WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court's conservative majority expressed varying degrees of concern Wednesday over a civil rights case brought by 20 firefighters, most of them white, who claim reverse discrimination in promotions.
Recent case has Supreme Court justices deciding when race considerations are proper to ensure a diverse workplace.
The suit was filed in response to New Haven, Connecticut, officials' decision to throw out results of promotional exams that they said left too few minorities qualified.
At issue is whether the city intentionally discriminated, in violation of both federal law and the Constitution's equal protection clause.
The high court is being asked to decide whether there is a continued need for special treatment for minorities, or whether enough progress has been made to make existing laws obsolete, especially in a political atmosphere where an African-American occupies the White House.
=========
I have never hated a phrase more than, "reverse racism." For all of our "progress," we still have little gems of stagnation that remain embedded within our lexicon.
I have two main problems with this phrase.. and then another interesting "problem" that the portion of the article I've included seems to pose, which I'll get to later.
1) You don't "reverse" discrimination. Something about this phrase seems to imply that the basis / criteria for all discrimination is being a minority, or non-white. You can be discriminated
upon regardless of your ethnicity / creed.
2) A policy that seeks to promote diversity, but instead alienates (and I mean that for both "sides") and/or drastically changes the rules for one group versus another is a FAILED POLICY, not "reverse racism."
By this, I mean a few things:
a) If your workforce, student body, etc., overwhelmingly doesn't understand that diversity makes them and your organization better, then your policy has failed.
b) Test scores (in reference to the article below) ARE NOT a drastic departure for most organizations where one ethnic group has been propped up over the other(s). If that person cannot PERFORM, they will be weeded out of ANY organization, high or low test scores notwithstanding.
...I used to LOVE this argument posed by my fellow Pennsylvanians when I was in college. And my answer to this was frank:
"Name ten black people you know for a fact had a lower SAT score than you."
::blank stare::
"Now let me name ten non-black people that I know FOR A FACT that were admitted to Penn and never took the SAT / ACT." (Be it for reasons of legacy, or the simple fact they their parents could pay upfront. Hey, a university is a business!)
::list of names omitted::
We can play this game if you want America!!! And I'm sure the odds of people who didn't have to bother proving ANYTHING versus people who had to "prove less" will always be at least 10:1.
So what's that injustice you speak of?
NOW, on the the article ...
Why is there the lingering assumption that "black people can't complain about racism" since we have a Black President ... or more directly, that Obama can't complain about injustice since he was elected President?!!
Mr. Obama, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't give in to the white-hype.
-- Jesus was Black, Ronald reagan Was the Devil, and the Government is lying about 9/11.
