This week, we learned that Obama SCOTUS pick Sonia Sotomayor ruled against white firefighters in Connecticut who were denied promotions because not enough non-whites passed the same test.
Pundits remarked that this was an instance of “reverse discrimination,” an argument that has been used by opposition to so-called “affirmative action,” namely racial quotas for universities, companies, and other institutions.
But is “reverse” discrimination just another way of saying “against white people?” And doesn’t the term imply that only white people are (or can be) discriminatory? Is mandating diversity just as racially-motivated and unfair as mandating an all-white or all-black policy?
How is a black person being admitted to a university simply because of his race (in place of a minority student with equal qualifications) any different than choosing a white person over an equally qualified minority just because he’s white?
Don’t only racists believe that race trumps everything else?
Browse Timeline
- « Affirmative: Sotomayor Ruled Against White Firefighters in “Reverse Discrimination” Case
- » Geithner: China, Your Assets Are Totally Safe
China: Lol
5
Of course its racist. It makes liberals feel good though.
anonymous said this on
May 29 09 at
12:55 pm
If I was a minority, which being white I guess I’m not, but assuming I went to another country where I was the minority, it would feel not only condescending and insulting, but I would feel guilty that Spanish or Italian or African or French people had a harder time getting a job or going to school because of their race. It would feel racist, because that’s what it is. There IS no reverse discrimination. You either take race into account or you don’t. It is that simple.
rephrain said this on
May 29 09 at
4:10 pm
Whites who happen to be more qualified are passed over strictly because they are white.
Now, replace the bold words with [black, chinese, mexican, muslim, etc] and it’s “racist.”
It’s despicable.
rephrain said this on
May 29 09 at
4:13 pm
Sotomayor ruled that Connecticut was justified in nullifying the exam (which they presumably did to avoid being sued by angry minorities who didn’t earn a promotion). This is a ruling that is consistent with the laws of Connecticut. Your blog makes it sound like you would have preferred Sotomayor to legislate from the bench and overturn existing case law. Would you really prefer a judicial activist?
Dixon said this on
May 29 09 at
4:44 pm
“Title VII requires employers to consider the racial impact of their hiring and promotion procedures in order to prevent discrimination that’s inadvertent as well as intentional. Ricci’s claim is that the city’s effort to comply with Title VII is itself race discrimination (under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and under Title VII itself).”
Hence, it is her job to interpret the amendment in conjunction with the civil rights law.
Say the Fairness Doctrine was passed into law, and talk radio hosts took the case to the supreme court claiming the law was unconstitutional. If the court ruled it was, and the law was changed, would that be legislating from the bench? No, that would be interpreting and upholding the Constitution.
Christopher said this on
May 29 09 at
6:10 pm
