@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Debra Law wrote:
The Constitution grants power to Congress to enact laws to remedy discrimination. The law clearly and unambiguously requires employers to consider the disparate impact that hiring or promotion methods may have on minorities. Both the city and the court of appeals applied the law as written. The ultra-conservative wing of the Supreme Court, however, placed adherence to its own ideology above the law. Nothing new there.
When all is said and done, 21 federal judges considered the question presented. 11 of them (including Sotomayor) ruled one way; 10 of them ruled the other way. The final outcome of this case will not affect Sotomayor's nomination. It will, however, give vast numbers of minorities more reason to distrust and vote against conservative Republicans who clobber them at every opportunity.
The law does not guarantee equal, or, as some wish, better outcomes to minorities, although many would like to imagine it does. That was the central issue in this case. The long-standing division of judicial opinions on this issue was clearly evident in the splits that occurred both with the Federal appellate court and the Supreme Court. Moreover it is a reflection of the obvious fact that affirmative action, as some would like to see it applied, is quite obviously legalized racial discrimination.
In my opinion we have long passed the point at which affirmative action delivers any net benefit to our society or even to the groups it purports to help. The process itself creates more antagonism than it alleviates, and encourages attitudes that
do more harm than good for its supposed beneficiaries.
118 employees took a test:
17 white employees passed the test;
2 Hispanic employees passed the test;
0 black employees passed the test.
The results of the test demonstrate a significant disparity of a pass rate among racial lines--
I never said that the LAW requires an equal or better outcome for minorities. However, the LAW
does require a employer to consider the disparate impact that the testing may have had on minorities. Ricci sued the city for doing exactly what the law required the city to do.
According to your argument, the employer must simply assume that white people possess superior intellect and test taking skills entitling them to promotions without questioning the underlying factors that may have contributed to the disparity of the results and the adverse impact on minorities. According to you, a refusal to certify the highly skewed test results in order to evaluate and determine whether the test was skewed in favor of whites is RACIAL DISCRIMINATION against white people. According to you, the reverse-bigots and the reverse-racists want to keep the poor white man down and give them inferior lazy blacks an unearned hand-out. Shucks! You argue that a good faith effort by the employer to end disparate impact discrimination does more harm than good for its supposed beneficiaries.
Your argument, however, is simply fodder for ignoring disparate impact discrimination and for encouraging the true bigots and racists to design tests that will weed out minorities.
