Are All Civil Rights Special Privileges Now?Assessing the damage done by the Supreme Court in the New Haven firefighters case.
Posted Thursday, July 2, 2009, at 1:19 PM ET
This Monday, in the New Haven, Conn., firefighters case Ricci v. DeStefano, the Supreme Court held that it's unlawful race discrimination for an employer to refuse to act on the results of a promotion exam because the test eliminated a disproportionate number of minority candidates (in the New Haven case, all the black firefighters up for promotion). I've written before that this argument threatens to burn down civil rights law. Now that the fuse has been lit, I'm writing to explain just how far the fire could spread.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponThe plaintiffs in Ricci were undoubtedly sympathetic: hardworking public servants—17 of them white, one Hispanic—who expected that the exam they studied for and did well on would determine their eligibility for moving up the ranks. But their legal argument is the latest in a long-standing campaign to turn civil rights laws against themselves. There's a striking progression in the attacks on civil rights. In the early 1970s, affirmative action was widely considered to be a logical extension of civil rights principles: Even President Nixon—a man not known for his enlightened racial attitudes—supported it. But by the end of the decade, affirmative action was under attack as reverse discrimination. And now we see the next step in the march against civil rights with the part of federal civil rights law—Title VII—called "disparate impact" that prohibits employers from using promotional or hiring procedures that screen out minorities unless they can prove that the procedure is closely job-related.
Until this Monday, lawyers and judges thought of disparate impact law as a logical extension of the law against intentional discrimination: The premise of the discriminatory impact prohibition is that an employment practice that unnecessarily screens underrepresented groups from the work force is, in effect, just as discriminatory as a "whites only" sign. As I've argued, plaintiff Frank Ricci's case was a loser under established law until this new Supreme Court ruling, which is why the district court was right to dismiss it on summary judgment and why the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit Court was right to reject Ricci's appeal. Now the Supreme Court has changed the law, recasting disparate impact law as a kind of affirmative action—an unfair racial preference—rather than an equal-opportunity law.
In the time-honored tradition of the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Ricci is frustratingly ambiguous. Some of his language suggests that the holding is limited to cases in which an employer tosses out the results of a test after it has been administered. But that's not clear—the logic of Ricci would seem to apply more broadly. Why would it be discriminatory to discard the results of an employment exam in order to avoid a discriminatory racial impact but not discriminatory to choose one exam over another in order to avoid such a racial impact? If an employer chooses Exam A instead of Exam B because Exam A is more likely to increase the number of successful minority applicants, the members of the disfavored racial groups may well have a reverse discrimination case similar to Frank Ricci's. Since choosing the exam with the smallest racial impact is exactly what disparate impact law requires of employers, it's possible that any application of disparate impact law is discriminatory. Indeed, in his concurring opinion in Ricci, Justice Scalia looks forward to the day that the court will decide whether the disparate impact prohibition of Title VII is unconstitutional race discrimination under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
And the fall of this part of Title VII could be just the beginning. Because the Supreme Court typically interprets Title VII's prohibition of race discrimination to match the 14th Amendment's similar prohibition of racial classifications and vice versa, Ricci puts a wide range of race-conscious policies under a legal cloud. Consider for instance the vaunted "Texas 10 percent" admission policy, developed to replace the University of Texas' affirmative action policy after it was held unconstitutional. The university now admits any student in the top 10 percent of his or her public high-school class, and because so many of the public schools in Texas are racially segregated, this guarantees a racially diverse student body. Opponents of race-conscious affirmative action have pointed to this policy as an example of a viable, race-neutral alternative. But no one denies that the motivation for dropping the traditional admissions criteria in favor of the 10 percent plan is to achieve a better racial mix. Extending the logic of Ricci, this looks like impermissible race discrimination against the students who would have been admitted under the old criteria, just as dropping the firefighter promotion exam was impermissible race discrimination against the white firefighters who would have been promoted. And why stop there? Even recruitment efforts aimed at underrepresented minorities are designed to increase the representation of those groups in work forces and entering classes with a limited number of openings. If these outreach efforts are successful, some minorities will necessarily displace some whites who would otherwise have been hired or admitted. Are those efforts discriminatory, too?
Supporters of Health Reform Give Democrats a Big, Wet, Expensive Kiss
Lithwick Reports From the Supreme Court Hearing on Giving Juveniles Life Without Parole
Mad Men: Will Sally Draper Ever Forgive Her Father?
The Weirdly Sexual New Ad for Halls Lozenges
It's a Bad Idea for the Government To Cap Malpractice Awards
How Many Times Can Someone Fire a Pistol in Seven Minutes?
New Haven administered a test for promotion, and after it didn't get the results it wanted, threw out the test; so the individuals who took the test and should have been promoted were not. Those individuals (Ricci) were wronged. However, if New Haven had promoted those individuals and simply changed its promotion policies the next year, it would have been fine. The key is that once a process is in motion, you can't undo it in order to achieve a racial mix.
In the case of Texas, applicants to the student body all apply understanding what the criteria are, and they don't change midway through the process. If Texas has its 10% policy for Fall 2009 applicants, but doesn't get enough minorities, throws out all the applications and orders people to reapply under some new policy within the same year, THEN they may have an issue.
-- Alcibiades
(To reply, click here)
Alcibiades, I think you touch on an important point of this case that may actually have nothing to do with race at all. When one applies for a job or to a university, the employer or university is responsible for providing transparent criteria for the selection of their employees/students. To do otherwise (or to change the criteria after the applications have been completed) is a bit like fraud.
-- gummybrain
(To reply, click here)
The city, had it let those test results stand in this case, would simply have faced a different lawsuit quite possibly. I do think that two questions need to be answered: what is the direct relevance of the written test to the job at hand and are some of the questions on the test aimed to favor one racial group or another? There are plenty of books out there on how to study for firefighter's exams; I've seen them on bookstore shelves. Assuming they reflect the content of the tests, it is difficult to see how they would discriminate on the basis of race. Theoretically, they are totally job-oriented. In that case, the relevance of the test to the job is a serious question. Do people who score higher fight fires better? And how would one prove that?
-- Marik7
(To reply, click here)