The Conservative Discovery of Racial Discrimination
Via Ed Kilgore, George Will on the Ricci case:
The nation shall slog on, litigating through a fog of euphemisms and blurry categories (e.g., “race-conscious” actions that somehow are not racial discrimination because they “remedy” discrimination that no one has intended). This is the predictable price of failing to simply insist that government cannot take cognizance of race.
Obviously, this kind of sentiment from a leading light of the conservative movement would be more credible had the conservative movement taken the side of racial justice during the civil rights era. Instead, we got things like National Review’s memorable denunciation of the weak-tea Civil Rights Act of 1957:
The central question that emerges–and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by meerely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal–is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes–the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced ace. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes’, and intends to assert its own.
Dwight Eisenhower could see that this was wrong and backed the ‘57 bill. But Ike was a RINO, the kind of person George Will would despise.
But that’s the past, of course, and we can’t hold Will personally responsible for the things his predecessors were saying fifty years ago. But here’s the question—how is it that I can’t recall an instance of Will waxing indignant about some instance of racism directed against an African-American or Latino in the United States? I don’t believe it’s my faulty memory. Instead, I believe it’s that the new “color blind” American right is not dramatically different from the old “black people shouldn’t be allowed to vote” American right from fifty years ago. It’s a movement that’s basically indifferent to the interests of non-whites and totally uninterested in the question of whether or not there’s unfair discrimination against minority groups in the United States.
96 Responses to “The Conservative Discovery of Racial Discrimination”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 1st, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Matt is a racist! And Sotomayor too!
/back to VDARE
July 1st, 2009 at 1:58 pm
On the wrong side of history again. Yes these are the same people that defended segregation, but we all know that the US has a collective memory of about 30 seconds so no one will connect the dots.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:59 pm
The alternative explanation – obvious to anyone eligible for Harvard KS Night School much less Hahvahd – is that that waterfront is covered by the Dems, several national organizations, Dem favorites like Sharpton, Jackson, and Geraldo, and on and on. Meanwhile, there are no specifically white organizations to act as a counterpart. All organizations that “liberals” would pretend represent only white interests do not in fact do that but are open to all, sometimes panderingly so. IOW, there’s no considered-mainstream NationalCouncilOfTheRace, unless you translate the last bit into Spanish.
And, regarding MattY, he’s consistently denied there being any discrimination or racism against white people, despite there being endless evidence from right inside the Party he’s a hack for.
In fact, here’s a quote from the person who was later made chairman of the California Democratic Party:
Let’s face it: the Democratic Party would hardly exist if they couldn’t foment racial animus in one way or another.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:00 pm
It’s a movement that’s basically indifferent to the interests of non-whites
No, it’s a movement that’s basically hostile to the interests of non-whites (where many elected Democratic officials are merely indifferent). Resentment over the various civil rights movements of the ’60s is, beyond gibbering paranoia and inchoate hatred, at the core of the modern conservative movement.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Well, let me follow up on Yglesias logic. Because Sotomayor attempted to interject race into Due Process, I therefore conclude all Progressives are racists swine.
How is that?
July 1st, 2009 at 2:03 pm
As long as we’re bringing up 40-50 year old history, let’s raise the fact that more Democrats opposed the Voting Rights Act than Republicans, blah, blah, blah. Now, of course, we can’t hold Matthew personally responsible for the things his predecessors were doing fifty years ago. But, here’s the thing, I can’t recall an instance of Matthew waxing indignant about some instance of racism directed against a non-liberal African-American or Latino in the United States. I don’t believe it’s my faulty memory. Instead, Matthew glosses over the outright racism against the likes of Michael Steel, Miguel Estrada, Clarence Thomas, etc., because Matthew isn’t interested in racism at all, he’s only interested in partisanship. So, in reality, Matthew is no different a Democrat than those Democrats who filibustered the Voting Rights Act.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:04 pm
“But here’s the question—how is it that I can’t recall an instance of Will waxing indignant about some instance of racism directed against an African-American or Latino in the United States? I don’t believe it’s my faulty memory.”
Well then, I guess I’ll reask my question to you the last time you posted something similar: Can you provide an example of an instance of racism that has taken place in the US recently?
July 1st, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Fake Al Says:
Please.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
You might want to put the leading “r” in that quotation for clarity’s sake.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Can you provide an example of an instance of racism that has taken place in the US recently?
Are you seriously that stupid or are you just playing games?
July 1st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
It’s a movement that’s basically indifferent to the interests of non-whites and totally uninterested in the question of whether or not there’s unfair discrimination against minority groups in the United States.
Matt: I think you’re 100% correct here. But I think liberals tend to be indifferent to (or at least politically incapable of taking action with respect to) questions of affirmative action overreach, and how this might negatively impact the economic interests of working class whites. I’m thinking especially of public sector employment. Such jobs have long been a conduit connecting working people and middle class economic security. Not saying I agree with the Ricci decision (I loathe judicial activism in all its forms). But I’m not so sure the outcome of the decision is morally problematic (is it really impossible in 2009 to come up with race neutral, unbiased, civil service exams?), and I suspect the political impact will benefit Democrats, by making the overdue adjustments and fine-tuning to the more heavy-handed sorts of anti-discrimination policies that seem grounded in a era of more raw, more pernicious racism — that would be very difficult — from the standpoint of politics — to get enacted via the legislative process.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:10 pm
DAMMIT, LONE WACKO, BUY A NEW KEYBOARD WITH A WORKING SPACEBAR KEY ALREADY.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Republicans secretly posit that there was a day – perhaps it was in the 1970s – when all of a sudden all race inequality vanished from the earth, and now the only way in which race inequality manifests itself is in the misguided efforts to remedy imaginary race inequality.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Al.
1. Back to the 1964 Voting Rights Act I see. So, why exactly did the Republicans who courageously VOTED for that bill, instead of taking advantage of that with black America, immediately begin courting pissed off Southerners who were enraged at the bill’s passage? When your party counterintuitively pursues an overtly racist “Southern strategy”, you no longer get to pat yourselves on the back for a vote you made 45 years ago.
2. As for “overt racism” against Clarance Thomas. Many people cautioned at the time of his nomination that he was a conservative puppet with very little grasp of Constitutional Law. Quick, how many majority opinions has he authored in almost twenty years? Remember, this was the guy who recently voted that it was Constitutional for school officials to strip search a 13 year old girl for concealing aspirin.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:16 pm
But that’s the past, of course, and we can’t hold Will personally responsible for the things his predecessors were saying fifty years ago. But here’s the question—how is it that I can’t recall an instance of Will waxing indignant about some instance of racism directed against an African-American or Latino in the United States? I don’t believe it’s my faulty memory.
============================================================
It’s your faulty memory:
The Voting Rights Act ranks above Social Security, the GI Bill of Rights and other landmark legislation as the 20th century’s noblest and most transformative law. Before it, African-Americans in the South depended on something undependable–the kindness of strangers. Largely excluded from the electorate, they could not compel the good will of the political class. Until 1965, when swift change began.
Today there are 43 African-American members of the House and Senate and more than 9,000 elected state and local officials. The state with the largest number? Mississippi. Second and third? Alabama and Louisiana
George Will, 2005
July 1st, 2009 at 2:18 pm
It’s your faulty memory:
In that quote, Will is saying, basically, that the job is done. (Maybe his actual argument wasn’t stated so unequivocably, but I’m just looking at your quote.) I don’t see how this contradicts Matt’s point at all.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Camp,
Yes, there are many black elected officials in the South. Virtually all of them are Democrats. Which is remarkable considering it was the Republicans who got the 1964 Voting Rights Act passed.
Huh. I guess the “Southern Strategy” in the long run turned out to be a pretty dumb move by the Republicans from a demographic point of view.
Republicans ought to think about the long term effect of the Southern Strategy/Silent Majority kind of politics the next time they wonder why Latino voters are fleeing the GOP in droves.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:19 pm
24ahead said: Dem favorites like Sharpton, Jackson, and Geraldo
Geraldo? Geraldo? Geraldo Rivera, the Fox News “personality?” Is that who you mean, or is there some other Geraldo I missed? Just what have you been smoking, 24, to make you believe that Geraldo is a Dem favorite, and can I please have some?
Al said:
As long as we’re bringing up 40-50 year old history, let’s raise the fact that more Democrats opposed the Voting Rights Act than Republicans . . .
True, but then, after the Civil Rights act passed, nearly all of those Democrats left the party, to be welcomed with open arms by the Republicans. How convenient of you to forget this.
Pretending to be blind to race after the deck has been stacked is just to lock in the results of centuries of racism. This is obvious. Surely at some point we will arrive at a society where taking race into account to repair the damages of past racism will no longer be necessary. People like Will have been arguing that we’ve already reached that place since the 1960s, so their commentary on the subject is worthless.
What is it with all of these people weeping that a white man can’t catch a break in this country. I mean, seriously. Get a grip, people.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:21 pm
More on Matthew’s faulty memory:
To appreciate how far the nation has come, propelled by what began 60 years ago this Sunday, consider not the invectives that Robinson heard from opponents’ dugouts and fans, but the way he had been praised. “Dusky Jack Robinson,” as the Los Angeles Times called him, alerting readers to the race of UCLA’s four-sport star, ran with a football “like it was a watermelon and the guy who owned it was after him with a shotgun.”
That cringe-inducing fact is from Eig’s mind-opening book, an account of a 28-year-old man “filled with fear and fury,” and terribly alone. It includes unfamiliar details about familiar episodes. There is Lt. Robinson’s 1944 refusal, 11 years before Rosa Parks, to move to the back of a bus at Fort Hood, Texas. And shortstop Pee Wee Reese, a Kentuckian who until 1947 had never shaken hands with a black person, crossing the infield to put a hand on Robinson’s shoulder when Cincinnati fans were being abusive.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:23 pm
matt this post makes you sound like a b-list pr spinner on fox. you don’t even address the substance of the current debate. cherry-picking racist quotes from the past adds nothing ot anyone’s understanding of ricci, race in america today, george will, or modern conservatism.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:24 pm
More on Matthew’s faulty memory:
How many examples do we need to show that Matthew doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
July 1st, 2009 at 2:26 pm
1. Back to the 1964 Voting Rights Act I see.
Seems relevant, given that Matthew is back to some 50+ year old magazine quote.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:27 pm
“2. As for “overt racism” against Clarance Thomas. Many people cautioned at the time of his nomination that he was a conservative puppet with very little grasp of Constitutional Law. Quick, how many majority opinions has he authored in almost twenty years? Remember, this was the guy who recently voted that it was Constitutional for school officials to strip search a 13 year old girl for concealing aspirin.”
What a putz. You have no idea what you’re talking about, and you’re saying it’s ok to be racist towards a member of the Supreme Court because you don’t like one of his dissenting opinions.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Has MY ever heard of Google?
July 1st, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Any instances of him being indignant about anything fewer than 40 years ago? Particularly not in an article where he’s advocating the repeal of parts of the law which rectified the outrages he’s condemning. Isn’t this exactly what Matt’s talking about? “Oh that law that conservatives opposed at the TIME was good in retrospect, and we conservatives know that. But now, coincidentally, it’s no longer needed and should be repealed.” Sure, there are times when it’s true that these things have outlived their usefulness, but it seems like the same song an awful lot of the time from the political ideology that initially opposed them is a bit suspicious.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/51008
July 1st, 2009 at 2:31 pm
What a putz. You have no idea what you’re talking about, and you’re saying it’s ok to be racist towards a member of the Supreme Court because you don’t like one of his dissenting opinions.
That’s exactly what he is saying. Racism only exists against liberals, don’t you know.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Dan, of course the crux of the Ricci case was that the city of New Haven felt that Title VII gave them little recourse when the test results for the firefighters came out as skewed as they did. One of the historical contexts of Title VII was that fire departments routinely were among the worst offenders in terms of discrimminatory hiring practices.
The reason that Ricci even made it to the Supreme Court is because lower courts actually upheld twenty five years of legal precedent, siding with Title VII. It was the supposedly “originalist” conservative wing of the SC who were the activists with Ricci, simply ignoring legal precedent and standing law by siding with the firefighters seemingly out of nothing more than “empathy”.
Remember, the conservatives’ actions during the Lily Ledbetter case. Ms. Ledbetter found out long after the fact that she had been the victim of pay discrimmination. Did the SC allow her claim to proceed? Hell no, John Roberts pointed at the ridiculously short statute of limitations for pay discrimmination and said “tough luck”. So, Roberts, et. al were willing to overlook Title VII but not do right by Lily Ledbetter?
It’s not a failure to understand modern conservatism, Dan. People with long memories and the ability to do some basic research are able to easily show repeated instances of conservative hypocrisy, venality, and spitefullness when it comes to issues of race and/or discrimmination.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Quick, how many majority opinions has he authored in almost twenty years?
140
July 1st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Brad, who exactly is being “racist” towards Clarence Thomas here? Is it “racist” to say that Thomas has turned out to be a rather mediocre justice who is more known for his apparent disinterest in asking a single question during oral arguments than any majority opinion he has authored? He’s simply turned out to be a cypher of a legal mind, but a dependably predictable vote on cases involving discrimmination, corporate interests, and most importantly, executive power.
Look, I personally thought the Anita Hill hearings were a pile of crap (even if I suspected that she might have been tellling the truth), but let’s not pretend that Justice Thomas is more than he is.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Today there are 43 African-American members of the House and Senate…
And how many of them are Republicans?
July 1st, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Is it “racist” to say that Thomas has turned out to be a rather mediocre justice who is more known for his apparent disinterest in asking a single question during oral arguments than any majority opinion he has authored?
Yes, it absolutely is racist to say that.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Quick, how many majority opinions has he authored in almost twenty years?
140
Ouch! That’s gotta sting.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:47 pm
The traditional position of conservatives on issues of race and gender and the like is that the past acheivements were good ones, but the current movement goes to far. A good example of an (presumably unintentional but who knows) parody of this is in Christine Hoff Soommers’ book in which she is arguing that past feminism (presumably pre-1960s was good but it was stolen by radicals and turned into something bad. The book begins with an epigram saying basically that, past feminism was a positive thing, but today’s feminism has gone off the rails. The problem is the quote is from the 1940’s. So because of the nature of indexicals it is actually contradicting her thesis not supporting it.
Using the Civil Rights Act as a response to what Yglesias is saying here makes the same kind of problem with indexicals as the Sommers quote. It is not surprising that Will would support tea yesterday and tea tomorrow for minority groups, but it really only answer’s Matt’s point if one can find an article in which Will believes they should get tea today. (Sorry, I have been reading Through the Looking Glass to my kids of late).
24aheaddotcom is, of course, right that there are plenty of people ready to write about discrimination against minorities, all as it happens on the left. But this is a kind of silly justification as there are certainly no lack of people ready to write about the horrors of Ricci, mostly without bothering to even discover the background facts to Ricci. It is true that they are mostly conservatives, but that makes Will’s speaking on the issue double redundant. Will could actually have more impact by highlighting the discrimination against blacks that he cares about, if there actually was any then he does by joining the conservative mass in condemning how unfair life is to the trod upon white man.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Al, how EXACTLY is pointing out that Justice Thomas has a reputation for not asking a single question during oral arguments “racist”. How do you interpret that as somehow meaning that Justice Thomas is racially inferior? I’m simply talking about a seeming passive streak and a written record that hasn’t exactly set the judicial world on fire.
Remember, conservatives have been whining that they are called “racists” for complaining about Obama (even when they complain about Obama in ways that are actually racist). Yet, any criticism of Justice Thomas is not based on an observation of the facts, but “racism”?
July 1st, 2009 at 2:49 pm
What’s most surprising about this, is that conservatives like Will and John Roberts are pushing us to become more like France, where the government does refuse to “take cognizance for race.”
As anyone can tell you, this has been truly successful at promoting the integration of minorities at the highest echelons of the French economic and political system.
Now, if only the conservatives would wake up to the French philosophy on health care, too.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Al, how EXACTLY is pointing out that Justice Thomas has a reputation for not asking a single question during oral arguments “racist”.
Because you view that as laziness, which is a typical stereotypical racist thought against an African-American. Check your own stereotyping before you acuse others of such.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Fine, conservatives, let’s put your money where your mouth is. In order to truly eliminate unfair advantages in life, will you support a law to eliminate federal funding for colleges that employ “legacy” admission policies. In case you are so blinded by your ideology, a “legacy” admission is when a college or university admits a student without the academic record or test scores normally required because said student is the son or daughter of a prominent alum or donor. For instance, even though I didn’t have the SAT to get into Notre Dame, I would have been admitted because my father was a graduate. Presumably my legacy admission would have been at the expense of the person who had better test scores than I did. Your beloved President Bush certainly benefitted from such “legacy” policies when it came to Yale, no?
July 1st, 2009 at 2:57 pm
will you support a law to eliminate federal funding for colleges that employ “legacy” admission policies.
I certainly would.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Judd, bullshit. Not asking questions during arguments isn’t necessarily “laziness”, it can also be “incurious”. And being incurious isn’t something that is the exclusive property of any single race.
So, Judd, I take it that your concern about the “laziness” stereotype has kept you and your fellow conservatives from ever using the “teleprompter” line of attack on our current President?
July 1st, 2009 at 2:59 pm
38. Al, good for you. Now get on the phone and start bombarding your local representatives to draft and pass such a law. After all, conservatives abhor ANY unfair advantage, no? You better get cracking..
July 1st, 2009 at 3:01 pm
@Rob Mac: “What is it with all of these people weeping that a white man can’t catch a break in this country.”
IMO that attitude comes about as a result of right wing propaganda tactics that drive most of the current conservative ideology. The mouthpieces like Limbaugh and Hannity bombard their audiences with egregious examples and anecdotes that substitute for balanced views and thought-provoking analysis. They like to foster a feeling of being under seige in their audiences. If you listen/watch long enough you begin to believe in an incredibly distorted reality in which every welfare recipient is a Reagan “Welfare Queen”, every non-military government expenditure is irresponsible spending, and every action undertaken to mitigate racism is a nakedly partisan attempt by liberals to address an issue that was solved 40 years ago and gain voters in the process. It’s all a left wing conspiracy to deprive hardworking Americans of everything they’ve earned and redistribute it to those who have never worked a day in their lives.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I wonder if it’s similarly useful to bring up historical issues of The New Republic and the Nation in order to judge current progressive policies.
No. I don’t think it would be useful at all.
By the way, I hear Popular Mechanics said something wrong about nuclear energy 5 years ago. This obviously precludes them from discussing engineering issues today.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:04 pm
So, Judd, I take it that your concern about the “laziness” stereotype has kept you and your fellow conservatives from ever using the “teleprompter” line of attack on our current President?
No it’s not laziness, it’s just incurious.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Erasmus Says:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Fine, conservatives, let’s put your money where your mouth is. In order to truly eliminate unfair advantages in life, will you support a law to eliminate federal funding for colleges that employ “legacy” admission policies. In case you are so blinded by your ideology, a “legacy” admission is when a college or university admits a student without the academic record or test scores normally required because said student is the son or daughter of a prominent alum or donor. For instance, even though I didn’t have the SAT to get into Notre Dame, I would have been admitted because my father was a graduate. Presumably my legacy admission would have been at the expense of the person who had better test scores than I did. Your beloved President Bush certainly benefitted from such “legacy” policies when it came to Yale, no?
============================================================
Good idea. Legacies are misused.
I think the point that puts the lie to Matt’s colorblind=racism trope is the fact that when colorblind policies are applied racial minorities often benefit. I’ve never heard conservatives complain about that.
=============================================================
Mr. Connerly tells of a conversation he had with a high-ranking UC administrator about a proposal that the administrator was developing to increase campus diversity. Connerly asked the administrator why he considered it important to tinker with admissions instead of just letting the chips fall where they may. His response was that that unless the university took steps to “guide” admissions decisions, the University of California campuses would be dominated by Asians. When Connerly asked, “What would be wrong with that?”, the UC administrator told him that Asians are “too dull — they study, study, study.” Then he said to Connerly, “If you ever say I said this, I will have to deny it.” Connerly did not reveal the administrator’s name. It would not have done any good because it’s part of a diversity vision shared by most college administrators.
With the enactment of California’s Proposition 209 in 1996, outlawing racial discrimination in college admissions, Asian enrollment at UC campuses has skyrocketed. UC Berkeley student body is 42 percent Asian students; UC Irvine 55 percent; UC Riverside 43 percent; and UCLA 38 percent. Asian student enrollment on all nine UC campuses is over 40 percent. That’s in a state where the Asian population is about 13 percent. When there are policies that emphasize and reward academic achievement, Asians excel. College officials and others who are proponents of “diversity” and equal representation find that outcome offensive.
To deal with the Asian “menace,” the UC Regents have proposed, starting in 2010, that no longer will the top 12.5 percent of students based on statewide performance be automatically admitted. Students won’t have to take SAT subject matter tests. Grades and test scores will no longer weigh so heavily in admission decisions. This is simply gross racial discrimination against those “dull” Asian students who “study, study, study” in favor of “interesting” black, white and Hispanic students who don’t “study, study, study.”
July 1st, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Project much, judd? That bit about laziness was hilarious.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:32 pm
The Republican party is one of the few racially segregated national organizations left at the beginning of the 21st century. I know they have a few token people of color on their team. We see them every now again. Usually at big, public events like the Republican National Convention where they’re trotted out before the camera like a prized pig at the state fair. They gave Michael Steele the title of RNC chairman but they mostly ignore him. They championed Clarence Thomas for awhile but if the conservative glitterati has only one invite reserved for a member of the SCOTUS, Scalia gets the call every time. Republicans, and let’s not allow them to hide behind the term “conservative” either, it’s a distinction without a difference, are uncomfortable around people of color. They’ve internalized the talking points so completely that even when they see an educated, accomplished black man, they see a gangbanger/crackdealer/welfare cheat/rapist. These are the sad facts. Republicans are the lone holdout demographic to real racial equality.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:33 pm
tsg Says: July 1st, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Can you provide an example of an instance of racism that has taken place in the US recently?
Are you seriously that stupid or are you just playing games?
tsg:
I was just asking Matt to provide an example of racism so we all see what he means when he using that word.
But since neither he nor anyone else has provided a single example, maybe I can.
Does anyone here believe that the inability of blacks to receive a high enough score to qualify for promotion in Ricci, was due in any way because of “racism”?
July 1st, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Project much, judd? That bit about laziness was hilarious.
Just trying to play by your rules.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Oh yeah, here’s more on the U of California discrimination against Asians policy. And we all know the UC administration is dominated by Republicans
http://www.nwasianweekly.com/2009/28_19/pages/nation_uc.html
A new admissions policy set to take effect at the University of California system in three years is raising fears among Asian Americans that it will reduce their numbers on campus, where they account for 40 percent of all undergraduates.
University officials say the new standards — consisting of the biggest changes in UC admissions since 1960 — are intended to make the process fairer.
The new policy drops some testing requirements and dramatically expands the number of students who will be eligible to apply. Asians will make up a smaller portion of the applicant pool when the policy takes effect for the new class in 2012.
Asian Americans make up about 12 percent of California’s population and 4 percent of the U.S. population overall. But there are a higher proportion of Asians at California’s elite public universities because they tend to have higher test scores and grade point averages than other groups.
Asian American advocates, parents, and lawmakers are angrily calling on the university to rescind the new policy, which will apply at all nine of the system’s undergraduate campuses.
They point to a UC projection that said the new standards would sharply reduce Asian American admissions while resulting in little change for Blacks and Hispanics and a big gain for white students.
“I like to call it affirmative action for whites,” said Ling-chi Wang, a retired professor at UC Berkeley. “I think it’s extremely unfair to Asian Americans on the one hand and underrepresented minorities on the other.”
Asian Americans are the single largest ethnic group among UC’s 173,000 undergraduates. In 2008, they accounted for 40 percent at UCLA and 43 percent at UC Berkeley — the two most selective campuses in the UC system — as well as 50 percent at UC San Diego and 54 percent at UC Irvine.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:48 pm
@ Chicounsel,
My bad, I realize now my question to you wasn’t of the “either/or” type.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:55 pm
They’ve internalized the talking points so completely that even when they see an educated, accomplished black man, they see a gangbanger/crackdealer/welfare cheat/rapist. These are the sad facts. Republicans are the lone holdout demographic to real racial equality.
============================================================
Horrifying how people can completely internalize talking points:
Jesse Jackson is traveling the country with a tough anti-crime message that he is delivering to inner-city youngsters. In Chicago he said, “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
NYT columnist Bob Herbert 12/12/93
July 1st, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Examples of racism: look at the demographics of which counties using electronic vote card readers in the 2000 FL elections had the “error detection” software turned on vs. which ones didn’t reject ballots (so you knew there was a problem and could try again with a clean ballot) with stray markings (which are very easy to make given the pens the give you to mark ballots in FL) but rather just didn’t count them.
closer to home (literally): my wife (and now our daughter and I) live in a flat not really in a good location … why did my wife purchase into the particular co-op she did? oh, she thought about purchasing elsewhere, but certain co-op boards will give you a good look and decide based on your skin col … er “character” that they don’t want you as a co-op share holder. The board of our co-op may be full of corrupt pricks but racism is not amongst their flaws … other co-op boards … maybe not so much …
July 1st, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Erasmus Says:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Fine, conservatives, let’s put your money where your mouth is. In order to truly eliminate unfair advantages in life, will you support a law to eliminate federal funding for colleges that employ “legacy” admission policies. In case you are so blinded by your ideology, a “legacy” admission is when a college or university admits a student without the academic record or test scores normally required because said student is the son or daughter of a prominent alum or donor. For instance, even though I didn’t have the SAT to get into Notre Dame, I would have been admitted because my father was a graduate. Presumably my legacy admission would have been at the expense of the person who had better test scores than I did. Your beloved President Bush certainly benefitted from such “legacy” policies when it came to Yale, no?
=============================================================
Oh, yeah – speaking of legacies and such – Obama’s home state and old friend Tony Rezko are back in the news
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/may/29/local/chi-college-clout-29-may29
At a time when it’s more competitive than ever to get into the University of Illinois, some students with subpar academic records are being admitted after interference from state lawmakers and university trustees, a Tribune investigation has revealed.
Hundreds of applicants received special consideration in the last five years, according to documents obtained by the Tribune under the state’s Freedom of Information Act. The records chronicle a shadow admissions system in which some students won spots at the state’s most prestigious public university over the protests of admissions officers, while others had their rejections reversed during an unadvertised appeal process.
In one case, a relative of Antoin “Tony” Rezko, the now-convicted influence peddler for former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, got admitted after U. of I. President B. Joseph White wrote an e-mail stating that the governor “has expressed his support, and would like to see admitted” Rezko’s relative and another applicant.
White’s message to the university chancellor was passed on to admissions officials on the same day they entered a rejection decision for the Rezko relative. “He’s actually pretty low,” replied an admissions officer, referring to the applicant’s ACT score and other credentials. “Let me know when the denial letter can go out.”
Instead, the relative was admitted.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Lemme get this straight:
Democrats oppose a key civil rights bill > 40 years ago and that particular constituency amongst the Democrats is actively courted by the GOP and is now primarily Republican … and the GOP’s courting of this constituency began with that constituency voting GOP to vote for a GOP candidate who, while not racist, specifically opposed said civil rights bill — “evidence that the Democrats are perhaps still racist”
A magazine that is one of the cornerstones of the conservatism that is now ascendent in the GOP made some damningly racist remarks about civil rights — “oh that was 50 years ago, and if you are gonna get into such long ago history, then let’s bring up Democratic opposition to the Voting Rights Act”
I see …
July 1st, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I don’t get it, Campesino. What is this supposed to prove exactly? That some people care about having a diverse student body at public universities that reflects the actual diversity of a state’s population? That some people think such diversity is a worthwhile goal in and of itself, regardless of which racial group has an advantage?
Do you think that the same University of California system would not also be concerned if current admission policies resulted in a student body that contained such an outsized number of Hispanics or African Americans?
Also, Erasmus, I must say that Judd has a point. Imagine that Thomas, instead of being a reliable conservative vote appointed by GHWB, was a reliable liberal vote appointed by Clinton. And imagine that conservatives enjoyed attacking him, saying he wasn’t much of a judicial thinker, that he didn’t author many opinions, that he didn’t speak during oral arguments, that he was nothing but a John Paul Stevens clone.
I believe you would be inclined to defend Thomas and condemn the people attacking him as racist.
Everything you say about Thomas may be true (or it may not, I really don’t claim to know). But the question arises–why emphasize this about him? What does it gain? Why not look for similar nits to pick about Kennedy, or Souter, for that matter? I am not saying that you are a racist, but Judd has a point. And I believe that liberals need to be a LOT more careful when attacking conservative African Americans, latinos, etc, in such a manner.
Hate Thomas because he’s a conservative, not because he supposedly isn’t bright. Would you really like him better if he spoke up more and wrote more opinions?
July 1st, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Do I get to discredit the entire feminist movement based on Sanger having been in favor of Eugenics? Or is this a game only liberals get to play with 50+ year old writings?
July 1st, 2009 at 4:23 pm
If modern feminists were currently writing in favor eugenics in as sort of backhanded way (”sure, eugenics was bad 50 years ago, but these current anti-eugenics just go too far”), then, sure, I think you could do that.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Judd and Brad it is a sign of how little the right understands racism in how often you play the race card (or sexism card for that matter)
Opposing Clarence Thomas because he was totally unqualified to be on the Supreme Court and represents a judicial philosophy we disagree with is not racism.
And Judd don’t project you own racial hangups onto us asshole, it isn’t a racist stereotype to point out that Thomas never asks questions. It isn’t about him being lazy it is about him basing his decisions on his political ideology, he doesn’t ask questions because he has already made up his mind and doesn’t care about the facts of the case.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:38 pm
DAS,
Sure. Now lemme get this straight:
Democrats many years ago oppose civil rights. Since that time, they have changed their tune and apologized = Democrats exonerrated.
William F. Buckley’s National Review many years ago opposes civil rights. Since that time, he has changed his tune and apologized, admitting his error = National Review racist publication.
The Nation and TNR = history not interesting or open to current posturing.
I see.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Opposing Clarence Thomas because he was totally unqualified to be on the Supreme Court and represents a judicial philosophy we disagree with is not racism.
Believing Clarence Thomas to be “totally unqualified to be on the Supreme Court” most certainly is racist.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Yeah, I don’t get the supposed differences between National Review and the Democratic Party either.
Both were racist 50 years ago. Both changed.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Sam M. and Al,
Consider Rob Mac’s point in #57. It isn’t merely that the National Review said something racist 50 years ago. It’s that when the Democrats changed, the politics espoused by the National Review (and others within the “conservative” fold) allowed the GOP to pick up those Democrats who did not wish to change (ever hear of the Southern Strategy).
Moreover, even if the overt racism has disappeared, much of the rhetoric is still the same. Reagan was using code words in Philadelphia, Miss. Even the rhetoric against gay marriage is pretty much lifted from the rhetoric against interracial marriage used in a previous generation.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Rob Mac Says:
July 1st, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I don’t get it, Campesino. What is this supposed to prove exactly? That some people care about having a diverse student body at public universities that reflects the actual diversity of a state’s population? That some people think such diversity is a worthwhile goal in and of itself, regardless of which racial group has an advantage?
Do you think that the same University of California system would not also be concerned if current admission policies resulted in a student body that contained such an outsized number of Hispanics or African Americans?
============================================================
You should go back and read what MY says about Will:
Instead, I believe it’s that the new “color blind” American right is not dramatically different from the old “black people shouldn’t be allowed to vote” American right from fifty years ago. It’s a movement that’s basically indifferent to the interests of non-whites and totally uninterested in the question of whether or not there’s unfair discrimination against minority groups in the United States.
=============================================================
Matt’s attempted rhetorical switch here is that Conservatives use “colorblind” as code for racist anti-minority actions. One of the most prominent impositions of colorblind behavior on government in recent years was Proposition 209 in California, that took racial quotas out of university admissions (among other things). It was supported by Conservatives and vilified by Liberals. My point is that Asians, another racial minority, have been the primary beneficiaries of that policy. According to Matt’s stereotype, Conservatives should have been horrified at this. I frankly have never seen any Conservative anywhere say anything about it.
In this latest news, you see the Liberal university administrations rigging the system to keep the number of Asians down. It’s like the old Jewish quotas they used to have at Matt’s beloved Harvard.
Of course, by Matt’s standards that’s makes him an anti-Semite. And come to think of it, he must be against equal rights for women, because Harvard didn’t admit women until 1973. And he has the nerve to quote 1957 National Review articles.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Campesino,
I’m not sure you understand the point. You seem to be saying that after 200 plus years of forced breeding, disconnection from their ancestory, and all the hardships black americans have experienced throughout our history, they should just get over it? How very nice. Conservatives like to pretend that history doesn’t exist. We’re past that already right? The black community is on their own now right? Don’t count on the government for help right? It must be a complete mystery to you why Republicans don’t attract more votes in the hood.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Or maybe we just know how to read a calendar.
Thomas was a nobody, but he was a black conservative nobody, and that made him useful to Republicans.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:08 pm
This is the predictable consequence of being too stupid to tell the difference between disparate impact and disparate treatment. George Will is a great reminder of what passes for an intellectual on the right.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:09 pm
That’s because you’re an idiot.
The National Review is still what it was. The Democrats you cited left the party, which was the beginning of the Republicans’ power in the south.
Of course, you know that. But you pretend you don’t.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Campesino said:
I frankly have never seen any Conservative anywhere say anything about [how outlawing affirmative action in CA has favored Asians].
This is actually a very good point. This is certainly evidence that the right’s crusade against preferences for certain minorities is driven by ideology and not be racist impulses.
In this latest news, you see the Liberal university administrations rigging the system to keep the number of Asians down.
Well, here you don’t address my point at all. You could have said that they are trying to increase diversity on campus so that the student body better reflects the true diversity of the state. We can disagree about whether or not this is a bad thing, but it is certainly not an evil thing and there’s no reason to think it’s driven by any sort of animus against Asians, which is what you imply.
It’s too bad you devolve into silly name calling after that last statement. You only undermine yourself and make it so people won’t want to take you seriously when, in fact, you’ve actually got a reasonable point to make.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:30 pm
JM, there are no qualifications for being on the Supreme Court other than appointment by the President and approval by the Senate. Singling out Thomas in this way would certainly seem racist to a lot of people were Thomas a liberal African American being attacked by conservatives.
Doesn’t your rhetoric sound at all familiar to you? This is exactly the sort of thing conservatives have been saying about Sotomayor in such as distasteful manner.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Rob Mac: “Qualifications” can be an absolute (i.e., who is legally qualified) or relative (i.e., some people have more of the necessary experience and skills than others). By your logic, in which all that matters is the absolute qualification, I am as qualified for the Supreme Court as Thomas, Sotomayor, or anyone else. And it’s a good thing that I’m white or else it would be racist for you to deny this.
Is there something wrong with actually comparing the credentials of different candidates and discussing their qualifications on that basis? Mat did this with Sotomayor and Thomas, and it’s clear by that standard that Sotomayor is way more qualified than Thomas was. Thomas was anomalously inexperienced for a Supreme Court nominee.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Er, pardon me—Matt’s post compares Sotomayor and Miers. Sorry about that. It is nonetheless true that Sotomayor had far more experience on the federal bench than Thomas.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Well, here you don’t address my point at all. You could have said that they are trying to increase diversity on campus so that the student body better reflects the true diversity of the state. We can disagree about whether or not this is a bad thing, but it is certainly not an evil thing and there’s no reason to think it’s driven by any sort of animus against Asians, which is what you imply.
===========================================================
Well, go read the article I link to @ 49. The Asians with great GPAs and SAT scores who won’t get into UC campuses because of it think it’s evil. Asians have a history of racial mistreatment by this country that’s just a few steps better than Blacks and Native Americans.
They’ve been told by Conservatives and Liberals alike that if they play by the rules and achieve they’ll succeed. And here they find the game rigged against them.
===========================================================
It’s too bad you devolve into silly name calling after that last statement. You only undermine yourself and make it so people won’t want to take you seriously when, in fact, you’ve actually got a reasonable point to make.
==========================================================
Sorry you see it as name-calling. But I really feel the need to heap scorn on this junior high level debating technique that Yglesias keeps using. I bet I’ve seen him use this National Review 1950s quote device a half dozen times to say Conservative pronouncements on race are all made in bad faith. By that same ridiculous standard, Yglesias is a racist anti-semite who’s against women’s rights because he is a Democrat who graduated from Harvard
July 1st, 2009 at 6:03 pm
ny nick Says:
July 1st, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Campesino,
I’m not sure you understand the point. You seem to be saying that after 200 plus years of forced breeding, disconnection from their ancestory, and all the hardships black americans have experienced throughout our history, they should just get over it? How very nice. Conservatives like to pretend that history doesn’t exist. We’re past that already right? The black community is on their own now right? Don’t count on the government for help right? It must be a complete mystery to you why Republicans don’t attract more votes in the hood.
=============================================================
Actually, I’ve never said anything like that trivializing what black Americans have suffered through for the last 400 years.
I suppose my point would be that it would be productive if one could have discussions about affirmative action and racial remedies without the default position of Liberals being to call the other side racist. As Yglesias does here.
Questions like:
If we have affirmative action, how long does it go on?
If we obsessively focus on racial classification of everyone in the society, how do we ever get the colorblind society we all say we want?
July 1st, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Rob Mac,
I knew someone would go there, shall we compare Sotomayer’s judicial experience to Thomas’s?
Sure there is no formal definition about what qualifies someone for the Supreme Court, but people generally have an idea, it wasn’t just liberals saying Harriet Miers was unqualified for example. And while I oppose Scalia, Roberts and Alito for their judicial views I will concede that they are qualified and who I would expect a Republican president to nominate.
If conservative were opposing Sotomayer because they disagree with her judicial philosophy that would be fine, but what we’re getting instead is an attack on her academic career, accusations that she’s a racist, etc.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Strom Thurmond, Al.
F*** you.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:26 pm
55. If Thomas spoke up more and actually took the lead in writing some important decisions, I’m not sure I’d like him more. HOWEVER, I maintain that criticizing his seeming lack of participation during oral arguments is a legitimate topic of discussion, and certainly not a criticism that could in any way shape or form be considered “racist”. I mean, one doesn’t have to be a “racist” to find Thomas’ finding that it was Constitutional for a school official to strip search a 13 year old girl because they thought she was carrying Ibuprofen to be an appalling lack of judicial sense.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:30 pm
69. Maybe people wouldn’t focus on Thomas so much if *some* conservatives didn’t pretend that his appointment to the Supreme Court somehow let the Republicans off the hook for their recent reputation of being racist thugs. Thomas hasn’t helped his case given his rather rubber-stamp voting patterns on certain cases.
If it makes the Clarence Thomas fan club feel any better, I personally think that Scalia is a much more problematic justice, given his tendency to write inflammatory opinions peppered with wildly ideological pronouncements that have very little to do with actual case law. I guess criticizing Scalia would then make me “anti-white”, eh what clowns?
July 1st, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Strom Thurmond, Al.
He is dead.
Robert Byrd, however, is not, Jeffrey Davis.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Thanks. Just making sure we all know what a douche you are.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Is it “racist” to say that Thomas has turned out to be a rather mediocre justice who is more known for his apparent disinterest in asking a single question during oral arguments than any majority opinion he has authored?
No. I wouldn’t agree that he is a “mediocre” justice, but there is nothign racist about it. (Although it is also not racist to call Obama a “socialist,” which I believe a lot of people here were claiming a few months back).
July 1st, 2009 at 7:20 pm
And Judd don’t project you own racial hangups onto us asshole, it isn’t a racist stereotype to point out that Thomas never asks questions.
Again, just playing by your rules.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:24 pm
I maintain that criticizing his seeming lack of participation during oral arguments is a legitimate topic of discussion, and certainly not a criticism that could in any way shape or form be considered “racist”
You’re wrong, it is extremely racist.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Glavister,
Please provide evidence of anyone claiming that calling Obama is a socialist is racist.
It is stupid and displays a complete ignorance of what Socialism actually is, but it certainly isn’t racist, it is just standard right wing nonsense where everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman is called a Socialist.
And Judd, for the last time no one gives a shit what you consider racist since you clearly have no idea what the word actually means.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Matt:
There’s a shorter formulation of your stance:
“Who? Whom?”
July 1st, 2009 at 7:53 pm
If we have affirmative action, how long does it go on?
I think it should last a certain number of generations beyond the lifetimes of those directly impacted by segregation. It’s amazing to me how far this nation has progressed over the last 40 years. We’ve got a black president! The children of Sasha and Malia will have little to fear from institutional racism, I’ll bet.
If we obsessively focus on racial classification of everyone in the society, how do we ever get the colorblind society we all say we want?
In my opinion, we’re not hearing enough about social agreements like the NFL’s Rooney Rule. It’s only been 7 years since the Rooney rule was put into place but the number of AA head coaches has jumped from 2(6%) to 7 (22%). AA head coaches faced one another in the SuperBowl in 2007.
Too many people seem to be convinced that the only way to achieve our goals is through defacto quotas enshrined in law rather than negotiating with the methods of evaluation that will create more equal opportunity.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Damn, this thread reeks of desperation.
To demonstrate the horrible racism Clarence Thomas experiences at the hands of liberals, you’re pointing out that they accuse him of not being vocal in oral arguments.
Flop sweat. The word is flop sweat.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Sure he does; it means accusing a black judge of not having the judicial chops to hold his own in oral arguments.
Regardless of whether or not the charge is true.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:02 pm
It’s frustrating isn’t it? Being called a racist just for critizing a black man. See what I did there, you fucking fools.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Now, this diary came out of a comment to another diarist, who said:
I agree with Ginsburg’s logic. No one is entitled to a promotion. All firefighers were treated the same because none were promoted. Where’s the discrimination?
That is indeed an accurate summary of Ginsburg’s position, which is precisely why it’s ludicrous. Suppose a private company promised — in writing — to promote someone to Public Relations Director based upon a written exam, and then after the test was done, it turns out a black guy had the highest score. Then the company bigwigs said “well… we really don’t want a black guy as our public face… so we’re going to rescind our agreement and invalidate the test.” The company in question freely admits that, if the guy had been white, he would have gotten the PR position. Do you really think this wouldn’t be a Title VII violation? Would “hey, we were so opposed to having a black guy in the position, that we decided not to promote anyone” been “non-discriminatory” under Ginsburg’s tortured logic as well?
OF COURSE the city’s actions were in clear violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ginsburg’s dissent borders on racist garbage. I read it twice and was disgusted both times. Shorter Ginsburg: “Fuck Title VII. Firefighting has a history of racial discrimination against blacks, so now it’s the white guy’s turn to suffer.” It is a spectacularly offensive opinion that left me sick to my stomach.
Firefighting has a history of racial discrimination against blacks, so now it’s the white guy’s turn to suffer.” It is a spectacularly offensive opinion that left me sick to my stomach.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:13 pm
This blog post is unfair to George Will. I don’t think of Mr. Will as a right-wing extremist. I disagree with him on a few things, including global warming, but I see no need to associate him with other conservatives who are obviously prejudiced. I actually read Will’s column on the Ricci case, and I think it’s very convincing. Are we sure it’s a good idea to have government “take cognizance of race”, to the degree that it did in Connecticut? What if 27 Vietnamese people took that exam, and none scored high enough to be eligible for promotion?
July 1st, 2009 at 9:40 pm
“What if 27 Vietnamese people took that exam, and none scored high enough to be eligible for promotion?”
That wouldn’t happen. What would happen is that 23 of them would have passed and the white firefighters would complained that the test unfairly discriminated against white people. The city would have rejected the results, and it would have gone to the Supreme Court just the same. Except with the result of upholding the city’s actions. For all our complaints about the Civil Rights Act, it is white people who are the quickest to claim discrimination. And it is white people that are most likely to have their complaints heard.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:11 pm
“Yeah, I don’t get the supposed differences between National Review and the Democratic Party either.
Both were racist 50 years ago. Both changed.”
So very close. Try this instead:
Both were conservative 50 years ago. One changed.
The conservative National Review held vile racist views. The conservative wing of the Democratic party held vile racist views.
The National Review remains conservative, and remains hostile to addressing the damage done by racism.
The conservative wing of the Democratic party remain conservtive, and are now Republicans, and remain hostile to addressing the damage done by racism.
They bolted the party when Johnson signed the civil rights act. It was in, like, all the newspapers. Google “dixiecrat” or “southern strategy” or something.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:12 pm
What would happen is that 23 of them would have passed and the white firefighters would complained that the test unfairly discriminated against white people.
So you’re saying that Vietnamese people are smarter than black people? Racist.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:49 am
Yes, you completely failed to consider whether the criticism is warranted, and whether it trades in racial stereotypes and imagery.
In other words, you utterly ignored the substance of the criticism when judging whether it was racist, in favor of ginning up a superficial equivalence.
In other words, you acted like a conservative while discussing racism. Ie, hey, how come black people can call each other that, but everyone gets mad when I do?
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:37 am
Yes, you completely failed to consider whether the criticism is warranted, and whether it trades in racial stereotypes and imagery.
Exactly my point, dumbass. Ye who finds a racist under every rock.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
fostert Says:
July 1st, 2009 at 9:40 pm
“What if 27 Vietnamese people took that exam, and none scored high enough to be eligible for promotion?”
That wouldn’t happen. What would happen is that 23 of them would have passed and the white firefighters would complained that the test unfairly discriminated against white people. The city would have rejected the results, and it would have gone to the Supreme Court just the same. Except with the result of upholding the city’s actions. For all our complaints about the Civil Rights Act, it is white people who are the quickest to claim discrimination. And it is white people that are most likely to have their complaints heard.
=============================================================
Not so. Go read #44