Ricci Overturned!....

The Supreme Court just handed advocates of equal opportunity and equality before the law and anti-preferences a HUGE victory, by in effect gutting the use of “disparate impact” as a justification of race/gender-based preferences.

The Ricci decision effectively guts the perverse standard that any disproportionate impact a test may have is proof of overt discrimination against various “protected groups”.

What’s needed now is an end to the equally ridiculous concept of “protected groups”.

SCOTUS Blog reported it this way;

"The Court has released the opinion in Ricci, et al. v. DeStefani, et al. (07-1428 and 08-328), holding for the plaintiff firefighters that the City of New Haven cannot be sued for disparate liability. The decision below is reversed and remanded in a 5-4 opinion by Justice Kennedy. Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Scalia and Thomas joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer joined."

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

New Haven and “Race as Handicap”

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 a completely random group of strangers, or a grouping based on various racial, cultural or other traits, that you'll find measurable 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 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 (pictured above), 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 contrary to many reports, many blacks DID indeed pass that exam, none happened to score in the top 15. That result does NOT imply similar results going forward.

The same thing happens in most Engineering schools across the country today. 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 ethnic 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.