Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Sonia Sotomayor's Ricci v. DeStefano ruling

Judge Sonia Sotomayor basically upheld the decision by the City of New Haven Connecticut to discriminate against firemen based on race. Here it is again

Judge Sotomayor was a member of a three judge panel that decided in favor of the city's decision to throw out the results of a promotion exam because not enough minority candidates scored well.

So I guess the left is going to try and paint conservatives as “racists” for bringing up the decision of Sotomayor. This is why I’ve never been a fan of Affirmative Action. In this situation, a racial group was discriminated against merely for doing well on an exam. Where is the rationality in this? A little interesting tidbit was left out of the story and not reported by the media. A certain percentage of “minorities” did score in the upper percentage range on the New Haven Firefighter’s promotional exam. The minorities that scored well and ultimately had their tests thrown out were”HISPANICS”. This is the dirty little secret that the media and the left doesn’t want people to know. It would seem that Sonia Sotomayor decision actually discriminated against fellow Hispanics. I wonder how other Hispanics would feel about Sotomayor knowing that she in essence screwed over other Hispanics, because blacks didn’t score well enough on the exam? Getting back to the exam, I don’t appreciate nor accept the racism inflicted among the firefighters merely for doing the right thing by studying hard for the exam. The actions of the City of New Haven demonstrated what I've known all along about liberals. It reflects a pattern often used by the left in similar situations in regards to academic tests and promotions. Liberals believe in “equal outcomes”, but life isn’t about equal results. They believe that “minorities” aren’t capable of passing the same tests as their whites counterparts. These are the same people that believe blacks can’t learn the same way whites can. Its liberals that support black kids learning “Ebonics”. Liberals claim that the S.A.T exam is “racist” against blacks. I’m surprised that Sonia Sotomayor didn’t rule that the New Haven Firemen promotional exam was “racist” based on the grounds that more minorities didn’t score in the upper percentage range then whites counterparts. I have a question though that nobody on the left can answer. They keep saying that she will bring "real life experience" to the bench as a Supreme Court Justice. What does that mean exactly and how does it apply to the job?


Anonymous Chilerkle said...

Hispanic is more of a culture than a race. I do find the situational positions on discrimination to be very hypocritical of the left.

11:45 AM  
Blogger JMK said...

The problem with race and gender-based preferences is the "presumed incompetence" they imply.

People are individuals and individuals are as unique as snowflakes - no two people are exactly alike or equal.

It follows, then that if you take ANY grouping of people, be it random, or based on various racial, cultural or other traits, that you'll have differences across a whole range of traits.

Group differences should NOT be at all controversial, primarily because people aren't judged as "members of a group," they are judged as INDIVIDUALS....that is how standards are applied on an individual basis.

For instance, what difference does it make to a German with a low IQ that his/her group may rank among the highest in IQ as a group?

It doesn't help THAT individual out one bit.

Standardized exams and stringent standards period DO NOT discriminate against any specific group....they differentiate or discriminate between those who know the tested material and those who don't.

The introduction of "disparate impact" is a sham, rooted in an antithesis against common standards....AGAINST all individuals being judged on the SAME criteria, in effect, AGAINST "equality before the law" and "equality of opportunity."

Disparate impact has fallen out of favor with the vast majority of legal scholars and rightly so, because disparate impact, or a disparity in results does NOT prove nor even indicate any deliberate discrimination.

Ironically enough, the federal Appeals Court ruling in the New Haven case pitted race against disability and Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of race trumping disability.

Frank Ricci, one of the plaintiffs, is dyslexic. He spent a couple hundred dollars on Fire Dept study books, then another $1,000 having someone read them onto CD, so he could study more effectively.

He improvised, adapted and overcame a disability to score among the highest on that exam. Those who didn't study as effectively as Ricci, those who didn't have his will, his drive and his devotion, have only themselves to blame.

If anything, it would seem that an exam like that is far MORE challenging to the Frank Ricci's of the world than it is to any ethnic or racial group.

And as you note, many blacks DID indeed pass that exam, none happened to score in the top 15.

Same thing happens in most Engineering schools across the country. Asians, who currently represent about 5% of the population are earning over 60% of the seats in those schools.

Is that at all "bad for America"?

Absolutely NOT....and holding back high achieving Asians to "let others in", will only assure that the skills disparity that exists now between Asians and other groups continues in perpetuity.

If people were calling for more remedial help, that'd be one thing, but calling for proportionalism serves no useful purpose and leaves those supporting that, in the position of opposing the best candidates being chosen.

There's no way to make a rational case for that.

11:02 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home