Posted by Jeff Douglas on Jul 2nd 2009 6:00PM
Filed under: News, Interviews, Politics

The NAACP has blasted Monday's Supreme Court ruling in the New Haven, Conn., firefighter reverse discrimination case, calling it a "disappointing setback to civil rights in America."

The ruling overturned a lower court decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor that upheld the city of New Haven's fire department's choice to throw out test results of a promotion exam in which black applicants' pass rate was roughly half that of white applicants. The city felt that the test was potentially bias and unfair.

Black Voices caught up with NAACP President Benjamin T. Jealous this week in an e-mail interview to elaborate on what the ruling could mean for the future of equal opportunity and civil rights in the United States, as well as Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor's appointment.

Black Voices: You've called the decision a setback for civil rights. Why?

Ben Jealous: The ruling has the potential to dial back the gains that have been made during the past two decades to build equal opportunity in the workplace. It also discourages employers from taking necessary steps to improve selection methods that are racially biased, for fear that they might be sued by white applicants.

In the Supreme Court's dissenting opinion, pay attention to what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote. She argued -- we believe correctly and fairly -- that when the city of New Haven threw out the results of that firefighters' promotions exam, their action was not discriminatory. No one has a right to be promoted under a flawed or discriminatory test. She also observed that other cities had used better selection processes, and that New Haven's test, with racially biased questions, had produced flawed results.

BV: You've said the court's decision has created a new flawed legal standard on equal employment opportunity. Flawed in what way?

BJ: It makes it harder for employers to ensure fair and accurate selection processes by adding additional hoops that they now have to jump through. The 5-4 Supreme Court ruling also muddies the waters of what constitutes "fairness" in terms of a race and gender issues in the context of hiring and promotions practices. We find this especially troubling, in light of the barriers to equal opportunity that still plague us – in employment, education and in the criminal justice system. We've made significant progress in overcoming racial bias, but it still exists in modern forms. And many of the economic inequalities that existed when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act are still with us. Diminishing Title VII, as this New Haven ruling does, sets us back.

The NAACP believes that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who is about to begin confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill, absolutely got it right when she and two other justices on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that New Haven was within its right, and not discriminating against anyone, when it threw out those test results. It's clear that Judge Sotomayor observed existing law, while the Supreme Court justices who ruled against the city of New Haven crafted new law.

Undoubtedly, there will now be some push back during her nomination hearings from conservative senators who will attempt to use this Supreme Court ruling to portray Judge Sotomayor as out of step. But I think that Justice Ginsburg's dissent in the New Haven Case makes it clear why Judge Sotomayor and her two colleagues on the Second Circuit panel were correct in their ruling.

BV: Is there such a thing as reverse discrimination?

Ben Jealous: That language is unhelpful. It is code speak that attempts to divert attention away from the real problem of continuing racial discrimination in the U.S. Look, the NAACP has been involved in historic efforts to ensure equal opportunity and combat discrimination primarily for people of color in this country. But what is somewhat less well known about our mission is that we also fight for fairness and equal opportunity for all Americans, whatever their skin color.

The firefighter ruling then is dangerous not only for those who have been historically shut out, but for people of all races who expect and deserve fair and accurate hiring practices -- especially for important jobs like firefighting. It twists the meaning of Title VII, and, frankly, perverts its core meaning, which is to address both intentional discrimination and policies that are discriminatory in practice. Also, when we filed suit against 15 banks and lenders who took advantage of low income home buyers, we did it not only to stand up for the rights of the thousands of African Americans who got bilked, but also in defense of thousands of whites, Latinos and other hard-working Americans who were similarly exploited. Our lawsuit will force transparency and accountability in the financial lending system. That would benefit all Americans.

BV: Is there anything positive about the ruling at all?

BJ: Yes, a couple of points: The ruling shows that at least four of the Supreme Court justices seem to truly understand that racial discrimination remains a pressing issue in our country.

Second, it demonstrates that Judge Sotomayor is likely to be a fair Supreme Court justice. She did not second-guess the city of New Haven, which was precisely in keeping with the law. The ruling also demonstrated an interesting irony – some might say hypocrisy -- where the majority was concerned. For all conservatives' talk about not interfering with local governments, Chief Justice John Roberts apparently had no trouble rebuking a decision of a local government, in this case, the city officials in New Haven, who were consistent with precedent.

how is the test racially motivated?

ehuffnsd said:

He's saying there were questions that were racially biased on the test, which isn't uncommon on tests across the board in schoool as well as job placement/advancement.

MuthaFunka said:

what are racially biased questions on a firefighters test? has he seen the test?

ehuffnsd said:

I'm thinking he must've seen a copy/version of the test.

ehuffnsd said:

I'm thinking he must've seen a copy/version of the test.

MuthaFunka said:

i don't think he personally has, i reread it he was quoting Justice Ginsberg. which than leads me to ask how would she know?

ehuffnsd said:

You don't think a Supreme Court justice could request a copy of a test he/she was about to rule on to see if it was racially discriminatory?

MuthaFunka said:

no i'm saying how would a white jewish woman know if a test is biased against blacks?

ehuffnsd said:

By going off old cases involving racially-biased tests/testing.

MuthaFunka said:

have there been alot of firefighters test before the supreme court? i know there is alot of Chemistry involved cause you have to know how different things react to heat, but i didn't realize Chemistry was discriminatory.

ehuffnsd said:

I have no idea how many firefighter tests have gone before the Supreme Court and I gotta imagine not many, if any. But different states/counties have different firefighter tests, so it's not like it's some "universal test" that they all take.

But more importantly, what in the world makes you think the discrepancy came with the chemistry section? What are you basing that on to come to THAT conclusion?

MuthaFunka said:

i'm just trying to figure out what would be on the test to make it unfair to someone based on their race, and not their amount of previous experience in the field.

I wish we could see the test...

They should make the test public, so that we can see if there is some racial bias or not...
[Edited 7/5/09 20:25pm]

So...we should lower the bar for the people in charge of saving our lives? For anyone who wants these unqualified firemen to be promoted, I hope you have the balls to at least request that they work in your district!

ehuffnsd said:

Sounds more like you were just trying to discredit the NAACP's side of the story.

jockeyb4u said:

So, you saw the test? What was on it?

MuthaFunka said:

What do you think would be on it? Where do you believe whites have an intelligent advantage over blacks?

jockeyb4u said:

Way to not answer. So basically you HAVEN'T seen the test so you're not in ANY position to say whether or not it was racist or not. Thoght so. End of discussion.

MuthaFunka said:

Neither have YOU, so I guess you can stop talking aswell! So...what areas do you feel whites are smarter than blacks? Just like to know what could be on this test that was unfair.

jockeyb4u said:

(And yet he's STILL trying to discuss this with me! )

This makes interesting reading.

http://www.adversity.net/...-legaldocs

Test scores included.

I was unaware that a private firm who specialize in racially neutral tests had devised it. They were paid $100,000 to do so and the test held up to the guidelines (UGESP) in court.

Yet when the test was taken the fact that only 1 minority would have gained a promotion sparked the row.

Seems to me that the default reason is assumed to be racism when in fact it COULD have been that no one qualified.

MuthaFunka said:

Your blatant attempt to avoid the question is both childlike and unamusing! I'd guess I'd do the same if I didn't have the answers, funny thing though. You love trying to call people out for not answering your questions.

jockeyb4u said:

TRANSLATION: "Yeah, ok. You got me. I have NO IDEA what's on that test, so I can't say shit either way on this" -

MuthaFunka said:

Please respond to Resolve and stop this childish mess!