Search this site

Friends of WCPD


Drinking Liberally
Progressive Gatherings
http://livingliberally.org/drinking/chapters/NV

Washoe Democrats
Social Network
http://washoedems.ning.com/

KJFK Progressive Talk Radio
The Solution Zone with Christiane Brown

About This Site

Paid for, authorized and copyrighted: ©2008, Washoe County Democratic Party. 1465 Terminal Way, Suite 1, Reno, NV, 89502-3209. 775 323 8683 [VOTE]. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Washoe Opinions‎ > ‎

Supreme Court Decision Erases a Racial History

posted ‎‎Jul 8, 2009 10:12 AM‎‎ by Amy Curtis-Webber   [ updated ‎‎Aug 3, 2009 10:58 AM‎‎ ]

Aaron Benedetti

Supreme Court Justice David Souter's last vote on the Supreme Court was a dissenting one, like always.

In Ricci v. DeStefano, Souter voted to uphold the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of a firefighters' promotional exam after preliminary results showed that only white firefighters passed it. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held that the city had discriminated against the white applicants, qualifying this as an instance of "disparate treatment" under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The city, however, threw out the results in anticipation of a "disparate impact" lawsuit from the minority applicants. Employer practices producing racially-biased outcomes are also prohibited by the Civil Rights Act. 

Souter called this a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. He's probably right about that.

But I disagree with the Court's decision, though I can see why the white applicants would feel they were discriminated against. This decision seems to minimize a good deal of the history and intent behind the Civil Rights Act. I'm no legal expert, but I think this could set a dangerous precedent -- are we to condone the kind of implicit discrimination that the Civil Rights Acts were intended to protect against? The majority rationalized its decision in the name of equality, but the exam results seem a bit biased.

Like David Souter said: Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The full text of the Court's ruling is available here.