~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Is anyone else using the new "Your Reading List" tool for Firefox? It's made my "I need to blog about this" list even longer, which is both a good and a bad thing. Anyway, this post isn't about browsers and tools, so I guess I should get to my point. What was my point again? Oh yes!
In late June, the Supreme Court ruled in the New Haven, CT firefighter's case (I posted about the case [HERE]). In short, the white and Hispanic firefighters believed they were unfairly denied promotions because of their race. The city of New Haven spent $100,000 on a test given to all firefighters competing for officer positions within the department. The city coded the test takers by race, and of the top 15 scorers, 14 were white and one was Hispanic. There were only 15 vacancies in the top ranks of the fire department meaning no blacks would be promoted. The city threw out the test and promoted no one.
The Court ruled that New Haven was wrong to scrap the promotion exam because no African-Americans and only one Hispanic firefighter were likely to be made lieutenants or captains. This was a 5-4 Supreme Court decision - Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas being the majority vote. Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."
The firefighter's attorney said the ruling was "a sign that individual achievement should not take a back seat to race or ethnicity. I think the importance of the decision is that cities cannot bow to politics and pressure and lobbying by special interest groups or act to achieve racial quotas." I couldn't agree more.
At some point, this country will realize that Title VII was about equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. I hope to see a day where no one will question whether a "non-white" individuals' achievements were the result of affirmative action, but rather will know the person was the most qualified for the position/promotion. Was the test used by the New Haven Fire Department discriminatory? Aren't all tests? This one - in particular - discriminated between those were intellectually competent for the promotion, and those who weren't, and that is a good thing. Throwing out the results because the outcome was not what was anticipated, or out of fear of litigation, does nothing more than reinforce the idea that "non-whites" are intellectually less than whites and need special consideration to make the cut. How does that promote equality?
Is anyone else using the new "Your Reading List" tool for Firefox? It's made my "I need to blog about this" list even longer, which is both a good and a bad thing. Anyway, this post isn't about browsers and tools, so I guess I should get to my point. What was my point again? Oh yes!In late June, the Supreme Court ruled in the New Haven, CT firefighter's case (I posted about the case [HERE]). In short, the white and Hispanic firefighters believed they were unfairly denied promotions because of their race. The city of New Haven spent $100,000 on a test given to all firefighters competing for officer positions within the department. The city coded the test takers by race, and of the top 15 scorers, 14 were white and one was Hispanic. There were only 15 vacancies in the top ranks of the fire department meaning no blacks would be promoted. The city threw out the test and promoted no one.
The Court ruled that New Haven was wrong to scrap the promotion exam because no African-Americans and only one Hispanic firefighter were likely to be made lieutenants or captains. This was a 5-4 Supreme Court decision - Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas being the majority vote. Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."
The firefighter's attorney said the ruling was "a sign that individual achievement should not take a back seat to race or ethnicity. I think the importance of the decision is that cities cannot bow to politics and pressure and lobbying by special interest groups or act to achieve racial quotas." I couldn't agree more.
At some point, this country will realize that Title VII was about equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. I hope to see a day where no one will question whether a "non-white" individuals' achievements were the result of affirmative action, but rather will know the person was the most qualified for the position/promotion. Was the test used by the New Haven Fire Department discriminatory? Aren't all tests? This one - in particular - discriminated between those were intellectually competent for the promotion, and those who weren't, and that is a good thing. Throwing out the results because the outcome was not what was anticipated, or out of fear of litigation, does nothing more than reinforce the idea that "non-whites" are intellectually less than whites and need special consideration to make the cut. How does that promote equality?
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
20 comments:
There are currently two States in the USA that whites are a minority... Can you name them, and do the whites get any preferential treatment in hiring because of it? Of course not. My own city had this same scenario with firefighters years ago, and never made the national news.. One thing they never point out- most fires are in neighborhoods populated mainly by minorities. I think that is why cities want more minority participation in firefighting and police squads. They can relate and communicate better with the public they serve and come in contact with, without cries of racism echoing in the courtrooms..
Thanks for discussing this. It is important that everyone be granted EQUAL opportunity, regardless of race, gender, or disability.
Equal Opportunity for All...!! Except for midgets and clowns, both groups creep the hell out of me. Cheers!!
Yay for activist judges who overturn precedent and make new law! hehe ;-)
I'm not a lawyer or anything but, I agree that the New Haven case probably deserved to be overturned. At some point, as long as everyone has had the same access to the same opportunities then it's not longer discrimination if they don't pass the written tests or whatever.
I wonder, since the extremely well educated members of the Supreme Court has decided to dictate to cities and states new rules about discrimination, if they would like to also get rid of things like legacy admissions to colleges? You know, that policy whereby over-privileged children of a school's graduates get automatic admission to that school whether they have earned it or not? And they take slots away from people who have actually qualified?
Or, if they would like to get really crazy and say that states who have policies that give preference to children of state workers in hiring of state jobs have to stop that practice too?
I agree. It's one thing to say let's not discriminate, and another to actually discriminate because you're passing over someone who is more qualified just to say you hired a person of a different race.
Your last few sentences are something that I have always believed. Affirmative action and Title VII programs do nothing but say to the world that the minority (race, gender, etc.) is not capable of success without an advantage. As a woman I am offended at the notion that I need special treatment or advantages to achieve what men can.
I understand where the concepts were born, but they are offensive and patronizing in practice.
Exactly what you said- equal opportunities NOT equal outcome.
buffalodick, actually, I read that there are four states where the minority is the majority - Hawaii, New Mexico, California, and Texas. I don't even take issue with the fact that cities may want their public servants to reflect their populations, but I think I'd rather have the most qualified firefighter show up at my house rather than the one who looked most like me.
Nolens Volens, I'm all for equal opportunity, but not preferential treatment!
Matt-Man, you forgot Shriners ... or do they count as clowns?
Jay, *giggle* I guess it depends on if you believe they overturned precedent and if you believe that fear of a Title VII lawsuit is justifiable reason for "discrimination".
And I'd love to see the end of legacy admissions to colleges and familial hiring preferences in local, state and federal government agencies! Just stay away from my Veteran's preference Jay *wink*
3carnations, affirmative action has done all it's going to do. It's now time for the PEOPLE to do all that they can do!
Karen, the embracing of Affirmative Action by minorities has always baffled me. It's beyond my grasp to see how anyone can consider an unfair advantage as something positive.
My husband and I talk about equality all the time, or the lack thereof. At work, if two people from different races, or even two different genders apply for the same job, the minority gets it if they are both capable of doing the job. I do not believe in that, at all. I definitely believe in testing, and testing is how I hire people. I interview, take the best five or six, and then test them. It's amazing how many people lie during an interview on what they can and can't do, and what better way to figure that out?
I could go and on, but Dana, you say the things I think and believe so much better than I do!
I believe that in order to promote equality, we should first start by abandoning all the racial holiday traditions...
Black History Month
Hispanic Month
Gay Pride
Kwanzaa
Etc.
If we want to celebrate something lets call it "We bleed the same way day" or "Human Day" or something like that.
See, the more attention we give to holidays like these, the more we alienate ourselves from the masses. I feel that it is because we call others and say, "Look at How different we are." But then when a job doesn't happen for us because of the label we place on ourselves.....we complain.
Seems like a double standard to me.
I can't see anything wrong with what you have stated. It's all true.
Dana said: "Just stay away from my Veteran's preference Jay *wink*"
LOL! Well, to be honest with you, I actually did have that in my comment originally. But, I didn't want to come across as if I was deliberately trying to take a cheap shot at you or trolling or anything like that.
But, now that you mention it .... ;-)~
This is a giant step forward. It suck in all cases, but to deal with promotions based upon race and not competence when dealing with a profession where lives are at stake...well...give me a department of all green people if they are the best at what they do.
I couldn't have said it any better myself. Totally agree with you here.
everyone here seems to be white.....except maybe flyin' fox
Vixen, I'm not sure how the two got so confuzzled.
Bina, and this is certainly not limited to race. I know I've seen women promoted who had no business in a position of leadership, but the employer needed to look "better" to recruits.
Flyinfox_SATX, it is most definitely a double standard.
we're doomed, well, I don't know about it being "true" but it certainly is my opinion.
Jay, at least Veteran's preference is a benefit, not a right - but you are right (GAHHH! I hated typing that), in practice it's no difference.
Bond I want the *best* firefighters, police officers, doctors - I don't want to have to wonder if they are there because the law mandated it.
Evil Twin's Wife, thank you!
doggybloggy, it's an equal opportunity comment section, but clearly not an equal outcome comment section.
You may recall that Cam is half black, and I don't want him to EVER depend on a "gift" when he should be working his ass off to be the best. The expectation is that he will work hard for everything he gets, not stand in the Title VII line.
if you have never felt the sting of discrimination claiming 'reverse discrimination' sounds like crybaby stuff....I dont doubt that Cam has felt it already(maybe not aware - he is still young) and you will never....just saying!
Post a Comment