White Man's Burden?

Reverse Bias Suits Flourish

Anonymous.  The Jacksonville Free Press.  Jacksonville, Fla.:May 7-May 13, 2009.  Vol. 23,  Iss. 32,  p. 5 (1 pp.)

Abstract (Summary)
In 1987, the high court said temporary and "narrowly tailored" quota systems were allowed. The case stemmed from an affirmative
action plan that imposed a promotion standard of "one black for one white" in the Alabama state police ranks. The quota was
justified, justices ruled, because of the department's "long and shameful record of delay and resistance" to black employment
opportunities.

"The Supreme Court case law isn't clear. There aren't bright lines and clear guidance," said attorney Deborah Archer, director of the
Racial Justice Project at New York Law School. "It's very difficult to extract a rule from those cases that can be applied across the
board."

"Suppose an employer looked out the window and saw a line of Hispanics applying for jobs?" asked attorney Michael Rosman of the
Center for Individual Rights, another group opposing affirmative action. "Suppose he told his secretary to cancel the interviews
because he didn't like who was lined up outside? No one would argue that wasn't racial discrimination."

Full Text
 (1260  words)
Copyright The Jacksonville Free Press May 7-May 13, 2009

The issue of reverse discrimination first reached the nation's highest court in the 1970s, when a student with good grades named
Allan Bakke accused a University of California medical school of twice denying him admission because he was white.

Strict racial quotas were unconstitutional, the court said - affirmative action was not. But that ruling far from decided what many
considered the big-picture issue: does protecting minorities discriminate against the majority?

More than 30 years, and scores of lawsuits later, the question remains unanswered. Meanwhile, more Americans came to believe
that affirmation action is no longer necessary, and that instead of leveling the playfield for minorities, it unfairly punishes whites.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case filed by white firefighters who claimed they were denied promotion
because of the color of their skin.

"The laws that Congress wrote are clear - everyone is protected from racial discrimination," said Roger Clegg, president of the
Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank that advocates eliminating race and ethnic considerations. "Not just blacks,
but whites. Not just Latinos, but whites."

Those who favor affirmative action say race divisions still exist in this country, 40 years after the civil rights movement.

"Race so permeates society that you can't ignore it," said Dennis Parker, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Racial
Justice Project.

Several states have recently faced legal battles waged by whites claiming they were unfairly treated in favor of protecting and
promoting blacks and Hispanics.

Earlier this month in South Carolina, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued a historically black college on behalf
of three white faculty members who complained they were forced from or denied jobs because of their race.

Simultaneously, federal officials said they had reached a settlement agreement, with Benedict College paying $55,000 to each
instructor, including an art teacher who said she was denied promotion in favor of a black professor. The institution denied the
accusations.

Last week, a white woman in Texas filed a federal lawsuit against an assisted-living center, contending she was discriminated
against and harassed by Hispanics because she didn't speak Spanish.
And in Florida, two transportation companies sued Broward County over efforts to steer public contracts to minority-owned
businesses. The firms, which had provided car service for the handicapped and the elderly, claimed they were paid lower fees than
other contractors because they didn't comply with affirmative action requirements.

Affirmative action - policies designed to promote and protect groups previously and currently denied equal standing - originated with
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Broadly speaking, it outlaws bias toward race, creed, color or national origin in school admissions,
voting rights, employment and government contracting.

Sometimes those policies have set aside jobs, college admissions and government contracts for minority applicants, students and
firms.

"Quotas do ' not end discrimination. They are discrimination," Clegg said. "The law makes clear that race, ethnicity and sex are not
to be part of who gets a government contract or who gets into a university or where someone goes to school."

But there is wide disagreement on whether case law is clear at all.

In the Bakke case, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that universities could take race and ethnicity into account when deciding student
admissions. But using rigid racial quotas to increase minorities on campus was unconstitutional, justices said.

In 1987, the high court said temporary and "narrowly tailored" quota systems were allowed. The case stemmed from an affirmative
action plan that imposed a promotion standard of "one black for one white" in the Alabama state police ranks. The quota was
justified, justices ruled, because of the department's "long and shameful record of delay and resistance" to black employment
opportunities.

Twenty years later, a more conservative court declared that public school systems cannot try to achieve or maintain integration
based on explicit race rules. In a 5to-4 opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race
is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." At issue in the case were programs in Seattle and Louisville, Ky., that tried to maintain
racial diversity by limiting transfers and admissions.

"The Supreme Court case law isn't clear. There aren't bright lines and clear guidance," said attorney Deborah Archer, director of the
Racial Justice Project at New York Law School. "It's very difficult to extract a rule from those cases that can be applied across the
board."

Instead, "they have tended to be concerned with a specific aspect, and the decisions are made on caseby-case basis," said Archer,
whose group filed a friend-of-the-court brief for the city of New Haven, Conn., the defendant in last week's Supreme Court hearing.

In its first consideration of race under the presidency of Barack Obama, a divided court heard arguments from white firemen
claiming the city discriminated against them by jettisoning the results of a promotion exam that no blacks had passed.

The city contends it got rid of the test results because it was concerned that no African-American firelighters, and only two
Hispanics, received passing scores. Officials said they worried the test was somehow flawed because it had such a disproportionate
effect on minorities.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, as is common on social issues, appeared to have the swing vote. He questioned why the city didnft weigh
the test against a clear standard before deciding it was deficient and setting it aside.

That is the key legal question can the test and its results legally be thrown out after the fact?

"Suppose an employer looked out the window and saw a line of Hispanics applying for jobs?" asked attorney Michael Rosman of the
Center for Individual Rights, another group opposing affirmative action. "Suppose he told his secretary to cancel the interviews
because he didn't like who was lined up outside? No one would argue that wasn't racial discrimination."

Others say that scenario misses the point.

"We like to believe there is an equal playing field. In fact, there isn't," said Parker of the ACLU. "In this country, whites are still
advantaged in many ways. You can say we shouldn't take race into consideration, but that just continues the advantage."

The deep divide over who needs help - and at what price - mirrors the equally deep racial divisions that still exist, Parker said.

"Clearly there have been changes. We have a black president. But if I were to go into any office on Wall Street, I think it would be
hard to deny that white people aren't getting jobs. You wouldn't see a lot of black people and women," he said.
[Sidebar]
Affirmative action policies designed to promote and protect groups previously and currently denied equal standing
In this 1978 file photo, Allan Bakke is trailed by news and television reporters after attending his first day at the
Medical School of the University of California at Davis. Bakke,sued the university for reverse discrimination after his
application was rejected in 1973 and 1974. The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the university to admit Bakke, deciding
that the school had illegally discriminated against him because he is white. The history-making 1978 decision far from
decided the bigger issue of whether efforts protect minorities discriminated against the majority. Courts across the
nation have grappled with it ever since, but in largely limited ways.
New Haven firefighters dubbed 'the New Haven 20' applaud a supporter (not pictured) who joins them in solidarity
outside New Haven Federal Courthouse, in New Haven, Conn. The US Supreme Court announced Friday that it will
hear the group's reverse-discrimination case.