Visit Tom Carter's column >>

TOM CARTERHome Page

Retired U.S. Army Colonel currently residing in Austin, TX and Belgrade, Serbia
Add To Watchlist
Articles Posted: 48; Links Seeded: 87
Member Since: 6/2009Last Seen: 11/29/2009

The Content of Their Character

advertisement

The Supreme Court's recent Ricci, et al. v. DeStefano, et al. decision has major implications for the future in terms of affirmative action. However, many have seen it mainly in the context of the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, given that she was one of the three appeals court judges who were overruled by the decision.

I wrote elsewhere that Ricci v. DeStefano should have nothing to do with the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor. The voters elected President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress, and they should get the nominees they select, barring any major disqualifications that might emerge. That's the way the system is supposed to work.

Moreover, the broader impact of the decision is far more important than any influence it may have on the Sotomayor nomination, and it's probably more important than even the justices themselves seem to think.

The city of New Haven, CT gave a promotion test to firefighters for advancement to command positions. The process was carefully designed to be neutral in terms of race and ethnicity. For example, nine three-member exam panels were used, each panel including one white, one Hispanic, and one African-American. Minorities were also over-sampled in developing the questions that were asked.

However, when the test results showed that whites passed the test at double the rate of African-Americans and Hispanics, with no African-Americans scoring high enough to be promoted, the city threw out the exam. Not long ago, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the city's action would have been not only acceptable but possibly required because the promotion test had an apparent disparate impact on minorities, even though it clearly wasn't intended. This was long-established by the Act and subsequent amendments and court decisions.

The Fourteenth Amendment presents a problem, though--as it always has. How is someone given "due process" and "equal protection of the laws" when he or she is denied promotion because a member of a minority group must be promoted? The answer is pretty simple if the Fourteenth Amendment means anything at all.

New Haven maintained that it was justified in scrapping the exam because of legal advice that it might be subject to action under Title VII by minority firefighters because of "disparate impact." The Court ruled that wasn't a sufficient reason; a strong basis in fact must be present that clearly shows the existence of "disparate impact" under Title VII. There are disagreements, among the justices and among lawyers, about the future influence of this decision as a precedent.

In reality, it seems that we're coming to some kind of balance. It's still forbidden to intentionally discriminate--for example, by designing tests that have an intended disparate impact. But that now applies to everyone, it would seem, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, etc.

I strongly supported affirmative action in the early days because I believed that the only way to redress past discrimination was to give a leg-up to those who had been disadvantaged. At this point, we must move beyond that to considerations of individual merit in all aspects of our national life. After all, our president is half African-American and half white, our attorney general is African-American, and throughout government and the private sector African-Americans are succeeding on the strength of their own abilities.

It's time to move toward realizing the dream of Martin Luther King that everyone in America will be judged not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

For additional information and opinions:

Ricci, et al. v. DeStefano, et al., Supreme Court (decision)

Ricci, et al. v. DeStefano, et al., SCOTUSWiki (briefs and documents)

The Court Changes the Game, Linda Greenhouse, The New York Times

The Meaning of Ricci, Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post

Getting back to first principles of affirmative action, Richard A. Epstein, Forbes

(This is an edited version of an article also posted at Opinion Forum.)

  • 5 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
3.0
2.2
2.0
{"commentId":8115113,"authorDomain":"americanspirit"}

I remember something similar in the Army - somewhere between 78-82. A new MOS test was developed and implemented but it was found the females scored better and would get promoted fast (which wasn't surprising since females at that time had to have a HS education to enter). The test's weight in promotions had to be refigured due to that fact.

{"commentId":8115113,"threadId":"622778","contentId":"3010661","authorDomain":"americanspirit"}
  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Thu Jul 9, 2009 8:00 AM EDT
{"commentId":8116025,"authorDomain":"davepat2002"}

There seems to be some confusion as to what the "disparate impact" does here. If it is shown that test results are, like those in the test given by the Fire Department, favor one group over another, like minorities or protected classes, then the burden shifts from the potential plaintiff in a legal action that might come to pass claiming discrimination against such a minority group or a protected class.

In a legal action, it is the burden of the plaintiff to show that the actions taken by the defendant violated the rights of the plaintiff. This means that the one who is suing (the plaintiff) must show that the actions taken by the person or entity being sued (the defendant) caused damage to the one suing (plaintiff).

The Title VII establishes that a prima facia case is made simply by showing that there has been a "disparate impact" on members of a minority or protected class as a result of the actions taken by the defendant. That means that all the plaintiff has to do is show that the actions of the defendant have created a statistically significant adverse result on the plaintiff, and they have made their initial burden.

But that is not the end of it. It simply places the burden on the defendant to show that there was a legitimate, job related, explanation for the results of the action.

As an example. If you are hiring sperm donors, then you are only going to be hiring males. There will be a disparate impact on females, who are a protected class. The burden shifts, and the defendant now has to show that there is a legitimate, job related, reason for hiring only males. Are the female plaintiffs going to win this potential law suit? NO.

Same thing here. If the test can be shown to be a legitimate indicator of success in the job it is testing for, which is what the City was looking for when they bought the test, then they win.

The problem here is that, according to the articles I read on this case, the City never even looked at that. They just didn't want to be sued and figured that the best way to do that was to throw out the test. Apparently, that was not a good decision either, because they did get sued, and, if that weren't bad enough, the case went all the way to the SCOTUS, and they lost. The trifecta of bad decisions and bad luck all around.

{"commentId":8116025,"threadId":"622778","contentId":"3010661","authorDomain":"davepat2002"}
    Reply#2 - Thu Jul 9, 2009 9:08 AM EDT
    {"commentId":8118722,"authorDomain":"arsine3463"}
    But that is not the end of it. It simply places the burden on the defendant to show that there was a legitimate, job related, explanation for the results of the action.

    Perhaps New Haven could not come up with a job-related explanation for the test results.

    If the test can be shown to be a legitimate indicator of success in the job it is testing for, which is what the City was looking for when they bought the test, then they win. ... The problem here is that, according to the articles I read on this case, the City never even looked at that.

    I can very well imagine that the government of New Haven did not embody the technical expertise to make such an evaluation.

    ...the case went all the way to the SCOTUS, and they lost.

    Which is the function of the SCOTUS. When the law is inconsistent or self-contradictory, the SCOTUS is the final arbiter.

    Of course, it is my position that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was correct to pass this case to the SCOTUS without opinion.

    {"commentId":8118722,"threadId":"622778","contentId":"3010661","authorDomain":"arsine3463"}
    • 1 vote
    #2.1 - Thu Jul 9, 2009 11:38 AM EDT
    {"commentId":8156098,"authorDomain":"davepat2002"}

    It is my understanding that the City of New Haven bought the test from a vendor. If that is the case, then the company that produced the test should have had the technical expertise required to defend the relationship of the test to the job they were testing for. In fact, if they didn't have that level of competency, then you would wonder what criteria they were using to create the test in the first place.

    {"commentId":8156098,"threadId":"622778","contentId":"3010661","authorDomain":"davepat2002"}
      #2.2 - Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:30 AM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":8116345,"authorDomain":"tom-carter"}

      DavePat, thanks for the details--good explanation. Justice Kennedy made the point in the decision: “Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.” That's why some say the decision is limited and doesn't have much impact on the meaning of "disparate impact" under Title VII. Others think the impact of the decision goes further, weakening the "disparate impact" argument. In this case, it looks like the city gave a very valid, race-neutral test. If they had been sued, they could probably have prevailed. I think that's part of the Court's reasoning.

      {"commentId":8116345,"threadId":"622778","contentId":"3010661","authorDomain":"tom-carter"}
      • 2 votes
      Reply#3 - Thu Jul 9, 2009 9:30 AM EDT
      {"commentId":8117951,"authorDomain":"mikerupert"}

      Tom Carter - one of the smartest guys on Newsvine.

      {"commentId":8117951,"threadId":"622778","contentId":"3010661","authorDomain":"mikerupert"}
      • 2 votes
      #3.1 - Thu Jul 9, 2009 11:03 AM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":8117451,"authorDomain":"susibv"}

      I don't know you about you.........but if my house is burning down.......I'm not going to be wondering or worrying about the color of the firefighter's skin......or how well he or she did on an exam....it's not like I'm going to line them all up as they are trying to save my family and I and hopefully my home to ask.......Ok.....before you start firefighting........I need all of your test scores....After that we'll sit and discuss and I'll get back to you as to who I want putting the fire out.

      Pencils, paper and little filled in dark circles on an exam are NO guarantee of ANYTHING.

      {"commentId":8117451,"threadId":"622778","contentId":"3010661","authorDomain":"susibv"}
        Reply#4 - Thu Jul 9, 2009 10:34 AM EDT
        {"commentId":8118269,"authorDomain":"acidreflux"}
        Pencils, paper and little filled in dark circles on an exam are NO guarantee of ANYTHING.

        Your rhetoric just ran away with your reason, I'm afraid. You know that's not true.

        {"commentId":8118269,"threadId":"622778","contentId":"3010661","authorDomain":"acidreflux"}
        • 1 vote
        #4.1 - Thu Jul 9, 2009 11:18 AM EDT
        {"commentId":8118426,"authorDomain":"arsine3463"}
        Pencils, paper and little filled in dark circles on an exam are NO guarantee of ANYTHING.

        One must base decisions on something.

        I think basing promotions on test scores alone is a cop-out. Does a test truly embody all the relevant characteristics for a leadership position? It's laughable to assume so. However, a good grasp of the technical aspects of a job may very well be an important, relevant characteristic (perhaps with the secondary aspect of being self-starting and serious enough to study for the exam). Thus the test.

        One thing that I believe has been overlooked is the fact that random events may, on occasion, look entirely non-random.

        Take twenty marbles, ten black and ten white, and put them in a bag. Randomly, without looking, pull out seven. Sometimes, all seven will be the black marbles.

        {"commentId":8118426,"threadId":"622778","contentId":"3010661","authorDomain":"arsine3463"}
        • 1 vote
        #4.2 - Thu Jul 9, 2009 11:25 AM EDT
        Reply
        {"canLink":false,"threadId":"622778","isPrivate":false}
        Leave a Comment:
        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
        {"threadId":"622778","contentId":"3010661"}
        Start TrackingStart Tracking
        Stop TrackingStop Tracking