The End of Reverse Discrimination?
by Frank DeMartiniReverse Discrimination, according to Wikipedia, is defined as, “the practice of favoring members of a historically disadvantaged group at the expense of members of a historically advantaged group.” Since the 1964 Civil Rights Act when the phrase came into usage, it has been practiced in many different ways. Some examples include employment practices and college admissions. A more euphemistic way of saying reverse discrimination would be “affirmative action.” However you say it, it is still discrimination plain and simple.
The United States Supreme Court tackled the issue in the seminal case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 US 265 (1978). In that case, the Court found that race could only be one of numerous factors in determining admission to a university. It stated that the University of California policy was unconstitutional, but that the policy used by Harvard was a valid type of affirmative action. The result was that Mr. Bakke was admitted to medical school and became a respected physician.
Since that time, there have been many more challenges to the doctrine, some of which were successful and some of which failed. This week, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court, basically eliminated affirmative action or reverse discrimination or whatever you want to call it.
In the case of Ricci v. Destefano, the Supreme Court held that an affirmative action policy by the City of New Haven, Connecticut was invalid. The litigation began when the City tossed out the results of a promotion exam because too few minority members passed. Accordingly, the white firemen who did pass the test were not promoted.
The Court ruled that the white firemen who did pass the test should have been promoted. Four justices in dissent felt otherwise. The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who stated that although the court felt sorry for the passing firemen, it wasn’t enough.
Hopefully, this decision puts the final nail in the coffin of reverse discrimination, which is anything but fair to either side. By definition, it is discrimination. Anything that puts one group above another is discrimination whether it is to make up for past wrongs or not. What has happened in the past is the past. What matters now is the future. And, in the future of the United States, there should not be discrimination of any kind, reverse or otherwise. These policies have lived past their time, if, in fact, they ever had one.
But, this case is interesting on other grounds besides what it may mean to affirmative action. The Supreme Court, by deciding as it did, was overruling a decision in which Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotamayor took part. Does this mean her nomination is in jeopardy? I think not, but it does mean that she should be more carefully examined by the Senate. Remember, this is the woman who stated that her rich cultural background as a Puerto Rican woman would qualify her more to decide certain types of cases than a white man.
Maybe, she is the one who is guilty of discrimination and being racially biased. I do not believe that the Senate should give her a free ride. She should be examined very carefully before being put on the bench.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
86 Comments
What makes this case and its overturn even more interesting or despicable on New Haven's part is that Ricci (I think it's Ricci, but certainly one of the white firefighters in question) has dyslexia and had to take extra measures when preparing for his eam in order to have any chance at passing. I'll bet when the city put together their special group to ensure that the test wasn't biased against any specific minority, they never thought about someone with a learning disability like Ricci's that doesn't hamper intellect but does hamper his ability to process written information. I mention this as someone who has worked professionally with kids who have disabilities like Ricci's and know how extremely intelligent kids can struggle very hard to do things that should be a breeze like read a simple paragraph.
So even though he went out of his way to have someone read the study material onto a recorder so he could listen to and process his study material audibly and still passed, his results for which he took extra effort above and beyond all others, were still invalidated due solely to his skin color.
Call me crazy, but I smell a rat.
" And, in the future of the United States, there should not be discrimination of any kind, reverse or otherwise."
If what you mean, discrimination of race, then yes. Discrimination of who is the best should be stopped, no.
Discrimination of picking out the best and the brightest should always continue.
Fine article otherwise.
As to Sotamayor, 5 to 4 is still 5 to 4.
Obama will appoint liberal, "living law" activist judges to every vacancy from the SCOTUS on down. What difference does it make to anyone which one we get from his short list?
I am starting to wonder if Sotamayor will be confirmed.
I wonder if those firefighters will have pay raises for advancement made retro-active. I remember when this case first came about and even then I was wondering how the heck a test could be biased towards one race. Either you have the brains to take the test and pass or you don't, what's discriminatory about that?
I wonder if those firefighters will have pay raises for advancement made retro-active.
I remember when this case first came about and even then I was wondering how the heck a test could be biased towards one race. Either you have the brains to take the test and pass or you don't, what's discriminatory about that?
What's really laughable is that Colin(traitor) Powel is "attacking critics of Sotomayor" Awwww, isn't that just so "white Knightish" of him. Blech!
Well, in truth she really shouldn't be, based on her "wise latina" comment alone.
So much for the very American concept of "blind justice".
They taught us when I was getting prepared to start teaching inner city that different ethnicities have "different cultural experiences," and if you couch the language of a test in experiences that white suburban children have as a result of growing up in their environment with the richness of their cultural experiences and advantages as opposed to couching the test in the language of a poor. urban child of minority descent, then the poor, urban child will naturally be disadvantaged because they won't understand the question.
How much you believe that is a real factor in differing test scores depends on how ignorant and segregated you think different groups of people are in our society. Do you think that suburbanites are so divided from the realities of the urban core that a general test question could make much difference one way or the other?
Personally, I think you would have to really be trying to write a test to disadvantage one group or another in such a way to have a significant impact.
Reverse Discrimination, according to Wikipedia, is defined as, “the practice of favoring members of a historically disadvantaged group at the expense of members of a historically advantaged group.”
Otherwise known as justice
I dislike the use of the term "reverse discrimination". It almost makes it sound like it's a good think. The reverse (opposite) of discrimination is to not discriminate. Call it what it is – DISCRIMINATION. I just so happens that it is discrimination against whites instead of a minority.
It is now known as discrimination by race, pure and simple.
You are so correct. There is no such thing as "reverse" discrimination. Whether Mr. Ricci, Justice Thomas, or any of us, if it walks or quacks, it is.
Cheers, Frank
I have read a LOT of tests that I did not understand, once I studied up on them though it was a whole different ballgame..That's why they have study time/courses etc. So that people are not just left in the dark when it comes time to actually TAKE a test.
I get your point though but IMO it all comes back to not wanting anyone to fail, what a crock. No disrespect meant to you or your opinion.
"…this is the woman who stated that her rich cultural background as a Puerto Rican woman …"
Wrong, Frank. She said, "wise Latina woman." And she's apparently stated this ethno/gender-biased postion many times. It's disappointing (but unfortunately not surprising) a woman of her accomplishments continues to think herself a victim. She should not be confirmed for the United States Supreme Court , which is charged with interpreting law for all Americans regardless of gender or background.
You are so right.
From what I understand, unfortunately, this case has not completely put the issue to bed because the majority sorted of punted on tackling the actual constitutionality under equal protection. They chose a more limited position under Title VII. We have some great attorneys in the BH family who can do a much better analysis of this than I possibly could.Nevertheless, this decision was certainly was better than nothing. I doubt though at the end of the day, it will derail the nomination since we don't have the votes to block.
[...] The End of Reverse Discrimination? by Frank DeMartini [...]
None taken. I think the whole idea of "culturally neutral" tests are kind of silly myself.
No, Frank, not until every other job is held by an incompetent boob.
Which is a fallacy in and of itself. There is no racial or ethnic group in existence that has not been both slaver and enslaved at some point in its history. Therefore, according to Wikipedia's own definition, Reverse Discrimition should implode, and we all must discriminate against ourselves.
That does not make any sense.
Look at the monkey. See the monkey?
So you are now ordered to give up your job and give it to a non-white person.
"Reverse Discrimination" does not exist, one either discriminates or one doesn't. I don't care what kind of post modernist, Orwellian Newspeak, deconstructionist, critical theory crap Wikipedia posts, just because its on there doesn't make it so.
The entire purpose of the term "Reverse discrimination" is to lay ALL discrimination at the feet of whites. It is in and of itself a form of discrimination as it's purpose is to make claims of discrimination by whites less legitimate.
I never owned a slave (as a matter of fact my ancestors were staunch abolitionists since the 1600s, and some even fought along side John Brown) I never discriminated against anyone based on race when doing business (or even in my personal life for that matter) so if I am the victim of this "reverse discrimination" I've been unjustly discriminated against. Period.
Groupthink is a leftist ideal. I am an individual regardless of my color, religion, ancestry, etc. We are ALL individuals. Ironically the more we allow groupthink to dominate this discourse the longer we're going to see blacks and other minorities suffer.
Conservatives need to stop using Newspeak, Doublespeak or any other leftist Orwellian-speak … stop ceding the language to the left or we're never going to win these battles.
If this were true than there wouldn't be a single white suburbanite watching The Wire.
Leftists like to pretend everyone is too stupid to understand other people without their help.
The fundamental absurdity of the racial preferences argument is parodied in this headline and associated article: "Lawyers Advise Fire Departments to Close Until Fires Destroy More Racially Proportionate Numbers of Homes": http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/04/lawyers-advis...
I think it's wrong to blame the city of New Haven. You need to understand; the law in question: Title VII of the Civil Rights act; and, the way that courts had interpreted it. Sotomayor's decision was merely (without analysis) upholding the way courts had previously interpreted the law.
The interpretation was this: If minorities do not succeed on the test, that in and of itself is reason to assume the test was biased"
So, New Haven's laywers correctly interpreted that the city would be open to suits by minority candidates. Sotomayor agreed that that was the fact.
The SC majority has merely said "do not assume bias because no minoritiy candidates passed". Ginsburg sees this as the end of Title VII.
it boils down to : either everyone is equal or no-one is, period, end of sentence.
Discrimination moves only in one direction: toward another person. Anyone can discriminate. A society can neither end nor reverse discrimination through the use of discrimination. In simple playground parlance, Miles, two wrongs don't make a right.
I'm surprised nobody has quoted Rand yet.
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.
In Cincinnati in the 1980's there was a case where no blacks passed the test to become recruits for the fire department. The department then decided to not hire any new recruits (because the class would have been all white). Long story short, there was a 5-7 year lawsuit. The guys who passed on that test all got retroactive pay for the period they were denied a recruit position.
I know this because I was going to college and selling stereos partime at the time. One of the guys came in and bought a bodacious stereo system with the huge back-pay check he finally got and he told the story.
Justice? In your theoretical utopian construct perhaps. But as the real world has just plainly shown you, it's not justice when an individual like Mr. Ricci works as hard as he dud to improve himself and is denied a well earned promotion to revenge your philosphical belief that he somehow bears a personal responsibility for something that he is completely innocent of.
Justice? In your theoretical utopian construct perhaps. But as the real world has just plainly shown you, it's not justice when an individual like Mr. Ricci works as hard as he did to improve himself and is denied a well earned promotion to revenge your philosphical belief that he somehow bears a personal responsibility for something that he is completely innocent of.
Affirmative action is institutional racism in the most profound sense of the word. I was in favor of it at the time as a short term measure because something radical had to be done to get the decendants of slavery out of the ghettos and into the mainstream.
Unfortunately, every political group capable of throwing money at politicians jumped on the gravy train of government mandated better jobs and unearned admission to better schools and it became a stick for taking jobs and opportunities away from white & asian males and giving them to the victim class de jour. It continues to be used for that purpose today:
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/june/baseles...
largely because of the culture of racism has been codified by academia and the media.
Don't hold your breath about any permanent change. In 1989, the Supreme Court reached a result similar to Ricci in Ward's Cove v. Antonio Congress responded by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1990. The Supreme Court will just have to hear this case all over again, to reach a Constitutional result.
Test
No, all Affirmative Action, quotas, bonus points on tests, points on college admissions just for being black etc. do is essentially say the Fourtheenth Amendment does NOT mean what it says specifically.
Of course given most liberals and their circular logic on constitutional law and the document itself, its not unexpected that one would call this "justice."
sorry that should be "pretzel logic" not circular logic in the previous post.,
Reverse discrimination or ANY discrimination in this GREAT country of ours is AWFUL…… thank god that 5 Supreme court justices had there wits about them in this case. Basically it is affirmative action all over again and we have the left sticking up for it… Sotomayor and Ginsburg just two name a few….the court case was only 5 to 4 and that means there are still people in the supreme court that would uphold this decision, if Sotomayor gets in that means this case would not have been over turned!
Point very well stated and taken!
Excellent comment.
1 goes out,1 comes in. 5-4 before 5-4 after.
[...] Sotomayor’s racist fire fighter promotions decision OVERULED! Frank DiMartini, Big Hollywood: The End of Reverse Discrimination? Legal Insurrection: Now The Sotomayor Polls Don’t Matter Ed Whelan, Bench Memos on National [...]
[...] Yak–You Know–It Takes A Racist To Appoint A Racist! Frank DiMartini, Big Hollywood: The End of Reverse Discrimination? Politico: White House urged to address ‘racist’ charge Fort Hard Knox: Thanks, Obama, [...]
Well said… thumbs up, Zundfolge.
I stand corrected Souter, I think voted as did Ginsburg? if so, then yes…..
Reverse discrimination has been talked about. And talked about… and talked about…
Yet it never changes. Why?
Because we haven't talked loudly enough! Just like the majority of issues we now face. Has anyone here ever written to your senator about the issues that bother you? I have done so infrequently and it's a disappointing experience. One voice does not a chorus make.
The special interests understand this and they hammer on our representatives daily. We are a fairly educated lot are we not? We can figure out how to write a few expressive sentences and click send.
A million daily, unique, e-mails to your respective representative won't go unheard or unreported.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information...
We should have written tests for the NBA. Then we would see how well people like Kobie Brian and Lebron James do.
We also need to stop reverse carpetbagging, confederate sympathizers taking over the Republican party.
What kind of brooding and disturbed little mind do we have here?
You mock justice..
well, they're off to a good start cause they put one in the oval office.
Agree. ……….clickety..click..click
Reverse Discrimination will never end because the professional victim ilk of the prez will never take the boot off the neck of the white guilt set
to much money to be had by the victim set of obama
reparations, quotas, affirmative action, welfare, free stuff, votes by guilty whites, etc
professional victims successfully worked their discrimination into a presidency to the detriment of America – they are looking to bigger and more freebies from the working class
Sotomayor has admitted that she benefited from Affirmative Action, that her test scores were not as high as other, non-AA students at Yale. Giving people an unfair advantage (AA) seems to embolden them to feel ever more entitled to special treatment.
Ancestors fighting alongside the murderous John Brown should not make you proud.
But on the other hand, good comment.
[...] more here: The End of Reverse Discrimination? This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Pride has nothing to do with it (he was a religious kook … his tradition lives on in another Kansan that protests funerals) its just a simple statement of fact.
But it does illustrate that not ALL white folk supported slavery (the whole notion of white guilt, "reverse discrimination" and reparations is based on the notion that ALL white folk are guilty and owe ALL black people for the crimes of their ancestors). My ancestors fought, killed and died trying to free black slaves. Most as Union soldiers, a few as volunteers on the underground railroad and a couple "extremists with guns".
What makes this case and its overturn even more interesting or despicable on New Haven's part is that Ricci (I think it's Ricci, but certainly one of the white firefighters in question) has dyslexia and had to take extra measures when preparing for his exam in order to have any chance at passing. I'll bet when the city put together their special group to ensure that the test wasn't biased against any specific minority, they never thought about someone with a learning disability like Ricci's that doesn't hamper intellect but does hamper his ability to process written information. I mention this as someone who has worked professionally with kids who have disabilities like Ricci's and know how extremely intelligent kids can struggle very hard to do things that should be a breeze like read a simple paragraph.
So even though he went out of his way to have someone read the study material onto a recorder so he could listen to and process his study material audibly and still passed, his results, for which he took extra effort above and beyond all others, were still invalidated due solely to his skin color.
Call me crazy, but I smell a rat.
That's right, I have ancestors on both sides of my family who fought and died for the North. I feel that I don't owe anybody anything.
I think what the Supreme Court did in Ricci was not so much rule on the constitutionality of affirmative action under equal protection as point out that the lower courts badly botched their decision by not even looking at the test being used to determine racial bias before throwing out the suit. Rather than remand back, they basically fixed the earlier bad decision using a more limited application to Title VII. Lawhawk has a great post explaining this at his blog site (commenteramma.)The good news is that activist judges like Sotomayor and Ginsburg can no longer get away with (at least not as easily) making a decision based solely on the result (e.g. disparate impact) without at least making a judgement on the fairness of the underlying facts of the case. Sadly, I don't believe this will derail the Sotomayor express because there are not enough votes against her to successfully filibuster.
You got your reaction "Miles", now I suggest that you buy a "real" dictionary from a bookstore and look up the definition for "justice". I think you already know the true meaning of the word. As AH said in another comment, " I think I smell a rat".
That's Kobe "Bryant". Guess you wouldn't do too well on a written test. More to the point, why administer written tests to basketball players?
As long as you brought up the NBA, though, it's a good demonstration of the hypocrisy of AA. Black people are hugely overrepresented in the NBA yet no one complains about that or says it is the result of discrimination. And it isn't – just like it's not discrimination that black people are underrepresented in other areas.
I'd settle for written tests for college admission. That would make Doheney's NBA remark moot.
"What difference does it make to anyone which one we get from his short list?"
I think thats what Republican Senators are saying too. That and: Save the fight for when Obama replaces a conservative justice.
good points, but there's an aspect you left out.
Look around at the socio economic landscape today. While it is perhaps true that over centuries, every ethnic group has enslaved and been enslaved… when we take a snapshot measure TODAY, in the era of justice, who is left holding the most recently shafted bag?
"Reverse discrimination has been talked about. And talked about… and talked about…
Yet it never changes. Why?
Because we haven't talked loudly enough!"
…and also because you just described a minority viewpoint, so to speak. Most people are aware of how tests are often culturally biased, and further, that minorities are often disadvantaged in terms of the education environment.
is reverse discrimination = discrimination? Perhaps it is. Of course, maybe some are just *saying that*. Maybe some say that because it sound good when really they want to secure the status quo, to protect advantages of one group over another that have long been around, in the spirit of all of those jim crow laws and etc.
I do not intend to accuse all of those who make the point that "reverse discrimination = discrimination" of being ra cist. Because as a student of philosophy I know that there is a lot of arguability there.
what is sad though is this: Affirmative Action, while philosophically flawed, aims to correct institutional social problems such as public education inequity. I really would be more impressed if the detractors of the controversial solution would at least acknowledge the problem and ideally suggest an alternate solution. Because when they don't acknowledge the problem… well I get the impression that their point of view is: "What problem?"
Life isn't fair. And I would say that would be the Japanese who have been compensated and no longer seem to be suffering any iff effects from their illegal internment and the losses incurred. I wonder why other ethnicities can't similarly suck it up?
what ethnicity do you mean? If you mean white people, I wonder that too.
Reverse discrimination is an abomination, language-wise. In any other context it would be like saying reverse-forwards. It is nonsensical gibberish, call it what it is: racism.
Affirmative Action only supports wealthy minorities. The disadvantaged people it is supposedly aiding recieve no benefit. This is because like all racism, it singles people out based on their skin color and ignores all other factors, regardless of relevancy.
Affirmative Action leaves behind a needless cloud of doubt over the head of every single minority. If you truly believe minorities are equal intellectually then Affirmative Action is nothing more than institutionalized racism. The only way it is rationalized is by pointing to some malevolent other that is still presumably keeping minorities down. It's a Democrat boogie-man that harkens back all the way to when they founded the KKK. Of course they think there is still institutionalized racism, they're the party that invented its most visible and infamous proponents. Stop feeling guilty and instead eliminate systemic racial preferences by abolishing systemic racial preferences, e.g. Affirmative Action.
Throwing watermelon and fried chicken into the streets of a ghetto would be just as racist as affirmative action, except it would be more effective at aiding poor minorities. Poor white people too, considering they live in the ghettos as well and could probably use the meal too.
Well, I never exactly thought of Japanese internees as white, but I guess your mileage may vary.
My husband has a letter from his maternal grandmother that states that somewhere in his family tree he has African-American blood. Given where his maternal biological family is known to be from, the best explanation is that one of his ancestors was master and the other slave. Should he be guilty about himself? And how does that sync with his Native American blood the letter also claims he has? And does any of it mean anything given that he's adopted? Arguments like these just get crazy after so many years and generations have passed, and he just tells folks he's a true American of all heritage and none.
Otherwise known as justice
Injustice with a different target, actually.
[...] Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » The End of Reverse Discrimination? [...]
[...] Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » The End of Reverse Discrimination? [...]
I don't think you were refering to Japanese when you said: "I wonder why other ethnicities can't similarly suck it up?"
But I agree with you this much: I wonder why other ethnicities, such as people of European descent, can't similarly suck it up?
I do just fine. Living my own life and taking no government money.
Maybe you think the only way to "make things right" is for ethnic whites to suffer through a period of institutionalized slavery and discrimination? If so, Affirmative Action is the institutionalized discrimination bit. Or haven't you noticed that caucasian is the only ethnicity without a quota to fill?
Nope, I don't think suffering will make anything right (Although maybe you do since that's a Christian notion, isn't it?)
I think white people should do what all people do. More generally, I think that majorities of any nation would be wise to consider karma and follow "the golden rule".
Most importantly, I think Americans should demand the best for ourselves as a nation. Because America is #1 after all!
[...] Sotomayor’s racist fire fighter promotions decision OVERULED! Frank DiMartini, Big Hollywood: The End of Reverse Discrimination? Legal Insurrection: Now The Sotomayor Polls Don’t Matter Ed Whelan, Bench Memos on National [...]
[...] Sotomayor’s racist fire fighter promotions decision OVERULED! Frank DiMartini, Big Hollywood: The End of Reverse Discrimination? Legal Insurrection: Now The Sotomayor Polls Don’t Matter Ed Whelan, Bench Memos on National [...]
[...] Public Support for Sotomayor Falls After Supreme Court Reversal Frank DiMartini, Big Hollywood: The End of Reverse Discrimination? Legal Insurrection: Now The Sotomayor Polls Don’t Matter Hot Air Green Room: Sotomayor and [...]
[...] Public Support for Sotomayor Falls After Supreme Court Reversal Frank DiMartini, Big Hollywood: The End of Reverse Discrimination? Legal Insurrection: Now The Sotomayor Polls Don’t Matter Hot Air Green Room: Sotomayor and [...]
[...] Public Support for Sotomayor Falls After Supreme Court Reversal Frank DiMartini, Big Hollywood: The End of Reverse Discrimination? Legal Insurrection: Now The Sotomayor Polls Don’t Matter Hot Air Green Room: Sotomayor and [...]
[...] Public Support for Sotomayor Falls After Supreme Court Reversal Frank DiMartini, Big Hollywood: The End of Reverse Discrimination? Legal Insurrection: Now The Sotomayor Polls Don’t Matter Hot Air Green Room: Sotomayor and [...]
[...] Public Support for Sotomayor Falls After Supreme Court Reversal Frank DiMartini, Big Hollywood: The End of Reverse Discrimination? Legal Insurrection: Now The Sotomayor Polls Don’t Matter Hot Air Green Room: Sotomayor and [...]
[...] David Letterman David Keene, TheHill.com: Injustice against whites Frank DiMartini, Big Hollywood: The End of Reverse Discrimination? Works and Days: David Letterman, Rev. Wright, and Thoughts on a Creepy Culture: The Demise of David [...]
[...] Has Made ‘Wise Latina/Better Decisions’ Remark Several Times Frank DiMartini, Big Hollywood: The End of Reverse Discrimination? Mike Sargent: NewsBusters: Coulter’s Cajun Barbecue: Coulter vs Carville On Good Morning [...]
[...] Page: Boycotting people and companies for their opinions Frank DiMartini, Big Hollywood: The End of Reverse Discrimination? David Keene, TheHill.com: Injustice against [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.