Maybe if Ricci really does threaten to destroy some aspects of civil rights law, we ought to ask ourselves if these laws need rethinking. I'm no legal scholar, so perhaps my take on this lacks perspective, but it seems to me that Title VII's "disparate impact" standard is too vague and outdated to be much help to us anymore. Just about anything presented in the proper way could represent a disparate impact.

In the material that I've read about this case, no one has presented a convincing argument that the ethnicity of the test takers is most responsible for the distribution of the scores. Why should it be acceptable for the results to be thrown out on the basis of ethnicity? Many people have pointed out that if the top scorers were mostly African-American, no one would've dreamed of throwing out the results because of the lack of white firefighters at the top. Shouldn't this bother us? If we're all really equal as citizens, it should be unthinkable to throw out the results of this test based on race in either case.

I think that the time has come to look at the furture of civil rights law and issues in terms of the absence of bias or favoritism for any group, even those who have been disadvantaged in the past. How can citizens truly be equal under the 14th Amendment when legal protection exists for procedures that accord preferential treatment to some groups of people over others?

At its heart, the core concept of civil rights is that each citizen has the right to be treated the same way as any other citizen, regardless of that person's attributes. Civil rights are about seeing people and treating people as individuals, not merely as members of groups. That can't happen when our country sanctions the preferential treatment of some individuals over others as a misguided form of redress for past wrongs. When preferential treatment occurs, someone has to lose, and you can't tell me that that person is being treated equally.

The problem with this approach:

1) Overt racism still exists, and even stronger enforcement will not solve the problem.

2) The legacy of racism (segregated communities and schools and their attendant differences in resorces, just for starters) is still with us.

3) Treating people "equally" does not address whether we are treating people "fairly". Fairness, while more subjective, is important. A hiring process can be "equal" but unfair. In a perfect world, we would acheive both, but in an imperfect one, which is more important? Personally, I'd rather be treated fairly than equally. Is a hiring process fair? Or is it just equally unfair?

Wow. Hard to know where to start with this dimwit post. I mean I guess maybe just touch briefly on (1) - given that there was no overt racism here, why on earth would you bother saying anything so stupid?

But more to the point - the real reason there's no risk of the destruction of civil rights law is that in fact, there were no constitutional questions here. No laws were struck down. The constitution wasn't even invoked. It was a matter of refining a standard to interpret one part of the existing law. The way the left is running around like little headless chickens over what was really a minor narrowing of the circumstances wherein employers must act in racially motivated ways is shocking.

New law was created out of whole cloth. Instead of being able to choose whether or not to defend a test that has a disparate impact, The Court now requires that such a test be kept in place until a lawsuit is actually brought forth.

So not only is it OK to discriminate, you are REQUIRED to discriminate until you get sued.

And that's not a change??!!??

when they discriminated against the firefighters. I suggest you read Title 7 yourself and find out which law allowed the city to throw out the test simply because some white folks aced it.

P.S. disparate effect is not mentionned in the law. Again, read the law.

I know that overt racism exists in some places and among some people, but it is on the decline. We've done as much with legislation as we can. The rest of the change has to come from the people and institutions that make up society.

As for the legacy of racism, there isn't a real good answer to this problem. We've tried to atone for past wrongs by giving resources and preferential treatment to the victims of racism and their descendents. This has contributed to a culture of victimization and resentment while failing to address the real issue. Frankly, I don't think this is something that government action or policy can solve.

In its attempts to foster equality and to build a society where people are treated as individuals, the government's use of affirmative action has violated the spirit and intent of the 14th Amendment. It is hyopcritical to say that we believe all people are equal before the law and then fashion laws that treat people unequally on the basis of their membership in an ethnic group. It's easy to see these laws as wrong when they provide for discrimination against a group, and now it's time to admit that they're equally wrong when they provide for discrimination on behalf of a group.

I'm not sure what basis you're using to say that fairness is different from equality. What is fair is to be judged by the same criteria as everyone else, without regard for one's group affiliations. Maybe if you'd elaborate as to how you believe fairness is different, it would help me understand your position better.

Degsme,

I don't think that anyone has proven disparate impact to the satisfaction of the court. There was never a finding that the original test discriminated, so no one is "required to discriminate" until they get sued.

Instead of being able to choose whether or not to defend a test that has a disparate impact, The Court now requires that such a test be kept in place until a lawsuit is actually brought forth

Did you read the decision? That wasn't it at all. Not even close. Maybe that's why you think this is a big change and a huge deal and "new law out of whole cloth" - cuz you didn't bother reading it.

When deciding to throw out a test like this, instead of relying on a purely statistical analysis, the employer must now have a "strong basis in evidence" that the test will be ruled discriminatory. "until a lawsuit is actually brought forth" - what crap!

The city broke the law earlier in administering a test that itself was illegal.

Please, cite the passage in Chapter 7 which proves your case.

Kennedy's ruling acknowledges disparate impact straight up.

what he then goes on to rule though is that even though the text of the law then requires that The Respondant

EITHER

• Prove business relevance
  OR
• come up with an alteranative test

That instead The City is obligated to stand by that test until they get sued.

Disparate impact was proven, but Kennedy created new law by ruling that despite the text of the law, that's not sufficient to fear a lawsuit.

I read the whole decision, syllybus, Kennedy's controlling opinion, Alito's rage against blacks, yes all of it.

They created new law. They added a clause to Section(k) of Title VII to say that until you actually get sued, you cannot actively do anything to ameliorate a Disparate Impact outcome.

that requires this. What part of Chapter 7 supports your allegations?

that discusses "disparate impact". Until you do so, you have no law on your side.

We've done as much as we can??!!??? Spoken truly like someone who continues to be the beneficiary of the prevasive preferences granted to whites and white males in particular.

We've tried to atone for past wrongs by giving resources and preferential treatment to the victims of racism and their descendents. This has contributed to a culture of victimization and resentment while failing to address the real issue.

Says who? What "culture of vicimization"? It is only a "culture of vicimization" if racial prefences did not continue today. yet as the above study shows as well as the election polling of the last election (15% of voters in red states ADMITTED to voting based on racism, and that is an under-representation because of what is known as "social norming") that this "sense of victimization" has real, rational and factual basis.

Its high time you admitted this.