Diversity depends on leadership, not lawsuits
The U.S. Supreme Court served up plenty of red meat for conservative commentators Monday: Not only did it rule 5-4 in favor of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who claimed discrimination in promotions practices, but in so doing, it reversed an appeals court panel that included Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace retiring Justice David Souter.
By the time you read this editorial, you might have gotten an earful from cable TV talkers about how the court majority struck a mighty blow against “reverse” discrimination and repudiated Ms. Sotomayor, whose confirmation hearing begins in two weeks.
That is nonsense. The case of Ricci v. DeStefano is notable for what it doesn’t decide. The case was resolved on narrow facts. Constitutional issues were deferred until another day. The high court’s majority described its task as providing “guidance to employers” faced with “statutes and principals” that “point in different directions.”
To read the decision is to see the difficulties employers face when trying to craft systems that fairly measure qualifications for promotion and yield a diverse pool of candidates. These are difficulties the city of St. Louis know only too well.
St. Louis suffered a bitter rupture in race relations over fire department promotions in 2007. Sherman George, the city’s first African-American fire chief, was demoted after refusing an order from his boss, Mayor Francis Slay, to make promotions from a list of candidates selected by a test that Mr. George deemed flawed.
The list included only a few black candidates, but the department’s tests and promotions process had been upheld by a federal judge after lengthy litigation.
The New Haven Fire Department case presented the same controversy from a different angle. In New Haven, it was the city that refused to go forward with a promotions list in which minority candidates were underrepresented, believing the process had been discriminatory.
A trial court held that the city was within its rights to scrap the promotional list and start over; the appeals court — including Ms. Sotomayor — agreed.
On Monday, the Supreme Court said that employers may void promotional lists that are a product of discriminatory promotional processes. And the court said employers do not have to seek a judicial ruling before acting. But, the court ruled, before promotions lists can be thrown out, there must be “a strong basis in evidence” that discrimination occurred. That standard requires more evidence than test results in which “higher-scoring candidates were white,” the court said.
Nothing about the court’s decision in New Haven case is sensational. The same cannot be said for promotions at fire departments — many of which have had long histories of racial exclusion.
Promotions processes are imprecise and imperfect, even at their very best. They are fraught with high emotion. Results almost invariably are challenged in court because people feel aggrieved.
True diversity is reached only when employers have a deep, continuing commitment to create opportunity for all talented people. That begins with recruitment and continues with training and mentoring. Candidates must be tested and selected fairly — not on rote memory, but on what it really takes to lead and succeed.
Ultimately, promoting diversity and reducing the heat of racial grievance depends on leadership, not lawsuits.
“In New Haven, it was the city that refused to go forward with a promotions list in which minority candidates were underrepresented, believing the process had been discriminatory.”
Or you could honestly state that the city was afraid of getting sued. Nothing I have read indicates they thought the process was discriminatory; they went so far as to have an independent organization develop and administer the exam. It seems in both cases, New Haven and St Louis, the courts decided there was no discrimination in the testing process, but how those results were interpreted.
Mr. Board,
You mention this as reverse discrimination. Let’s just call it like it is, discrimination. Only in a liberal, wacko world, can you see any sense in the actions of the city of New Haven.
You seem to be telling us that the testing results from New Haven indicate a racial bias. On what do you base that conclusion? Are you basing it on the results? If so, that would be hardly a logical conclusion. How about you try a little experiment at your work.
Put the names and race of all your co-workers into a hat. Fold each piece of paper identically. Randomly pick 10 names out of the hat. You will observe that at times, the results will be in line with the population’s diversity. Most of the time, however, you will see your selection greatly diverge. Using your logic, if you happened to pull all 10 white males, you would consider the process racist (and since you pulled the names, you would have to label yourself racist). What’s even more twisted is that if you happened to pull 10 black females, you would applaud the diversity — even though the results were essentially the same as the one you label as being racist.
Lesson learned: Even a racially unaware, and fair process will produce results that do not reflect the racial distribution of the population. However, if you were to look at the results over a larger result set, then you may be able to determine if there is a racial bias to the process.
Bonus lesson learned: Just because you don’t get the result you don’t want, doesn’t mean that the result is not valid. It also doesn’t mean that you discard the result because you are afraid of getting sued or beat up. These men took the test fair and square. Only a racist would deny them the promotion they had earned.
“The New Haven Fire Department case presented the same controversy from a different angle. In New Haven, it was the city that refused to go forward with a promotions list in which minority candidates were underrepresented, believing the process had been discriminatory.” Have you become so week that you now must actually give false (aka LIE) information. Nowhere has New Haven stated they thought it was any other than fear of being sued. The “Editorial Board” could not be any more pathetic.
America is the only country I know that corrects discrimination against one group by discriminating against another.
First of all, you need have read nothing more than the first page to determine New Haven’s motive in discarding the test results: After plaintiffs filed, “The defendants responded that had they certified the test results, they could have faced Title VII liability for adopting a practice having a disparate impact on minority firefighters.”
As to this being a narrow decision which is not “sensational”, consider this from the 2nd page of the opinion: “All the evidence demonstrates that the City rejected the test results because the higher scoring candidates were white. Without some other justification, this express, race-based decision making is prohibited.” Sounds sensational to me.
In the real world today, employers focus on the ability of a prospect, not on the color of her skin. For the racial bean counters and liberal pundits who believe, absent any evidence, that there is a Klansman hiding behind every employment process, this must be a startling revelation. For the rest of us, including a majority of the Supreme Court, this is life in the 21st century.
For those who want to see the actual ruling, rather than relying on the editorial board’s interpretation of it, it is available on the Supreme Court’s website, here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf
From the US Supreme Court written opinion regarding the views of those who protested the results:
“And they criticized the testmaterials, a full set of which cost about $500, for being too expensive and too long.”
It sounds to me like some of the test takers did not try as hard as others.
Diversity is a legitimate goal. Especially in a racially diverse jurisdiction like St. Louis. It would be unfair to boost the standing of a handful of applicants with any test. It seems more fair to consider career long evaluations if they are based upon objective career related efforts. This of course is a talk order due to racial infighting and bias. In such a climate disorder erupts due to prejudical views held by many. Minority candidates may feel slighted by majority wielding officers. Remember most of these people are democrats and their biases are race based not party. Civil servants need some protection from the tides of democracy. But in the end majority rules. The firefighters in St. Louis are a local majority not a minority as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson. Yet their is a racially charged climate that needs smoothing over. Tests can be objective or subjective it is difficult to iron out all subjectivity. People are not naturally inclined to give an answer they feel conflicts with their interest. This is one reason minorities do not answer the quote unquote right answer and white applicants do. This being said most of these tests are subjective in favour of whites or those that have a rightwing view point i.e. the wealthy elite. But I want some one who will save my life in the event of a problem not a test taker. I do not care one bit about saving the property. I want lives saved, and on this I want the overseer to be the officer in charge of the department.
Mr Mullarkey - “This being said most of these tests are subjective in favour of whites or those that have a rightwing view point i.e. the wealthy elite.” Two questions. Have you seen the test in question here to make the claim the test was slanted toward whites? Since when has a white fireman been considered “wealthy elite” or “rightwing”? Are we to believe anytime a white person is selected over a non-white person that it too is a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? You border on comedy.
“Nothing about the court’s decision in New Haven case is sensational. The same cannot be said for promotions at fire departments — many of which have had long histories of racial exclusion.”
Where are your facts to back up these numerous instances of racial discrimination? Are these documented instances or did you just hear from people that they think discrimination occurred? I suspect the answer to that is you are making up things to promote your liberal agenda, once again.
Finally, if anyone is sensationalizing this issue it’s the PD. “St. Louis suffered a bitter rupture in race relations over fire department promotions in 2007.” A bitter rupture…please. Most people thought George being fired was for valid reasons. Afterall, how many people in the real world could get away with insubordination in a job?
This editorial is an outright lie. The decision by the Supreme Court is stunning because it was only decided 5-4 in a case in which the plaintiffs were clearly denied their promotions based on race.
The Post neglects to point out that the exam was written by a third-party compny that specializes in employment tests and had been approved beforehand by independent experts as required by federal law. New Haven’s mayor, in league with a race-baiting black minister, refused to approve the promotions, citing fear of “political ramifications”.
The four dissenting liberals on the Court ignored the equal protection guarntees of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution (Note to editors: try reading the Constitution), deciding to instead vote on the basis of political outcomes rather than the law.
New Haven’s political leaders, and the Post, somehow feel that discrimination for the “right reason” is preferable to the rule of law, at least as long as they get to decide what the “right reason” is.