Okay, it was no surprise that The Supreme Court ruled in favor of New Haven's white firefighters. "Reverse discrimination" has become a popular refrain from Republican advocates in the media and the courts, ever since the Alan Bakke case. In that instance diversity was said to have a legitimate role in admissions guidelines but Bakke's right to be admitted to medical school was also affirmed - - a kind of end-around split decision.
The issue of fairness at colleges and universities and in employment situations remains, however, unresolved in the minds of jurists and among the general population. The fact that there is such a heavy emphasis on test scores as the gauge for admission or advancement is one troubling aspect of the debate. It would seem that much of the rancor surrounding discrimination or its reverse could be held in check if test scores were just one factor in determining the makeup of an institution or a workforce. Everyone understands that personal style, experience and, in some cases, physical ability are features that affect an applicant's performance; test scores tell only part of the story.
For years, many colleges used geography as one way to create a diversified student body. Although a campus might still have more students from New England if that were its location, admissions offices often looked favorably on applicants from other parts of the country even if their grades and test scores were somewhat lower than top applicants. For a long time, religion was also a consideration in the makeup of student bodies. And in large universities athletic prowess often superseded academic credentials.
But once race became the issue the whole debate changed and became ideological warfare. Proponents of race-blind admissions procedures and exclusionary tests refused to admit that whites still held the strongest hands despite claims that they were being treated unfairly because they were, gasp, that beleaguered mass of white humanity. It seemed that after so many years of preferential treatment, the slightest diminution of their favored position was not to be tolerated.
In the firefighter case, did only those with the highest scores merit promotion though others passed but with lower scores? In one instance a firefighter with learning disabilities was touted as especially deserving of advancement. A friend helped him through arduous study regimens and he scored well. Was his on-the-job performance more or less important than his test-taking ability? What was his reaction time, his demeanor in the face of danger? Was it of no consequence that firefighters are faced with emergency situations when an individual must take quick decisive action?
It has long been understood that some people test well while others do not, and there are many reasons why this is so. Some are personal such as learning style. Others are a result of sub-standard schooling or peculiarities in testing materials that militate against comparable results among applicants from different backgrounds. It isn't clear if any of these elements were present in the firefighter situation, and, in any case, the Supreme Court ruled in much simpler terms. It did seem odd, however, that Justice Alito, in his concurring opinion, asserted that New Haven officials had engaged in racial politics when they threw out the test results. I can't recall another time when a justice made such extraneous allegations from the bench. It was unseemly, extra-judicial behavior that cast a cloud over the proceedings.
But whatever one's take on the legal minutiae, there was something obscene about those pictures of grinning white firefighters after their case was won. New Haven is a city with large numbers of blacks and Hispanics who are likely under-represented in top positions at the fire department. To understand the underlying issue of race in municipalities, the recent shootings in New York, not just of black suspects but of black law-enforcement officers by white officers, provide a window into the problem of racial division that continues to exist in the larger society.
A self-identified white Republican called Washington Journal on Tuesday to say he hoped Democrats would "screw up the country so badly" that he, his party and white people in general could re-establish the power that was "rightfully" theirs. He should be comforted that white rights continue to be upheld in the name of so-called "fair-minded, judicious oversight." His power and status are, for the most part, secure, but reverse discrimination is one of this country's phoniest issues.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
