Rickety Ricci IV: A Dilly From Philly

I thought I was through writing about Ricci (see here, here, and here). After all, the Supremes just heard the argument, and nothing more will happen until the case is decided. But then I just saw Editorial: Racism in the firehouse in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and it deserves comment.

First, Ricci has nothing to do with “racism in the firehouse.” If there is racism anywhere in the record of this case, it is in the city administration of New Haven, which, depending on your point of view, either a) selected a test to be used to determine promotions in the fire department that, because it was “cognitive” or required too much “memorization” or something, no blacks could pass; or b) decided to throw out the results of its test because it disapproved of the skin colors of those who passed.

The editorial begins with the following egregiously offensive and wrongheaded statement:

A reverse-discrimination case involving Connecticut firefighters being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court today may show just how out of sync this court is with the nation’s first African American president.

As I’ve argued many times before (such as here), there’s really no such thing as “reverse discrimination.” A policy either discriminates on the basis of race, or it doesn’t. The 17 white and one Hispanic firefighters who sued New Haven for refusing to promote them because of their race after they passed the city’s test do not allege that there is anything “reverse” about the discrimination they suffered.

And since when is it the function of the Supreme Court to make sure that it remains in sync with the president, even a black one? Funny, but I don’t recall the Inquirer complaining that the recent Supreme Court that approved limited race preferences in Grutter was “out of sync” with the nation’s white president.

Next, the editorial takes a swing at Chief Justice Roberts:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts calls affirmative action the “sordid business” of “divvying us up by race.” He prefers to declare the playing field level for everyone, while blithely turning a blind eye to vestiges of discrimination that perpetuate inequality.

It is of course the Inquirer’s privilege to believe that there is nothing sordid about divvying us up by race, but it would have been better advised to keep the trite “level playing field” trope to itself. The “playing field” of American (or any) life has never been level, will never be level, but its lack of level does not justify racial discrimination in a misguided attempt to level it.

It is not necessary for Chief Justice Roberts, or anyone, to believe that racial discrimination against blacks no longer exists in order to believe that racial discrimination against whites, Asians, Hispanics, etc., is not justified. All that it is necessary to believe is something the editors of the Philadelphia Inquirer obviously do not, which is that discrimination on the basis of race is wrong. But to be fair, the Inquirer doesn’t actually accuse Chief Justice Roberts of “turning a blind eye” to discrimination but only to the “vestiges” of discrimination, though neither it nor the City of New Haven pointed out any of those “vestiges” in the test at issue or explained how any such “vestiges” are responsible for the fact that the black test takers did not do as well as the whites and Hispanics.

Finally, the editorial takes issue with an argument in an amicus brief in support of the firefighters filed by the Philadelphia chapter of the Concerned American Firefighters Association.

The CAFFA brief agrees that there might be a compelling reason for diversity in schools, and even in a police department, which needs “a workforce that appears unbiased” to be “respected by the community it serves.” But CAFFA says the “race of the firefighter is an utter irrelevance.”

And what, exactly, is the relevance of “diversity” to those skilled and experienced firefighters who write editorials for the Philadelphia Inquirer? Here’s their attempt to refute the CAFFA claim:

Such an attitude suggests firefighters are merely autobots, who mechanically put out fires without regard to the humanity saved, or lost, in the process. It’s an attitude that disregards the fact that little boys and girls who see firefighters that look like them want to grow up to be one. It’s an attitude that disregards that for decades, that dream was denied to blacks, and still remains difficult.

What, do un-diverse firemen not have any “regard to the humanity” they save? In what way is “diversity” a requirement for regard for humanity? Isn’t this going a bit overboard?

Yes, but then so is the “role model” argument. If the fact (or rather, allegation) that “little girls and boys” need to see firefighters “who look like them” provides a sufficient justification to discriminate against some firemen who don’t “look like them,” why does it not also provide a compelling justification to prohibit that discrimination? That is, why does the look-like principle not also prevent other “little boys and girls” from being taught what the editors of the Philadelphia Inquirer would like to teach them — that when they grow up they can legally be denied promotions they’ve earned because people in authority prefer those who don’t look like them?

Wouldn’t we have a much better country if we taught all the “little boys and girls” that their fate depends on their own efforts, character, and behavior, not the color of their skin? If the Supreme Court wants to teach that lesson, as it should, Mr. Ricci and his fellow plaintiffs will win.