Change may come to America in the form of new standards in civil rights. On Friday, the US Supreme Court decided that it would hear two cases, one dealing with work discrimination and the other with voting discrimination. Depending on how the court rules later this year, these cases could change the landscape of US civil rights law.
The first case involves Connecticut firefighters who say that even though they scored highest on the exam, they were not given promotions because they were white. Instead, the test was scrapped after no minorities qualified, and the promotions were given to African Americans. The white firefighters have lost their legal battles so far, as lower courts ruled that federal law forbids exams that have a disproportional impact on minorities.
The other law in question, a provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, requires 16 mostly southern states to get federal clearance before making a change to their local voting rules. A lower court ruled last Spring that Congress was reasonable to determine that voting discrimination still persists, thus upholding the clearance requirement.
The election of the first African American president has sent a strong signal that national race relations have changed in the US, but organizations like the NAACP point out that a lot of work remains. Do you think it's time for the Supreme Court to strike down laws that help promote minority working and voting rights?
Tod's
Beyond The Valley
L'Autre Chose
Any law that doesn't promote equality should be taken off the books.
1These laws were meant to push us closer to equality, for now, they’re still needed. We may or may not have ONE black U.S. senator, and the 2000 and 2004 election issues in Florida and Ohio prove we still have a way to go on voting rights. It’s foolish to become complacent because we look good in some areas. And we could learn from the economic crisis, about putting too much faith in trusting people to behave properly.
2Agreed Stephley.
3So, a law that prevents a white firefighter from getting a promotion because no minority firefighters passed the test is a good law, or a good interpretation of a law?
4ya what ever happened to content of charicter not color of skin? and secound i'm sick of this "white people have it so easy" you don't get anything with out lots of hard work. those fire men worked hard and had the best scores, if a man of color wants the job he should study up and score well. ask obama he did it by working hard and being the best.
5It is very scary to me when scores are thrown out in favor of skin color.
6I'm with m0readventur0us, how is it fair that the people who were clearly more qualified for the promotion were not given the promotion? Regardless of what causes that type of unfairness, whether it's nepotism, sexism, ageism, racism, or any type of discrimination, it's unacceptable and people who are victims of it have the right to ask for restitution.
7When I was a young man just joining the work force and learned about affirmative action which forced employers to hire inferior employees and tax credits to employers who hired minorities I thought to myself what a sad state of affairs that we would have to force & coerce people into being color blind.
I would rather have liked to see people educated on discriminatory hiring practices than have a law like affirmative action. Even today one of the biggest voids of knowledge is that people just don't have a clue what their rights are in any given situation whether it be employment, business etc. If we spent as much energy in educating people about their rights as we do in peripheral programs like affirmative action that would be preferable to me.
8Affirmative action was designed to level a playing field taht desparately needed leveling, and not to be used as a way to get lessor qualified people jobs they don't deserve. I agree that there needs to be laws in place to keep discrimination from happening, but it's time to revise those laws so that reverse discrimination doesn't happen as well.
9The term "reverse discrimination" is ridiculous. It's just discrimination. I'm afraid I'll never understand codifying racial prejudice into law. Something about two wrongs.
10thank you organic, the term reverse racism states that whites not only have the market cornered on racism, but that we invented. witch is neither true nor fare. go ask the japanese about why there people left china, or the sooni about the sheites(sorry I don't know how to spell those), try asking the tutsies about the hutoos i rewanda. or hebrus about aribs. ask the greek about the turks. just look around and you will find that in almost all every part of the world there has been racism and acts of inhumanity.
11Yes, very good points organicsugar and m0readventur0us.
12I wonder whether there was anything about the tests which would have caused only white candidates to score highly, though I really can't think of any unless the "check the box for your ethnicity" was being scored, with the right answer being "white." If not, and the test was fairly made and administered and this is just how it turned out, then I do think the decision to scrap the results was wrong and should be remedied.
I think there do need to be some form of regulation in order to promote and protect equal opportunities. But to be frank, I think it's much more important to focus efforts on primary and secondary education and access to college education, than it is to mandate that businesses and government institutions have X percentage of one ethnicity and Y percentage of another. Qualification shouldn't take a backseat to diversity if there's equality of qualification.
13well equality is all about freedom. see in order to be free to acheive and be the best. one must first be free to fail. if an artifital device props people up then there is no equality. and when some one gives you something you are not free you are indedted, a servant if you will.
14i belive it was thomas jefferson who said "a goverment that is stong enough to give you everything, is strong enough to take everything from you!" and that two is something we should keep in mind about laws and constructs that set up inordenet amounts of "help".
yes i like your point about scoreing the race box. "10 points for whity". of couse one has to ask in a free and equal country why race boxes are even there it sets up the stage for discrimnation.
15I don't have any inherent opposition to race boxes, though. If they're not misused, they can simply be tools for gathering information for statistical purposes, and can also be used for finding suspected instances of discrimination. Like I said, I just hope they weren't used as a tool for determining eligibility.
16It's about time!
17about time for what i'm not sure wich side you stand on?
18I'd like to know what homekeeper meant by that too!
"Any law that doesn't promote equality should be taken off the books."
completely agree UnDave!
19reverse racism doesn't exist, racism is racism. I cannot believe courts would even rule the way they have. Are the courts afraid that they will be then viewed as racist by minorities? I just don't get it. And I agree with whoever said that there is no way a test for a firefighter could be unfair to minorities. You either know your job/stuff, or you don't. The minorities, obviously, didn't know their stuff. It should have been handled this way...Hit the books... maybe you get the promotion next time. But no. I pray the courts rule properly. If not, this may be one ruling where the white people will be protesting.
20White people won't openly protest this, less they be deamed racist.
21This isn't the first time affirmative action screwed over a more qualified candidate, and it won't be the last. How do self respecting minority citizens support affirmative action? Those minority citizens should see AA for what it is, soft bigotry of lowered expectations.
Just think, if there's less qualified firemen at your firehouse because of affirmative action, you are potentially worse off in the event of an emergency.
22I have to ask if all of you really know what Affirmative Action is?
23Do you think it's time for the Supreme Court to strike down laws that help promote minority working and voting rights?
Continued disparities in income and career mobility (Murrell and Jones, 1995)
In 1994, women were earning 72% of men's salaries, even after controlling for work experience, education, or merit.
In 1992, black men with professional degrees earned 79% of the salaries of white men holding jobs at comparable levels. Black women with professional degrees earned 60% of the salaries of white men at comparable levels.
Based on 1992 data, both white females and black males must work about 8 months to earn a salary equal to what white males earn in 6 months. Black females must work 10 months to earn comparable salaries.
Fewer women and minorities than white males are promoted to senior levels in organizations.
Although there have been recent gains in employment participation and income levels among women and black males, the current data suggest that gender and race segregation in employment, as well as discrepancies in earnings, continue to exist even when jobholders hold equivalent qualifications.
Persistence of gender and race segregation in employment (Murrell and Jones, 1995)
In 1992, women comprised 60% of service sector jobs and 80% of administrative support.
In 1992, 90% of black female professionals held jobs in the government sector, suggesting there are limited opportunities in the private sector for this population.
In 1992, 70% of black male professionals worked in government compared with 56% of white male professionals.
Women and minorities are more likely to experience job interruptions due to downsizing and restructuring, which, in turn, have a negative impact on lifetime career mobility and earnings.
24http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/affirmaction.html
"Persistence of discrimination in hiring (Wilson, 1995)
In 1990, an Urban Institute study comparing pairs of black and white job applicants with identical credentials found that 'unequal treatment of black job seekers was entrenched and widespread, contradicting claims that hiring practices today either favor Blacks or are effectively color blind.'
A study in 1995 of university faculty hiring practices found that, in many instances, once a minority hiring goal was met, departments stopped seeking minority applicants. Many ceased recruiting minorities (e.g., by pulling their ads from minority publications) regardless of the number of vacancies that occurred from then on. "
25http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/affirmaction.html
"What are the major criticisms of affirmative action?
Many people argue that affirmative action has caused reverse discrimination against Whites.
However, a 1995 analysis by the U.S. Department of Labor found that affirmative action programs do not lead to widespread reverse discrimination claims by Whites. In fact, a high proportion of such claims filed were found to lack merit. The analysis found that fewer than 100 out of 3,000 discrimination cases filed actually involved reverse discrimination, and in only six cases were such claims substantiated (Wilson, 1995).
Critics of affirmative action usually believe that people should be selected for positions based on merit alone.
The reality is that most, if not all, hiring decisions involve some sort of unspoken preferential treatment. Sometimes the decision is based on a personal connection or relationship; sometimes it is based on likability or comfort level (Wilson, 1995). In fact, the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (1995) confirmed that white men tend to be more comfortable with, and therefore more likely to hire and promote, other white men, thus revealing the prevalence of racial- and gender-based preferential treatment.
Opponents of affirmative action argue that these policies move America away from the goal of achieving a color-blind society.
Yet, as Justice Harry Blackmun noted in the Bakke case, 'In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race.' A color-blind society cannot exist in the face of racism or prejudice that continues in the workplace.
Some critics state that young minorities joining the workforce expect that affirmative action will get them promotions.
This charge is one of the most serious, but there are no data to support this notion.
Many people argue that affirmative action stigmatizes recipients.
Although the data support this contention, it should be acknowledged that stigma and negative stereotypes associated with race and gender existed in this country long before affirmative action was implemented. This does not mean that stigma and negative stereotypes are acceptable, but rather that they exist independently of affirmative action. There are, however, steps that can be taken to reduce stigma, as noted in the answer to the next question."
26http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/affirmaction.html
"White people won't openly protest this, less they be deamed racist."
27Or else they realize that we still need laws, however imperfect, to promote equality.
In a perfect world everyone would be judged by their own merit. But we don't live in a perfect world. People are still passed over for job interviews because their names sound "too black".
Affirmative action was not put in place to give unqualified people jobs. It was put in place to allow qualified minorities and women the opportunity to advance in the workforce.
28I never said we didn't need laws that promote equality. The laws we currently have aren't doing that.
29Dave, what would you support as a replacement for Affirmative Action?
30I would like to see all mention of race or gender taken off of applications. I'd like to see a company get audited (Not necessarily every company every year, but there is always the threat of an audit every year), and if they are found to have "discrepancies", they would be fined, and the offended parties compensated.
31I find it curious that no one seems to take issue with the fact that affirmative action implies minorities are not capable of succeeding without racial/gendered deck stacking.
The world is a meritocracy. If someone hires the less qualified employee, they pay for it very dearly and immediately.
32Organic, I live in the real world. When a persons name can prevent them from being interviewed, we still have issues with race.
33Lili, you live in the real world? I thought you lived in Fake America?
34Mich, I do live in Maryland. You're right. I do live Fake America!
35I guess the real world is where it's moral to make laws giving privilege to certain races, as long as it benefits whoever you feel sorry for.
But, it looks like you missed the point. Let me just crack an egg of knowledge all over you.
No two people have exactly the same qualifications, so the deciding factor should probably never come down to race. If someone ignores job qualifications that will allow their company to succeed, because they are bigoted, their company will not do very well. Do you see how that works?
36Egg of knowledge? Cute.
"To test whether employers discriminate against black job applicants, Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil Mullainathan of M.I.T. conducted an unusual experiment. They selected 1,300 help-wanted ads from newspapers in Boston and Chicago and submitted multiple résumés from phantom job seekers. The researchers randomly assigned the first names on the résumés, choosing from one set that is particularly common among blacks and from another that is common among whites.
So Kristen and Tamika, and Brad and Tyrone, applied for jobs from the same pool of want ads and had equivalent résumés. Nine names were selected to represent each category: black women, white women, black men and white men. Last names common to the racial group were also assigned. Four résumés were typically submitted for each job opening, drawn from a reservoir of 160. Nearly 5,000 applications were submitted from mid-2001 to mid-2002. Professors Bertrand and Mullainathan kept track of which candidates were invited for job interviews.
No single employer was sent two identical résumés, and the names on the résumés were randomly assigned, so applicants with black- and white-sounding names applied for the same set of jobs with the same set of résumés.
Apart from their names, applicants had the same experience, education and skills, so employers had no reason to distinguish among them.
The results are disturbing. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names. Interviews were requested for 10.1 percent of applicants with white-sounding names and only 6.7 percent of those with black-sounding names."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E5DD123AF931A25751C1A...
37How many times are you going to miss the point?
38Organic said, "No two people have exactly the same qualifications, so the deciding factor should probably never come down to race."
Study found that even when the same resume was used, a person with a "Black Sounding" name was less likely to be called for an interview than a person with a "White Sounding" name. The discrimination has started before the interview. So what point am I missing. Crack another egg of knowledge for me.
39I am a 'mixed-breed' at least that has been I've been called throughout my life. Let me tell you that there is never a 'test' that is completely neutral. There's always one over the other mentality when making these tests. Why? Because they are made by humans. I know that many of you think we are above this sort of attack and segregation...the human race is NOT! I am not considered one or the other...so no matter what the test I will always be faulted. Why? Because I adore BOTH my parents. So I embrace my 'mixed' heritage and have come to understand that no matter what there will always be some sort of barrier to overcome.
40In "the real world," there are no two applicants who have exactly the same resumes. This is obvious, because people are snowflakes. The racism may begin before the interview, but the resume is still reviewed.
The point, that I believe you're intentionally misssing, is that while some people are bigoted, it is its own punishment if one passes up on a qualified applicant (whatever race they are).
It is also to one's detriment to pass up on a qualified applicant because they are not of a race that traditionally needs our fluffy assistance. This kind of racism, you seem to think is good.
41No one is arguing that racial discrimination doesn't happen in hiring. So, you don't need to post anymore large clips of dramatic studies from the NYT.
42Sorry Organic for the studies and the article about a study. But I thought facts were relavent not just opinions.
43That's probably where you went awry.
44Lili, facts are wonderful if they're relevant. But you can't respond to "discrimination is it's own punishment" with "discrimination happens, the NYT says so!".
45I would also like to add that very real people are harmed by these practices. So while the bigot may one day be punished, the qualified people they pass over face the consequences of those decisions in the here and now.
46I also wanted to say that if more people would admit and learn to admire their 'mixed' heritage, there might be less of an uphill battle for our future children. I am always either too dark or too light...what kind of example is that to set?!
47The study was not conducted by the New York Times. The study/experiment was conducted by Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil Mullainathan of M.I.T.. If I still have it I'll post a link froma source other than the NYT(since some of you act likes it kryptonite). The article just explains it well.
48BTW I am accredited in all my degrees. NYT doesn't always get it correct. Some of their views are highly politically motivated. This is true for most new sources. I don't understand why people tend to put some publications over what people have first hand experienced. That somehow seems backwards!
49"I also wanted to say that if more people would admit and learn to admire their 'mixed' heritage, there might be less of an uphill battle for our future children."
I agree but we have a long way to go.
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.