But One Race - American
"It is plainly true that in our society blacks have suffered discrimination immeasurably greater than any directed at other racial groups. But those who believe that racial preferences can help to "even the score" display, and reinforce, a manner of thinking by race that was the source of the injustice and that will, if it endures within our society, be the source of more unjustice still. The relevant proposition is not that it was blacks, or Jews, or Irish who were discriminated against, but that it was individual men and women, "created equal," who were discriminated against. And the relevant resolve that that should never happen again. Racial preferences appear to "even the score" (in some small degree) only if one embraces the proposition that our society is appropriately viewed as divided into races, making it right that an injustice rendered in the past to a black man should be compensated for by discriminating against a white. Nothing is worth that embrace. Since blacks have been disproportionately disadvantaged by racial discrimination, any race-neutral remedial program aimed at the disadvantaged as such will have a disproportionately beneficial impact on blacks. Only such a program, and not one that operates on the basis of race, is in accord with the letter and the spirit of our Constitution."
-- Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989)(Scalia, J., concurring).
posted by Ecthelion at 6:22 PM
2 Comments:
For once in my life I will sit here and say I don't know if Scalia wrote this opinion. It is not in his taste nor style, at least from opinions I have seen, to write in such grammatically twisted prose. That said...onto the opinion....
There is, from the get go, an amusing flaw. If Scalia drafts this to say that "blacks" as a race should not be given benefits as the proposition is that individual blacks were discriminated against - the statement should begin that "It is plainly true that in our society, a disproportionate number of individuals who are black have suffered discrimination..." How can you call for individual consideration on the one hand, and yet treat them as groups on the other. That is, unless, he himself is a racist that divides the population into separate groups based upon race.
The other point is more amusing. Since when does a beneficial program discriminate against whites? There will be indeed those programs that will discriminate against white individuals in preference for a racial minority, but not every beneficial system actively discriminates against someone white for the sake of someone a minority. It is one thing to act in favor of one party to the detriment of another. Such a statement does not mean that every act benefitting a person will necessarily harm another.
Moreover, if memory serves me correctly, Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. was a case concerning racially motivated affirmative hiring. On the one hand, although one can make the argument that not considering a person as a person violates the strictures of Equal Protection, the last I checked there is no such thing as a constitutional right for a particular job. The only thing that can be plead for is equal consideration. If after equal consideration I decide to opt for the black man because he is black, what is the harm in that? I've weighed and considered both candidates equally. Am I to sit here and not go with my gut?
In a world of scarce resources, bestowing a benefit on one individual automatically means another is deprived. Hence benefit to one is a detriment to another.
Secondly, there is no such thing as "equal consideration" when one person is judged on a certain set of criteria (i.e. grades in school, work experience, interpersonal skills) and another is judged based on another set (i.e. grades in school, work experience, interpersonal skills, AND he's black). There is nothing equal about it.
Post a Comment
<< Home