According to a front page article in today’s Washington Post,
The Supreme Court made an expected but emphatic statement in favor of race-neutral justice yesterday, overturning the 1986 conviction of a black death row inmate because his trial in Dallas was tainted by government racial discrimination.
Thomas dissented, joined by Rehnquist and Scalia, arguing that
practically all of the prosecution’s peremptory strikes could be accounted for by such nonracial factors as the jurors’ reluctance to impose the death penalty.
What interests me, however, is not the facts of this case, i.e., whether the prosecutors’ actions were motivated by or amounted to racial discrimination, but rather the majority’s concern for and devotion to the principle of “race-neutral justice.” Writing for the majority, Justice Souter
wrote that “when the government’s choice of jurors is tainted with racial bias,” it jeopardizes “the very integrity of the courts” and “undermines public confidence in adjudication.”
The New York Times agreed, calling the decision “an important ruling that reiterates to all courts the importance of keeping discrimination out of jury selection.”
But wait a minute. Why is non-discriminatory race neutrality required for jury selection but not for the selection of college students or employees? Why does this majority now believe that acting on a belief (the accuracy of which was not contested, so far as I know) that blacks have different views about the police and the death penalty than whites — that is, that race is a reliable proxy for certain attitudes and values — is evidence of discrimination? If the Supreme Court majority, and the supporting chorus of the New York Times, the Washington Post, et. al., regards a belief that there are differences between the outlook of blacks and whites as discrimination, then how can they support “diversity” based discrimination in admissions and hiring?
Discriminating minds want to know.
“Diversity,” after all, makes no sense if you assume, as apparently the Supremes, the NYT, and the WaPo do, that blacks and whites are fungible.
But then, we already knew that.
UPDATE
The comments in an email from a reader have just reminded me that I’ve written on this conflict between “diversity” on juries and in admissions/hiring before, twice, here and here.
“Why is non-discriminatory race neutrality required for jury selection but not for the selection of college students or employees?”
well, employees and college students are not deciding verdicts.
And your point is? It seems to be that we can’t allow discrimination where it’s REALLY important, but it’s O.K. in less important areas such as employment and college admissions. Interesting.