speculate.
If you read this blog regularly, you may know that fire departments have been pressured to “revamp” employment tests because too many blacks and hispanics were failing them. Anyone with half a brain knows that “revamp” is a euphemism for “dumbed down.” For whatever reason, blacks as a group don’t perform as well as whites on tests that measure general intelligence (designated as g).
In order to narrow the test gap, the test’s g-load is reduced. The result? More blacks pass the test. I suspect that Donald Maynard, who admitted writing the threatening note (typo and all), was bitter about his own subpar job performance (which I inferred from the story) as a firefighter-paramedic apprentice. (Additionally, the city’s inspector general uncovered a cheating scandal. Five black firefighters cheated on a promotions exam. As expected, they cried, “Racism!” when they got caught.)
In a misguided effort to mask his incompetence and blow off steam about perceived racism and a sense of his own inferiority, Maynard planted the noose and note. He knew exactly what the reaction would be: a national outcry, followed by unrighteous indignation, preening, and prancing by various racial grievance groups, a federal investigation, and sympathy for himself and black co-workers.
[click to continue…]
6:53 a.m. PT: While no human being can be colorblind, government policy must be.
Given this country’s sordid racial history, the promise of equal treatment without regard to race, and the inherent unfairness of being judged as a member of a group instead of as an individual, it’s imperative that our government is forced, if necessary, to get out and stay out of the skin color business.
In response to the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and strong resistance to race-neutral school assigning, courts across the country ordered school districts to desegregate. They were required to dismantle official and unofficial race-based school assignment policies. But in a strange Alice-in-Wonderland interpretation of the case, school districts continued to use race to assign students (to achieve a racial “balance”), despite the wording of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (emphases added):
[click to continue…]
Update (11/14): Roger Clegg expertly breaks down Barack Obama’s interview on “affirmative action.” That’s race preferences, to you and me. I’ll appear on NPR’s News & Notes today around 1 p.m. ET to discuss UCS’s comprehensive review proposal and other topics.
Clarification: The UC System has a two-tiered approach in admitting students. First, they must be eligible, based on grades, scores, and a set of required courses, to enter the UC System. Second, once a student is deemed eligible to enter the system, comprehensive review of his file determines on which campus he’s placed (Berkeley, UCLA, San Diego, etc.). This is the selection portion of the process. The Board of Admissions proposes to extend comprehensive review to the eligibility portion, de-emphasizing grades, scores, and required courses. Again, despite the convoluted explanation in the 17-page proposal, UC is attempting to get around state law by factoring in an applicant’s race. From the proposal (emphasis in original):
BOARS recommends that the present practice of providing a guarantee of admission to all students who meet a narrow set of criteria based on course-taking, GPA, test taking, and test scores be replaced. The new policy would guarantee not admission, but consideration for admission through a comprehensive review at each campus of application, to all students who meet certain basic criteria of academic achievement.
Sounds good in theory, doesn’t it? But wait and see what happens. Suddenly, the number of black and hispanic students will rise, but the grade and score gaps will remain the same. If comprehensive review is applied equally across the board to all who apply, why would it disproportionately benefit blacks and hispanics (as I predict it will) and not, say, Asian students with high grades and scores (or low grades and scores) with hard-luck stories of their own? If applied to all students equally, wouldn’t a higher number of white students who would not have made the cut under the old criteria be admitted under the proposed relaxed standard?
[click to continue…]
Grinding, grinding, grinding…
As long as I live, I will never understand why more blacks aren’t spitting mad about race preferences. In their minds, I suppose, it’s not a preference; it’s “affirmative action.”
The confusion stems from not defining terms. In its purest form, affirmative action is simply taking positive steps toward including more historically excluded people — blacks and women — in a hiring or admissions pool. Their inclusion presumes they’re as qualified as other applicants. But somewhere along the way, affirmative action turned into a quota system, whereby a certain percentage of women or blacks, even the less qualified, had to be hired in order to meet some arbitrary balance.
This, despite what naysayers say, is called a preference. Specifically, when a black person or a woman who is not as qualified is admitted or hired over a non-black person or a man who is more qualified, the black person or woman was given a preference over the more qualified person. From my perspective, too many blacks are satisfied with this practice and see nothing wrong with it whatsoever. The most glaring problem is that blacks who came before us fought to get rid of this kind of thing when it benefited whites.
Consistency is important in debate and discourse. If you believe racial discrimination is objectively wrong, it remains wrong even if your racial group benefits from the discrimination.
[click to continue…]
Black Talk Radio
I guest-hosted “The Casey Lartigue Shop” on XM satellite radio earlier this year with host and friend Casey Lartigue. I’ve known the former Cato education analyst since 2003. I quoted one of his studies in my one and so-far-only Washington Post clip, and we’ve been pals ever since.
(Also see I’m A Libertarian on Education)
Casey told me a couple of months ago he’d been dumped by his radio station. As he told me his story, I wasn’t surprised. I had a bad experience with that particular channel. During an interview, the black liberal host, who didn’t like me, started yelling at me. On the air. I lost my cool, yelled back, and ended up hanging up on him. I hated that I’d lost control like that. Bad form. Weeks later, a producer called and apologized on behalf of the host, and asked me to return to the show. Not in a 1,000 lifetimes, honey. Casey later told me that for a couple of weeks after that show, the station played a clip (as the show’s intro) of me and the host going at it.
Last month, Casey and I appeared on NPR’s black bloggers roundtable, and he told me afterward he was writing a piece about his firing for the Washington Post. He and co-host Eliot Morgan exposed a conspiracy theory that former President Jimmy Carter issued a memorandum back in the day, which purportedly outlined a strategy to undermine black “leaders” in America and “sow discord with Africans abroad,” as a lie.
Casey and Eliot learned that Carter’s actual memo was “a bland call for a bureaucratic review of U.S. policy toward Central American issues.”
“[I]f you think that was the end of the story, you don’t know the world of black talk radio,” they write. “These are the airwaves in which the first president of the United States was a black man, in which AIDS was cooked up in a government laboratory to decimate the black population and in which major corporations lace their food with chemicals to make black men sterile.”
Check out Talk Radio Can’t Handle the Truth.
Marrying White
Anti-miscegenists will hate it. Black women ready for a change will love it. And everybody else, well…
Featured in an Associated Press article are black women who’ve crossed the color line in the dating and marriage field. The article is about how difficult it can be for black women to find marriage-worthy black men. Black men date and marry outside their race at a higher rate than black women, and some of these women are waking up to the possibility themselves.
Quoted in the article is Evia Moore, creator of Black Female Interracial Marriage. Check it out. I blogged about her blog a few months ago.
Natural Allies
In my latest Townhall column, Blacks and Hispanics Natural Allies?, I outline why these two “oppressed” groups are not “natural allies.” Fighting over limited resources and petty concerns is not conducive to an alliance. But joining together for the common goal of keeping America great, that’s a different story. This is The Economist article I cited in the column.
Related posts:
