INTERVIEW: NAACP President Calls White Firefighter Ruling Flawed

The NAACP has blasted Monday's Supreme Court ruling in the New Haven, Conn., firefighter reverse discrimination case, calling it a "disappointing setback to civil rights in America."

The ruling overturned a lower court decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor that upheld the city of New Haven's fire department's choice to throw out test results of a promotion exam in which black applicants' pass rate was roughly half that of white applicants. The city felt that the test was potentially bias and unfair.

Black Voices caught up with NAACP President Benjamin T. Jealous this week in an e-mail interview to elaborate on what the ruling could mean for the future of equal opportunity and civil rights in the United States, as well as Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor's appointment.

Black Voices: You've called the decision a setback for civil rights. Why?

Ben Jealous: The ruling has the potential to dial back the gains that have been made during the past two decades to build equal opportunity in the workplace. It also discourages employers from taking necessary steps to improve selection methods that are racially biased, for fear that they might be sued by white applicants. ...

Latest Photos From Iran

Iranian Mohsen Kadivar (R) leads demonstrators in prayer during a vigil to remember those killed following protests in Iran, outside the Iranian embassy in New York June 19, 2009. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson (UNITED STATES POLITICS CONFLICT)

Reuters

A demonstrator gestures during a vigil to remember those killed following protests in Iran, outside the Iranian embassy in New York June 19, 2009. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson (UNITED STATES POLITICS CONFLICT)

Reuters

Demonstrators pray during a vigil to remember those killed following protests in Iran, outside the Iranian embassy in New York June 19, 2009. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson (UNITED STATES POLITICS CONFLICT)

Reuters

Demonstrators listen to a speaker during a peaceful gathering to protest the election results in Iran, outside the Iranian embassy in New York June 19, 2009. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson (UNITED STATES POLITICS CONFLICT)

Reuters

A demonstrator holds a banner during a demonstration to protest human rights abuses in Iran, outside Iranian Embassy in Bucharest, Romania, Friday, June 19, 2009. (AP Photo)

A demonstrator holds a banner during a rally to protest the outcome of the presidential election in Iran, outside the Iranian Embassy in Bucharest, Romania, Friday, June 19, 2009. (AP Photo)

A demonstrator holds his baby near a banner, during a rally to protest the outcome of the presidential election in Iran, outside the Iranian Embassy in Bucharest, Romania, Friday, June 19, 2009. (AP Photo)

Demonstrators pray during a vigil to remember those killed following protests in Iran, outside the Iranian embassy in New York June 19, 2009. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson (UNITED STATES POLITICS CONFLICT)

Reuters

Demonstrators organized by several groups, including Reporters Without Borders, hold banners during a demonstration to protest human rights abuses in Iran, outside Spain's Foreign Ministry in central Madrid, Friday, June 19, 2009. Protesters carried banners reading, 'Where is my vote?' and 'For a secular Iran' and 'Human rights for Iran'.(AP Photo/Daniel Ochoa de Olza)

In the Supreme Court's dissenting opinion, pay attention to what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote. She argued -- we believe correctly and fairly -- that when the city of New Haven threw out the results of that firefighters' promotions exam, their action was not discriminatory. No one has a right to be promoted under a flawed or discriminatory test. She also observed that other cities had used better selection processes, and that New Haven's test, with racially biased questions, had produced flawed results.

BV: You've said the court's decision has created a new flawed legal standard on equal employment opportunity. Flawed in what way?

BJ: It makes it harder for employers to ensure fair and accurate selection processes by adding additional hoops that they now have to jump through. The 5-4 Supreme Court ruling also muddies the waters of what constitutes "fairness" in terms of a race and gender issues in the context of hiring and promotions practices. We find this especially troubling, in light of the barriers to equal opportunity that still plague us – in employment, education and in the criminal justice system. We've made significant progress in overcoming racial bias, but it still exists in modern forms. And many of the economic inequalities that existed when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act are still with us. Diminishing Title VII, as this New Haven ruling does, sets us back.

The NAACP believes that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who is about to begin confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill, absolutely got it right when she and two other justices on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that New Haven was within its right, and not discriminating against anyone, when it threw out those test results. It's clear that Judge Sotomayor observed existing law, while the Supreme Court justices who ruled against the city of New Haven crafted new law.

Undoubtedly, there will now be some push back during her nomination hearings from conservative senators who will attempt to use this Supreme Court ruling to portray Judge Sotomayor as out of step. But I think that Justice Ginsburg's dissent in the New Haven Case makes it clear why Judge Sotomayor and her two colleagues on the Second Circuit panel were correct in their ruling.

BV: Is there such a thing as reverse discrimination?

Ben Jealous: That language is unhelpful. It is code speak that attempts to divert attention away from the real problem of continuing racial discrimination in the U.S. Look, the NAACP has been involved in historic efforts to ensure equal opportunity and combat discrimination primarily for people of color in this country. But what is somewhat less well known about our mission is that we also fight for fairness and equal opportunity for all Americans, whatever their skin color.

The firefighter ruling then is dangerous not only for those who have been historically shut out, but for people of all races who expect and deserve fair and accurate hiring practices -- especially for important jobs like firefighting. It twists the meaning of Title VII, and, frankly, perverts its core meaning, which is to address both intentional discrimination and policies that are discriminatory in practice. Also, when we filed suit against 15 banks and lenders who took advantage of low income home buyers, we did it not only to stand up for the rights of the thousands of African Americans who got bilked, but also in defense of thousands of whites, Latinos and other hard-working Americans who were similarly exploited. Our lawsuit will force transparency and accountability in the financial lending system. That would benefit all Americans.

BV: Is there anything positive about the ruling at all?

BJ: Yes, a couple of points: The ruling shows that at least four of the Supreme Court justices seem to truly understand that racial discrimination remains a pressing issue in our country.

Second, it demonstrates that Judge Sotomayor is likely to be a fair Supreme Court justice. She did not second-guess the city of New Haven, which was precisely in keeping with the law. The ruling also demonstrated an interesting irony – some might say hypocrisy -- where the majority was concerned. For all conservatives' talk about not interfering with local governments, Chief Justice John Roberts apparently had no trouble rebuking a decision of a local government, in this case, the city officials in New Haven, who were consistent with precedent.
____
The NAACP, founded in 1909, holds its centennial convention July 11-16 in New York

More Coverage
+ The New War Over Sotomayor
+ Three Dumb Things about "Reverse Discrimination"

Categories

Contributors

Other BV Blogs