~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Last week, the U.S. supreme court heard arguments in a reverse discrimination complaint by a group of white firefighters from New Haven, CT.
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.
What did the city do? After much racially charged debate, the city's civil service board rejected the test scores and promoted no one.
At issue is a conflict in federal civil rights law. On the one hand, the Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 say employers may not discriminate against people because of their race.
But employers have also been told they may not use hiring or promotional standards — including tests — that have a "disparate impact on the basis of race" unless it is "required by business necessity." Although this test was designed to be part of the evaluation process for officer positions within the fire department, the city claims it is not certain that the knowledge tested by the firefighters' exam was required to be a lieutenant in the fire department. What? Then why would you spend $100,000 on the test?
When the U.S. Supreme court rules on this case in June, it will likely be in favor of the white firefighters, but it will not, unfortunately, be a ruling that is far enough reaching to end Affirmative Action - legislation that is not only unfair by today's standards, but that actually encourages the continuation of the racial divide with its position that minorities (blacks, women, etc.) are not "good enough" to secure positions/promotions based on their own merits.
It is one thing to assure equal opportunity to all people, but when you exclude a group of people - based entirely on their race - isn't that still discriminatory whether they are black or white?
Last week, the U.S. supreme court heard arguments in a reverse discrimination complaint by a group of white firefighters from New Haven, CT.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.
What did the city do? After much racially charged debate, the city's civil service board rejected the test scores and promoted no one.
At issue is a conflict in federal civil rights law. On the one hand, the Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 say employers may not discriminate against people because of their race.
But employers have also been told they may not use hiring or promotional standards — including tests — that have a "disparate impact on the basis of race" unless it is "required by business necessity." Although this test was designed to be part of the evaluation process for officer positions within the fire department, the city claims it is not certain that the knowledge tested by the firefighters' exam was required to be a lieutenant in the fire department. What? Then why would you spend $100,000 on the test?
When the U.S. Supreme court rules on this case in June, it will likely be in favor of the white firefighters, but it will not, unfortunately, be a ruling that is far enough reaching to end Affirmative Action - legislation that is not only unfair by today's standards, but that actually encourages the continuation of the racial divide with its position that minorities (blacks, women, etc.) are not "good enough" to secure positions/promotions based on their own merits.
It is one thing to assure equal opportunity to all people, but when you exclude a group of people - based entirely on their race - isn't that still discriminatory whether they are black or white?
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
