Another viewpoint on New Haven court ruling
Here’s an opposing viewpoint on the New Haven firefighter case, and it’s from a writer who opposes racial preferences.
Ruben Navarrette Jr., a columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune, writes: “In Ricci, I might be more sympathetic to a claim of reverse discrimination if the plaintiffs could cite a historical pattern where no white firefighters had ever been promoted. Quite the contrary. You can bet that most of the people hired and promoted over the years by the New Haven fire department have been white. In fact, according to legal experts, the fire department has since 1972 been successfully sued several times for alleged racial discrimination against black firefighters.”
The court, Navarette writes, is guilty of judicial activism by essentially ignoring more than three decades of precedent.
He quotes Matthew Colangelo, a staff attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, as saying that fire departments have essentially been “a set-aside for white men for generations … You also have, in New Haven, a long history of excluding African-Americans, Latinos and women from employment. So you can’t look at New Haven’s decision to set aside the test as if it was made in some vacuum.”
(1 votes, average: 1 out of 5)
Loading ...
Jean is projects editor at the Post-Dispatch. She is a member of Bridges Across Racial Polarization, a group devoted to creating friendships and fostering communication among racial and cultural groups in the community. After growing up in a small town in Kansas, she lived in Kansas City and Wilmington, Del., before moving to St. Louis in 2004. She and her husband, Dan Wiggs, live in University City. 
Gee that was a reach to find someone who opposed the ruling.
I wonder how you Jean would like another person “Black” coming in and taking a job that you were more qualified?
I’m not saying it isn’t true, but you mean there has been a history of racial discrimination in New Haven and that little tidbit made NONE of the national news stories about this case? CNN, AP, MSNBC, etc and no one mentioned that this same department has been successfully sued?
I sometimes wonder why I even bother trying to stay informed….
So in order to make up for past disciminations, we should discriminate.
Wonderful logic.
Thanks for pointing this guy out. He’s another lib example of those who believe changing the rules whenever is ok. Here’s a message to Navarette Jr. and other sympathizers. Whites are getting fed up. Over time, there will be a revolt. Count on it.
Mensa_Underground “Over time, there will be a revolt. Count on it.”
If you count on that happening I have some swamp land for sale.
this country has raised our children within the school system to except sub-standards from people of color making excuses that they as a group need some lifting up to indoctrinate themselves into a white sociaty.
But for you to say there will be a revolt is ludicrous. Any revolt will come from minorities wanting more.
If the city uses a test to determine who gets promoted and the tests are graded accurately, then the city’s past has no relationship to the results of the test. In fact, it was probably the city’s past that caused them to throw out the results (white guilt).
Now when I read your first sentence, I thought you were going to post a reference to someone who opposed your viewpoint. Instead, you have yet another post to support your racial views.
If you are going to test, retest, retest until you get the results you want, why bother testing at all. Just give out the promotions to the races you want and forget about competency.
The main problem with cases like this one is that the government officials involved are fighting the law they are sworn to uphold. This is the main problem with the Republican party in general, they get in office and attempt to thwart the very same law they are sworn to uphold. The Democrats pass most of the laws in this country especially the ones that are taught in college i.e. Antitrust, Discrimination, and affirmative action as well as labor law. These are mainly democratic party passed laws to my understanding some of them are nearly 100 years old but they are the law all the same. So everyone is the same in the eyes of the law and these officials should be made to pay not be awarded a decision designed by party operatives to thwart the law. This is where we stand the Democrats want to uphold their law but only if they are in power, whereas the Republicans are seeking to undermine the government from within. Thus what right do these people have to uphold any law since they will not abide themselves? Civil disorder is what they are attempting to spread in an effort to gain office through sedition. The law, is the law, is the law, is the law. It is something most people do that they do not want to do to begin with but it is necessary in order to have law and order. What we have now is law by disorder.
Michael Mullarkey
What? your diatribe sounds just like a line from the movie Judge Dredd!
Da Laaaaaaw is Laaaaaaaw I am the Laaaaaw.
Politicians job is to change unjust laws (like prohibition, jim crow) and make new laws and get rid of old laws. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not the Judge’s place however, to change,delete or make new laws unless they are deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court.
As for this guy’s opinion on New Haven…It is of no matter what New Haven did in the past. It is this issue that is before the court. If you want to look in to “the past” and you go far enough, you will find discrimination in every town in America (against Native Americans, Blacks, Irish, Italians, Asians and many more).
I don’t care what happened in 1972…I care what happens now and in the future. People are trying really hard to be the victims…when they should really try to be The Shepard.
larry,
Please submit a link to the law that the Supreme Court just changed. Are you sure you are not getting precedent confused with law? Since when is it constitutional to blatantly deny promotions to a group a people because of their race? Where in the Constitution does it give people the right to do this in order to avoid a law suit? Are you saying that racist acts are ok if you fear you will get sued if you don’t commit them?