Writing in The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal, Abigail Thernstrom wrote, concerning the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, the New Haven firefighter’s discrimination case:
Second Circuit judge, José Cabranes, properly posed the broad constitutional question at issue: “Does the Equal Protection Clause prohibit a municipal employer from discarding examination results on the ground that ‘too many’ applicants of one race received high scores and in the hope that a future test would yield more high-scoring applicants of other races? Does such a practice constitute an unconstitutional racial quota or set-aside?”
Unfortunately, only Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia addressed this issue — and only briefly. “The war between disparate impact and equal protection will be waged sooner or later, and it behooves us to begin thinking about how — and on what terms — to make peace between them,” he concluded.
This brings me to another article, which I also heard about due to Dr Douglas, from Fred DeBoer, in which he concluded:
I am afraid for my country. This country has a permanent black underclass; Hispanic economic mobility is not much better. Decades of affirmative action have done little to fix that. Now, we appear ready to abandon those attempts to level the playing field entirely. Of course, principles and ideals are important. But my question is open, and I apply it to the most thoughtful opponents of affirmative action and the most rabid and unthinking alike: what are the effects, for our country, of a permanent racial achievement divide? And can we reasonably expect to maintain a peaceful and just society with such a gap between the races?
And how long can we continue to pretend that these questions aren’t staring us in the face, or that they don’t matter?
Such a question could have been asked by a neutral observer, but Mr DeBoer makes no claim to being neutral: he is very much in favor of Affirmative Action, or something to equalize the races in America. He wrote:
In light of the decision by the Supreme Court in the now-famous New Haven firefighters case– or, rather, the decision by our country’s ruling philosopher king, Anthony Kennedy– I think we need to pause and consider effects in addition to principle when it comes to affirmative action and what it has meant for the preservation of a multiracial society. This, incidentally, was part of the appeal of the Slate piece on the case that Mark rightly praised.
Consider, for example, the abolition of racial preferences in the University of California system in 1996. We can talk about the principles involved, and we have, ad nauseum, as a public discourse. But what about the effects? In the UC system, the effects have been dramatic: black and Hispanic students are significantly underrepresented in comparison to their numbers in the state generally. That effect may not play out in the same way throughout the country, if racial preferences are done away with en masse. But I see no reason to suppose that they wouldn’t, and California, our most populous state (and one of the most racially diverse) would seem to be an ideal test case. The results have been dramatic, and they have been scary, if you believe that society has a vested interest in maintaining something resembling equity between the races, in terms of income, in terms of education, and in terms of social mobility. The Ricci case threatens to do for the country’s job market what the UC decision has done for California’s university population. And even if we can draw no conclusions about Ricci’s larger effects on employment, surely, the stark racial divides in California in regards to college education should give us pause, as (controversial or not) the college premium exists, and has a great deal of salience for any individual’s earning potential and access to socioeconomic mobility.
This is important, because Mr DeBoer entitled his article “What about effects?” Mr DeBoer is very concerned, as our many of our friends on the left, with the societal and cultural effects of abandoning Affirmative Action, yet he conceded that, over almost four decades of Affirmative Action being used, “this country has a permanent black underclass; Hispanic economic mobility is not much better. Decades of affirmative action have done little to fix that.”
It seems a rather obvious question: if Affirmative Action has been so ineffective in fixing the problems it was meant to address, why would we continue with it? In her majority opinion in Grutter v Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), now retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor concluded:
We take the Law School at its word that it would “like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula” and will terminate its race-conscious admissions program as soon as practicable. See Brief for Respondents Bollinger et al. 34; Bakke, supra, at 317—318 (opinion of Powell, J.) (presuming good faith of university officials in the absence of a showing to the contrary). It has been 25 years since Justice Powell first approved the use of race to further an interest in student body diversity in the context of public higher education. Since that time, the number of minority applicants with high grades and test scores has indeed increased. We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.
That was six years ago; we have 19 years left before the date the Grutter majority “expect(ed)” that the use of racial preferences would no longer be necessary.
Which brings us back to Ricci v. DeStefano. Reading through Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s strong dissent, I find page after page after page disagreeing with the reasoning of the majority opinion by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s concurring opinion, and I found a great deal about why the now overturned decision of the city of New Haven did not constitute an improper discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and how the test discarded by the city might have been discriminatory, but nothing at all about the actual effectiveness of Affirmative Action.
I wish here to set aside completely arguments concerning whether Affirmative Action and racial preferences violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court has said, in effect, that such policies do not necessarily violate Equal Protection, depending on how they are structured and whether there is a compelling government interest in doing so. (The companion cases of Grutter and Gratz v Bollinger offer some guidance: absolute quotas are forbidden, but some consideration of race is allowable.) What I wish to ask is: has and does Affirmative Action actually work to achieve the ends its proponents, and the Grutter majority, held were good and compelling government interests.
I hold that it has not. In Ricci, we had a case in which the city of New Haven tried to have written a promotion eligibility test for firemen. The very best was done to insure that it was not somehow racially discriminatory, yet, when the tests were scored, white applicants did significantly better than minority test takers. The case at hand is hardly an isolated one: the Gratz and Grutter cases turned on the same things: on standardized measures, white applicants outperformed minority candidates. As these examples go on and on, despite many, many attempts to produce completely race-neutral tests, isn’t it reasonable to question whether our efforts at helping minorities before they even get to the test taking stage have been ineffective?
Affirmative Action is, in effect, a program that is intended to bandage an already-inflicted wound. It seeks ways to help minority candidates who are less competitive with white applicants achieve equal outcomes. But it seems to me that the program should be far less about helping the already-behind candidates get ahead than it should be about keeping minorities from getting behind in the first place. It shouldn’t be about adjusting the scores of minorities who underperform on some form of application test than it should be about enabling them to perform equally in the first place.
The simple answer is: throw more money at public schools. If that had actually worked, we wouldn’t be having this discussion now.
The ball’s in your court, people; give us ideas.
Affirmative action sucks. We don’t use it to pick airline pilots or brain surgeons. That’s because these people literally hold our lives in their hands, and there’s basically zero tolerance for any standard other than competence. Why use it for firemen, who also bear this awesome responsibility?
Anecdotally, AA has worked. Justice Thomas is one of numerous examples.
The New Haven Firefighters case (Ricci) was a misapplication of AA, in my view. The idea behind AA is: All else being equal, the job (or promotion) should go to the minority. In the New Haven case, all else was not equal, the white fireman clearly did better on the test, no minorities passed it, therefore there was a miscarriage of AA.
I have been an advocate for AA, simply because we owe it to African-Americans following three hundred plus years of slavery then discrimination. Where was the concept of equal protection during all those years.
There will be a time in the near future when we will have to eliminate AA, a time which is fast approaching, perhaps one more generation.
One final point: The fact that our inner cities have an over abundance of poor minorities, still, can not necessarily be attributed to a failure of AA, because there are other important cultural forces still operative. Quality of education remains a huge issue, ultimately resulting in large unemployment numbers accompanied by a continued deterioration of the nuclear family unit.
So Dana, I come down where you do on this issue: “Affirmative Action is, in effect, a program that is intended to bandage an already-inflicted wound. It seeks ways to help minority candidates who are less competitive with white applicants achieve equal outcomes. But it seems to me that the program should be far less about helping the already-behind candidates get ahead than it should be about keeping minorities from getting behind in the first place. It shouldn’t be about adjusting the scores of minorities who underperform on some form of application test than it should be about enabling them to perform equally in the first place.”
Well stated!!!
That’s not what the libs were saying at the time. Back then, almost to a man (and woman) they sneered at Thomas as being unqualified, and only being given the position because Bush needed a black guy to replace Thurgood Marshall.
The down side to all this is a boomerang effect of we have raised two generations and well into a third one on entitlement mentality. 50 years ago we were taught to work for what you want. Now the training is, you want it, it’s yours whether you earned it or not.
Ricci goes back to the first premise of working for what you want, then being told the rules have changed because you worked too hard for it.
Worked for whom is the real question.
That’s not what the libs were saying at the time. Back then, almost to a man (and woman) they sneered at Thomas as being unqualified, and only being given the position because Bush needed a black guy to replace Thurgood Marshall.
You’ll pardon us if we consider your unsupported recollection about whatever you think “libs” were saying 18 years ago to be worth, well, nothing.
Phoenician in a time of Romans:
That’s not what the libs were saying at the time. Back then, almost to a man (and woman) they sneered at Thomas as being unqualified, and only being given the position because Bush needed a black guy to replace Thurgood Marshall.
You’ll pardon us if we consider your unsupported recollection about whatever you think “libs” were saying 18 years ago to be worth, well, nothing.
Your bias is showing again:
http://a.abcnews.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3668532&page=2
Saruman in a time of Sauron sez:
Except it happened in MY country, so I do think my recollection is a lot more solid than yours.
Yorkshire, there’s a general rule that when you provide a cite to back up a statement, it should ideally actually back up the statement, and at the very least actually relate to the subject. Your inability to realise this is part of your problem, and I only hope you come to terms with it soon..
Phoenician in a time of Romans:
Yorkshire, there’s a general rule that when you provide a cite to back up a statement, it should ideally actually back up the statement, and at the very least actually relate to the subject. Your inability to realise this is part of your problem, and I only hope you come to terms with it soon..
You weren’t here, I was. Thomas was railroaded as the article says and you deny. You deal with it. Unless the hearings were in NZ, you haven’t a clue.
You weren’t here, I was.
Yes, Yorkshire, but you’re not a credible witness.
Phoenician in a time of Romans:
You weren’t here, I was.
Yes, Yorkshire, but you’re not a credible witness.
You’re sooooooooooooo correct again Pho. You sat there and didn’t see me follow the hearings on TV. By gosh, your credibility is soooooooooooooooo high with me that everything I read from you is high comedy of the 34th level. Right, you weren’t here, but because you have a computer and can sit alllllllllll day and fact check every word and nuance of everyone on the web, you have become the expert in adminstivia. You know a lot, but you know nothing at all unless you be your usual parrot self. I’m looking forward to your next set of comedy writings here. I still laugh my ass off at your correction of the shape of the earth. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You’re sooooooooooooo correct again Pho.
Thank you. Would you care to provide a relevant cite now.
Phoenician in a time of Romans:
You’re sooooooooooooo correct again Pho.
Thank you. Would you care to provide a relevant cite now.
I provided one, find your own cite to disprove what Eric and I said. I’m not doing your research. We saw it, you didn’t, you’re no witness at all. Again, thanks for the laughs.
I provided one,
Relevant – “having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand b: affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion “
Arguing with Pho is getting to be about as pointless as arguing with Blu when she’s in full 9/11 Twoofer rant mode. It’s basically “Don’t believe your own eyes and ears, but rather just trust me, The Expert, who knows far more about the subject than you do”.
Eric: “…who [Pho] knows far more about the subject than you do”
Obviously she (I’m assuming!) does, moreover, she backs up her salient points with relevant links, making her points very convincing, certainly much more convincing than those who come on here only to call names all the time! The latter is weak to anyone who wants to approach topics with some grey matter operative.
So far, I have yet to see a critic of AA on here make their case effectively, so I stick with my previous post, in agreement with Dana and Phoenician.
But consider what business as usual leads to.
I wonder if Dana will take time out of his busy schedule bashing AA to address the minor story mentioned in that link…
Pho, I’m not sure what an article on the success of Goldman Sachs has to do with this topic.
GS is a financial institution geared to make money. I expect them to do whatever they can to do so.
Carthago delenda est might be appropriate here.
In the case under review, it might be argued that language skills might have put those without standard English as their first language at a cultural advantage.
Being able to comprehend the words on a written test is a good start at attaining a passing score. Yet when schools tolerate a form of Ebonics, should those who chose to follow the more formal linguistic rules be placed at a disadvantage by some ‘quota queen’?
The firefighter with the high score was dyslexic. Many with this disability are (falsely) believed to be relative dullards. Yet the opposite is more often the case. Perhaps the firefighter should have blamed the ‘Educational Establishment’ for dumping phonics and making his path more difficult. Instead, he hired a tutor at substantial cost to improve his reading skill. The Orton-Gillingham approach does work and there are many trained people who work as volunteers. I hope that some organization will open up locally and give me another chance to do the work.
Sotomayor lacks the judicial integrity to sit on any bench other than one in a park.
Justice is not an assurance of an equality of outcome.
In the 50′s and 60′s we grew up on competition. OK, I washed out in Little League. But life was unfair and you knew it. Then by the late 60′s, AA brought in a new paradigm to competition. It went from what you learned, to who or what you were. I resented it.
Yorkshire wrote:
Hard to play outfield with one leg, huh?
Pho, I’m not sure what an article on the success of Goldman Sachs has to do with this topic.
Nothing – I should have stuck an OT marker on it.
Are you actually defending their actions, despite the damage they’ve done to your country? Would you care to start a topic explaining how – is it just enough for them to shout “capitalism!!” loud enough and you suspend judgement?
Dana Pico:
Yorkshire wrote:
OK, I washed out in Little League.
Hard to play outfield with one leg, huh?
HAHAHAHA, good one, but it was my two legged years. I just had a hard time throwing, running, hitting and catching. Then, you just didn’t play. Now with AA & PC, you play no matter what. Kids today won’t be readily told they stink in a sport, whereas then, they would. It’s why AA&PC sucks. If I was 6 and one leg, I would be made to play even though I could get hurt worse. Self-Esteem is when YOU figure it out, not when some one keeps playing you on.
I don’t think anyone is defending bad actions. However, the “damages” they inflicted on our country was done under the direction of and regulated by the federal government. The likes of Barney Frank, Criss Dodd, Nancy Pelosi et al. The usual cabal of left wing creeps who put their own careers above the people and country.
Pho says, “Are you actually defending their actions, despite the damage they’ve done to your country?”
There are at least 5 US financial firms that are larger than Goldman Sachs. As far as actual money in the system they would have a bigger impact than Goldman. Also I would be much more inclined to read an expose written by an economist about these topics. I did read some of the article but it was more of a conspiracy theory article than a serious discussion of economics. One could just as easily point to the Federal Reserve messing around with the money supply as the cause of these boom and bust cycles.
Dana says, “The ball’s in your court, people; give us ideas.” I don’t have any grand ideas but children growing up in a stable environment or stable home, that are well fed and taken care of do much better in life than those that don’t have these things. How a society achieves that, I don’t know.
The real sucky thing about when AA came out, it also came with Welfare expansion with the alleged War on Poverty. These actually became a deadly duo given what it produced in a long run. I always looked at AA as you have already failed, don’t worry, we will fail someone else for you to get ahead.
Well, you’re right about one thing. Blu does provide oceans of links to back up her 9/11 Twoofer stuff. Doesn’t make it any less ridiculous, tho …
Why is that no one ever mentions an affirmative action program based purely on income? As it stands now, AA only pertains to women, African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans.
Thus, if you’re a poor white person living in ‘Appalachia’, or a poor Asian immigrant, AA doesn’t apply.
Yes, I do realize that the majority of ‘poor’ people in this country are minorities, but a system based on income, rather than ethnicity, would be more inclusive and fair.