Exposing the Fire of Reverse Discrimination

This has been under the news and I have had a tough time finding articles to support both sides of the case. At the onset I would like to say I find it deplorable that the news media are not discussing this court case as it is huge to the near future of our country. It ranks on the same level as the Michigan Entrance Points case. While the Michigan case was decided (in my opinion) correctly, this situation is just as important. In the current case the issue is whether race should be important to promotion decisions whereas the Michigan case was whether or not race could be considered in entrance decisions.

So let me start with a quick list of publications online that I have read and a quick overview.

• Wikipedia's overview. (Make sure you read the links at the end.)
  
• Reason.com (Seems to be the only publication that is interested in this case. For reference reason.com is a publication that is decidedly libertarian and decidedly freedom based. I am sure you can predict what side they agree with, they filed a 'friend of the court' brief.) Article.
• SCOTUS Wiki. (This site is cool.) (This has links to all 'friends of the court'. Very cool.)
• SCOTUS Blog. (Another great site.)

So what is the issue that is being argued? I will try to recap this very quickly. Basically the fire department had a bunch of positions open for promotions. So the city created a test for the promotion (I am curious as to what a test would tell you about the candidate but whatever). So they had the test verified by an outside agency for it's race neutralness (how you do this I would never know). So the test was administered and 14 'White' and 1 'Hispanic' applicants were in the top 15. So the city looked at the results and invalidated them because there were no 'Blacks' in the promotion list. (There were only 15 positions open or only 15 could advance to the next stage.) So basically the city was not color blind when deciding on the promotion.

If you actually browse the SCOTUS Wiki you will see all the 'friend of the court' (Amicus) briefs you will see a significant amount of 'non color blind' organizations filing briefs. (I personally do not support organizations that make a distinction between people based on skin color, or other minority group, and thus promote that minority without regard to equal protection and fair competition.) These organizations have a significant skin in the court case as they promote various (self-interested) things (like in the Michigan case) where they do not always promote equal protection and no discrimination for ALL races in ALL cases.

The problem is this issue has been made a partisan issue where the conservatives support the oppressed (majority) and the liberals support the color non-blind policies that are suppose to make opportunities more equal (thus provide advantages to the minority). Both sides actually have historically and currently relevant points.

For non-color blind policies:

• Historically the white establishment kept the other races suppressed in America.
• Socially people tend to associate with people of their own race and economic background.
• Most people will not willing change their ways willingly.
• Government intervention in social interactions and business transactions were expanded under the post 'guilded age' (1920's) and so the precedent had been set.
• There may be latent racism and policies should be used to mitigate that.
• Economically these policies help bring up minorities in the population and provide opportunities that may not have been available at the expense of others who may have been more qualified and so these policies represent an inefficiency in the market economy we have (or are suppose to have).
  

Against those policies:

• It is against Martin Luther's dream to make any decision based on race.
• Socially people in most areas of the country are color-blind and other areas have pressure to be more accepting (mostly from government interaction)
• People under the age of 30 are decidedly color neutral on many issues and have friends of all races in huge numbers. Promoting discriminatory policies will hamper these connections and could case a major reversal of these trends as people become more aware of the problems systemic.
  
• Enforcing color blind policies will disenfranchise those affected by the reverse discrimination. In the Michigan case and this case the people hurt are younger and more apt to encourage change. This disenfranchises people when the roles and opinions they will have in their life are starting to solidify as they have kids. If social engineering is to be attempted it should not be done to disenfranchise the leaders of tomorrow.
  
• Economically having non color blind policies will lead to lower earnings and lower productivity (since the best candidate didn't get the job, resources are inefficiently allocated) in any corporation. While this case is about government whose only output in general is inefficiency, in an age where taxes are on the raise it is important to not encourage inefficiencies.
  

I am sure there are other bullet points but I think in general I have hit some of the major arguments on both sides. I think the most telling quote though is from a man 'who came in the name of love':

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

I think you know who's quote that is. I would like to think that a world like that is possible. However quotas, reverse-discrimination, racism, etc. are not helpful to that vision and I personally believe that the man quoted above would be against reverse discrimination outright. Most especially when they are enforced or allowed by the federal government. I hope this court case is decided appropriately. The reason article paints an optimistic picture for those who dislike racism as it seems that there is a higher probability that the court will side with Ricco in this case. (This is the opinion of the author, who is not a supreme court judge.)

The real problem with this case is that the case is hardly covered by the media. Instead we worry about a couple of people getting the flu, or what country Jolie is adopting a kid from today. This case has wide reaching consequences and should be scrutinized by all people on all sides of the issue. It seems that since Obama was elected the news media wants to believe that racism is dead. Well it isn't, it just hides itself in plain sight. I'll keep those who read my blog posted on the status of the decision once it is available. I encourage you to read the cites articles and postings as they will help provide a fuller picture of the case.