A few years ago in a case known as Parents Involved, Chief Justice Roberts said,
“The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Now, a new case has surfaced which is even more blatantly discriminating on the basis of race than in Parents Involved.
In New Haven, only white and hispanic firefighters scored high enough on a promotion exam to merit a promotion (no blacks). Well, the city refused to certify the results of the race-neutral promotion exam. The firefighters who were denied promotion have sued the city for discrimination under Title VII. The District Court and the 2nd Circuit have ruled against the firefighters and the case may come before the Supreme Court.
There is no way around it, the firefighters have been discriminated against on the basis of their race. The “liberals” on the court are hinting that employers should be able to be “race conscious” in their employment decisions so that they could avoid a discrimination suit by the blacks in this situation.
Why would a race-neutral, objective exam not be sufficient to dismiss a lawsuit based on disparate impact? Here is the argument. “You didn’t promote me because I’m black.” Response: “No, I didn’t promote you because the other firefighters scored better than you.” Case closed. Does that not make sense?
The legal industry is particularly bad. When I was searching for my 1L summer job, many of the firms I contacted said, “I’m sorry, we only hire minority 1Ls.” Is that not discrimination?
This year I received an email from a prominent firm saying that they would be paying a $10,000 bonus to two minority summer associates. There’s more. It said that the firm would have to want to hire you anyway (notwithstanding your race apparently). So, we’ll hire you, tell us you’re a minority in a short essay and we’ll give you $10,000. The $10,000 was on top of the $3000/wk salary. Oh yeah, and lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders qualified as a minority. You say you’re gay so here’s $10k.
How is that not discrimination?
I’ve heard of people who thought they were gay and then changed their minds. I guess I could have pretended to be gay for the summer, but my wife didn’t really like that idea. Nor did I.
Last 3 posts by Taylor
- Obama's Second Act - Very Very Scary - July 16th, 2010
- No Politics in the Goldman Sachs Enforcement Action? - April 20th, 2010
- Moral Relativity Reigns...except - April 9th, 2010
Being gay is so hot right now. Makes you wonder if some of the “openly gay community” are actually gay in fact. Remember Ellen’s girlfriend who all of a sudden turned straight after she enjoyed the celebrity limelight for a while.
Without commenting on the merits of the lawsuit specifically, this reminds me of my post about the abuses of power of the legislative branch. I intended to write about the judicial branch, but this pretty much covers it.
The judicial branch is supposed to make decisions based upon the “rule of law” and the Constitution. Any time emotional, merciful, etc considerations are implied to be made, they have breached their powers.
To show the contrast of where their job is done correctly - in Miranda vs Arizona a man was charged with a felony but wasn’t told he had the right to an attorney. Despite confessing to the crime, he was acquitted because he hadn’t had his rights fully explained. Clearly, the people would want this person jailed and sentenced, but the court’s decision was based on the Constitution, not people’s feelings. Hence, now we have “Miranda rights.”
One other comment. I did a lot of recruiting with E&Y back at BYU. I really enjoyed it, but was always disturbed that the recruiters were told not to offer winter internships or YMP info unless it was to a student in a “minority” classification. Fairly, I do not know if this was a BYU-specific policy or nationwide. Either way, even if a white, male student found out about it and asked, EY wasn’t going to accept them. That’s wrong and negates a lot of their inclusiveness message.