Jackson Free Press

In an unexpected move, the U.S. Supreme Court this week strayed from precedence to rule against a race-based hiring practice. Overturning an affirmative-action decision by an appellate panel, the Court ruled in favor of a group of white firefighters who were passed over for a promotion because of their race.

In 2003, the fire department in New Haven, Conn., administered qualifying exams to 118 firefighters for promotion to the ranks of captain and lieutenant. When no black firefighters passed the exam to qualify for a promotion, the city opted to discard the test results and not give any promotions at all. It reasoned that if they awarded promotions to the white firefighters who scored high enough to qualify, the city would open itself up to litigation from black participants. They cited the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits the "discriminatory use of test scores." The slighted group of white firefighters later filed a lawsuit against the New Haven mayor, John DeStefano, and other city officials for discrimination on the basis of race.

While mainstream media is harping on how the Supreme Court's reversal affects nominee Sonia Sotomayor—who was on the appellate panel that upheld the city's decision to discard the exams—many Americans are asking, "Is it time to do away with affirmative action?"

To adequately answer this question, Americans need to understand the definition and origin of the practice. The practice first entered American labor practices in the 1940s during World War II and applied to the awarding of federal contracts.

However, it wasn't until 1961 that the term "affirmative action" was introduced in an executive order by President John Kennedy, in which he urged contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin." Later in 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, which affirmed Kennedy's call, and prohibited discrimination on the basis of race.

Using Kennedy's order, it would seem that affirmative action was nothing more than a call for employers—both public and private—to rigorously pursue and uphold practices of inclusion. This meant practices that prohibit organizations and businesses from discriminating against merited employees or potential employees on the basis of their sex, gender, race or ethnicity. However, the affirmative action we have come to know didn't come from Kennedy.

Many people blame the courts and the concept of "white guilt" on the shift in affirmative action from non-discriminatory practices to those based on quotas. Instead of instituting a policy that says, "We won't discriminate against people based on race," some people argue for a policy that establishes a requirement—even if it goes against other qualified applicants—that we fill x number of positions with blacks, y number of positions with women and z number of positions with Latinos. I've got to hire a new accountant, and I've interviewed two candidates. The more qualified one is white, but I have an all-white staff. I'll hire the less-qualified minority.

Affirmative action is not usually attempted with such stark quotas, but, sadly, this is how many people view the practice. We've got to move away from the notion that this is how it always is or how it always has to be. The U.S. government put affirmative action in place to protect people from discrimination, not pit races against each other.

Perhaps the most unlikely of advocates for moving away from affirmative action practices are members of Project 21, a nonpartisan conservative black organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research. "True equality allows people to rise and fall on their merits. That's what this decision protects. How can one oppose such fairness?" asked Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie in a release Monday.

This is a legitimate argument, but America is not ready to be race, gender and sex neutral. Offices need to see color; schools need to see color; people need to see color. Celebrating diversity, especially in a professional setting, is important. At the Jackson Free Press, we strive to promote diversity in our office, in our publication and out in Jackson. Encouraging other businesses and institutions to take "affirmative action" to prioritize inclusively, just as Kennedy did, is not "reverse discrimination." It's the key to success in an ever-evolving social climate.

I don't think we're ready to get rid of affirmative action. But when I go into an interview, I don't want to rest on my race and gender to get the job. I want to make damn sure that when I achieve success, that it's because of my merits, and not my ancestry. This doesn't sit well with many people, especially those who have lived in a different time when it was much more difficult to get a fair shake in life because of bigoted people in power. But the face of affirmative action needs a facelift. It's gotten out of hand when a mayor tells the fire department that it can't promote hard-working men and women because some people of another race didn't qualify.

In a Wall Street Journal article on the decision, the writer quoted Justice Roberts' majority opinion in a 2007 case disputing the use of race in zoning children for schools. In that opinion, he wrote, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

But is it really that simple? You decide for yourself.

Previous Commentsshow

This is a nice opinion piece. One comment would be that it was "white and Hispanic" firefighters who were "slighted," not whites alone. You might find this interesting about law school admission and bar pass rates. A fairly recent study of the Texas bar exam showed that only 51% of black applicants pass on their first attempt and only 77% pass after four tries. For whites it is 84%/94% and for Hispanics 68%/89%. States who want to raise the passing bar exam score must deal with the awareness that doing so will have a greater impact on blacks than whites, and even fewer blacks would be admitted to the bar (proportionately) if the passing score is raised. Several states when considering raising the pass score had to address this differential impact. Affirmative action can assist blacks in gaining law school admission, by granting admission with lower scores than whites (usually a combination of LSAT and GPA), but the trajectory can end in failure (and heart break--since bar admission is "everything") for a disproportional number, since there is no "affirmative action" program applied to passing the bar itself.

Kosciusko

Jul 1 2009

The New Haven, Conneticut case was not particularly about Affirmative Action. The city came to the conclusion that based on the results being that no African Americans scored high enough on the test that it could represent a flaw in the test. The city would have taken the same response if no whites had scored high enough as well. Their reaction was legitimate in that it is reasonable to question the results being that race has no bearing on intelligence. The results could suggest that something was biased about the test. Conservatives trying to use the case against Obama's Supreme Court nominee are mischaracterizing the case. The court merely agreed the the city had a right to dismiss the results if it had reasons to believe that the results of the test suggested a racial bias. The law the lower court used states their cause for ruling as they did. The interesting aspect of this case is that the Supreme Court actually legislated from the bench which conservatives claim to hate. The Supreme Court based their decision on something outside of the law which the city based its response on.

Goldenae

Jul 1 2009

Great Article Maggie!!!! Kudos for explaining the difference between affirmative action and quotas. The program has been hi-jacked by corporate and bureaucratic types in order to side step the issue of ending discriminatory practices. If Affirmative action “quotas” truly worked to end discriminatory practices, we would see more "color" in Fortune 500 CEO ranks, the US senate, and in leadership in a variety of areas. The way to really address the issue of equal opportunity is by looking at access to vital training, education and networks that still lacks in minority circles. If a firm or even the Feds want to expand affirmative action, look at the quality of education and access to capital that minorities have. Is this acceptable in giving them the best opportunity to compete on the job market? Seriously look at education as a constitutionally protected civil right. Does lil' Tyrone have an equal chance of getting a quality education as Little Timothy in the suburbs? A quality education should be a class privilege, but a civil right. To help with the networking and training aspects, there should be more emphasis on minority training, internship/apprenticeship programs that give candidates the non-technical supports they need to be more attractive to potential employers. For instance, the NFL has a minority coaching program and the “Rooney rule” which actually brings up a very interesting dynamic. The coaching program places qualified minorities in special training programs to improve things like interview skills, time management, organizational skills, and public relations skills. The Rooney rule requires that each team looking to hire coaches or general managers to interview at least one minority candidate. I applaud the training program, but the Rooney rule creates futile attempts to interview candidates that the teams have no intensions of hiring. IN those instances, something needs to be done with the climate under which these teams are allowed to operate, perhaps sensitivity and diversity training? Blackwatch!!!!!!!

Renaldo Bryant

Jul 2 2009

Holy Cow! I almost agree with Blackwatch. I think a quality education is important for all to have access to. Educating all of our people would go a long way to solving most of the problems we face. I also think it's important for us to not discriminate on the basis of race, If the white guy is more qualified then he should get the job, if it's the Hispanic female, well, then she should get the job, The black guy? The same should apply. The others who came up short should study harder or whatever it is they have to do to excel in the next go 'round. It's that very feeling of "no matter how hard I try I can't get ahead because the system is rigged to favor one over another based on skin color" that creates a de-valuation of education and leads to division, hatred and crime.

WMartin

Jul 2 2009

I am just throwing this out as a factoid of observation, taking off somewhat from baquan's remark about being or feeling "shut out" and wanting a "shot to come in." The last job screening pre-interview situation I was in--all three to four screening administrators were black. Out of the entire roomful of those being screened (20+ or so persons) two were white, the entire rest of the room was black, at least based on skin color alone. I believe this position required a Master's degree. What I think that says is that there is a lot of competition!

Kosciusko

Jul 2 2009

Although the New Haven case wasn’t directly about affirmative action, it was certain to touch a raw nerve on both sides of the issue. The court was asked to determine whether a city can delay or deny promotions on the grounds that the test administered to determine the promotions appeared to be racially biased and could be challenged. The underlying question was also "should an employer deny promotions and strip privileges from whites because of systemic bias against people of color?" which got the conservative talk-radio crowd buzzing. While I understood and could sympathize with the City’s position, I think the SCOTUS made the right call in this particular case. Responding to the question posed in this op-ed, no, I don’t think AA should be done away with at this time, because I believe there are still many areas where systemic bias and discrimination is locking minorities out of opportunities to advance. But I expect this view to be challenged more and more by whites who have the view that their traditional cut of the American pie is being hijacked by minorities.

Jeff Lucas

Jul 2 2009

baquan2000--I know this is tangential somewhat to this discussion, but I'm curious what happened with you and BX-BS. I had a "shut out" experience with them, so I am curious about your comment. I speculated whether there might be some---uhmmm--interesting practices going on in their recruitment. Did you take their computerized pre-employment screening test?--Kosciusko

Kosciusko

Jul 3 2009

The problem I have with discussions like this is that people have a problem admitting the obvious. Think of a top level successful black person and you will see some obvious things in common. Whether it be Obama, Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice or whomever, they had to be the smartest, and live nearly perfect lives to get where they are. Compare that to individuals like Bush who admittedly messed off a good portion of his life, was an average student, etc. However, he got access to the best of educations, got to run multi-million dollar companies and topped that off by becoming President. Give Bush's resume to Obama and Obama would never have been a Senator let alone a President. If the bar for certain achievement is set at near perfect for African Americans and much lower for whites, there is something wrong with that picture. Would Colin Powell have become a General or considered to be President if he had carried on in the military like McCain did? Affirmative Action would not be needed if we could honestly have one standard across the board. But what we have is a "buddy" system based on hookups and some groups are not in a position to participate. I heard someone say that in the past if you worked at UMC, your kids could go to Ole Miss for free. That sounds great, except for the exclusionary hiring practices that existed in 1960s and before. So, one group gets a leg up by access to higher education and another does not even get access to employment. Cultures are built by generations, not by individuals. If we compared this to Monopoly, everything is not equal if you let me into the game after you have passed go 100 times, bought up all the property, etc. Some people think that equates to equality, but it does not address the effects of past actions. Why should fixing something be equal when breaking it was not?

Goldenae

Jul 3 2009