The main reason I find this judgment fascinating isn't because someone screamed "racism" because they were denied a promotion, hell, that happens every single day in the U.S.. It isn't even because it was white people who were doing the complaining-that happens more and more all the time. It's because the argument used by the City of New Haven and other opponents of the fire fighter's case, was that the tests given to the firefighters were racist in nature. The tests were racist, those groups contend, because the blacks that took it didn't do as well as the whites. For this reason, the white applicants who did well on the test were denied the advancement they were entitled to. The City of New Haven claimed they were only preventing racism. The Supreme Court disagreed.
Interestingly enough, one of the appellate judges on this very case that disagreed with the majority's opinion was none other than President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sottamayor.
It's not that I believe there is no racism in testing. I think we've all seen enough examples to know that racism in testing does exist. It's a "burden of proof" thing with me. In a lot of people's minds, the evidence is in the results. If blacks do not do as well as their white counterparts on a certain test, then it is a racist test. Period. In their minds, it's as simple as that. I could not disagree more. If you accuse someone of cheating, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. To simply say that the fact that one group doesn't do as well as another makes the test racist denies the fact that different people are more suited to different jobs. (Here's where I get myself in trouble.)
The best example I can give you is this; My brother works for the Dept of Transportation here in Michigan. He is the foreman over several bridge maintenance groups. One day I noticed that every time I saw him on the job on one of our highways, the men were all sweating up a storm shovelling sand or running a jackhammer while the girls were taking turns flagging traffic (a far less physical job.) When I chastised him over his distribution of jobs, he informed me that none of his men wanted the job holding the signs. He further informed me that while the public generally smiled and waved at his female staff, they threw things and took out their anger on his male staff. Since both sides were happy the way things were, it was a simple case of best job for the best person. Is that sexist? Maybe on the part of the general public, but not by my brother or Michigan DOT.
What the Supreme Court was saying in it's majority ruling is that a test isn't racist simply because of the results, you have to prove that there was some intent by the parties to discriminate. Men won't always do as well on some tests as women, and yes, sometimes blacks won't do as well as whites on certain tests just as whites won't do as well on others. But if the test is designed to get the person best suited for the job, and not designed to stop someone from getting a job based on race, then there is no foul.
With this verdict, the door has been opened to a new line of thought, "It's not discrimination simply because the results aren't equally spread out." Over the past few decades the pendulum has swung too far, in my opinion, toward the belief that every slight is due to racism or sexism or homophobia or whatever. The accusers were allowed to put the accused on the defense without proving that they had any bad intent. Now the onus is where it belongs, on the accuser. Prove someone or something is racist and the perpetrators suffer the consequences as they should, fail that, and you lose, as you should. My accolades to the Supreme Court, they finally got something right and have earned my respect-for now. H.C.