In the fight against racism, when was it, exactly, that some policy makers, judges and others decided the best solution was still more racism?
It absolutely happened – instead of trying to establish legally and morally and as a basic assumption of our national life that skin color or ethnic group should count for nothing in decisions affecting an individual’s social and economic advancement or basic rights, some among us concluded that group preference was vital in making up for the evils perpetrated by . . . group preference.
Naturally enough, this crudity was dressed up stylishly in an array of euphemistic phrases, such as “affirmative action” and “disparate impact.” We were told that justice was on the march and objections were met with allegations of bigotry. One excuse was certainly true: These new racists were trying to raise people from disadvantaged circumstances instead of aiming to hold anyone down.
But you cannot extend favors to one group without mistreating other groups, and prejudice resides within the heart of such efforts. The premise without which the justifications for this enterprise fall apart is that everyone within a given racial or ethnic groups is pretty much the same.
Deny as reason dictates that this premise is true, and you can get back where you ought to be, judging individuals as individuals, not in accord with unwarranted suppositions based on group identity.
Ah, but you are missing the nuance here, we’re told by people who then in effect say discrimination against minorities can be ended without completely embracing the principle it contradicts, or that compensatory assistance is impossible without infringements that in their view are minor, no matter how deeply hurtful to many.
Nuance indeed. There are those of us who grew up in the segregated South (or border-state South, in my case) and know about such “nuance,” all that supposedly polite talk about how it was actually best for blacks themselves to associate mainly with each other, and how schools and such can be separate and still be equal. It doesn’t wash.
So now we come to a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court. New Haven, Conn., should not have thrown out a test for promoting firemen on the ground that no blacks and no more than two Hispanics passed it, the majority said. Results did not prove the test was racially discriminatory, but New Haven’s action clearly was.
Justice Ruth Ginsburg argued back that the decision denied equal opportunity, a piece of silliness disproved by one of the plaintiffs, Frank Ricci, who is dyslexic, meaning that he struggles to learn by reading.
But he studied and studied and studied some more, and could demonstrate on that test that he as an individual had risen above a disability, that he was competent to lead others in putting out fires and saving lives. He and others who passed are the ones who were denied an opportunity.
Whether this narrow ruling will have a deep and lasting impact remains to be seen. Standing in line to be a new justice on the court is federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who had ruled differently on the same case. President Obama may get to nominate still more with philosophies like hers.
We can nevertheless hope that we as a society will become increasingly less racial-minded but always more caring, recognizing that there are a variety of principled means to help anyone of any race who is disadvantaged and also keeping in mind that the worst thing we can do is stand in the way of people like Ricci who mainly want a fair shake.
Examiner Columnist Jay Ambrose is a former Washington opinion writer and editor of two dailies. He can be reached at: [email protected].
