In my recent article discussing the issues surrounding the Sotomayor nomination — and in particular the prominence of identity politics — I pointed out that the worst racist abuses often come from the proponents of identity politics themselves.  Here’s some of what I said:

The politics of identity is always presented as an end in itself; the goal is to achieve representation for minority groups.  But in practice it is a tool designed to obscure the true objectives of its practitioners: the advancement of left-wing politics.  It is the political beliefs of the individual, and not their group membership, that determines whether identity politics will be used for or against them, to enhance their reputations or to destroy them.

…The different treatment of Sotomayor and other minorities by the proponents of identity politics is puzzling only when we make the mistake of taking them at their word that they seek merely to advance historically disadvantaged groups.  But when the cloak is removed, we see that the real objective is to advance the Democrat Party and the leftist agenda.  Perhaps in this small way Dr. King’s dream finally has been realized: those standing in the way of liberal democrats will be subjected to the abusive politics of personal destruction regardless of race or creed.

I provided several examples in the article, like the treatment of Miguel Estrada. Today, the New York Times provides yet another example of the hate and vitriol that is reserved for minorities who do not toe the line of the identity politics agenda.

Lt. Ben Vargas’ only crime was to work hard, then study for and pass a test for promotion.  He then had the gall to ask that his hard work not be tossed out because special victim groups didn’t work as hard.

The two dozen firefighters who packed into Humphrey’s East Restaurant were celebrating a coming marriage, drinking and jawboning in the boisterous style of large men with risky jobs, but Lt. Ben Vargas spent the evening trying to escape the tension surrounding his presence.

During a trip to the bathroom, he found himself facing another man. Without warning, the first punch landed. When Lieutenant Vargas awoke, bloodied and splayed on the grimy floor, he was taken to the hospital.

Lieutenant Vargas believes the attack, five years ago, was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retaliation for his having joined a racial discrimination lawsuit against the city over its tossing out of an exam for promotion that few minority firefighters passed. (No arrests were made in the attack, and the black firefighter vigorously denies having been involved.)

…But Lieutenant Vargas bore more than his share of the criticism, said Lt. Matthew Marcarelli, who was among the plaintiffs and has known Lieutenant Vargas since they were classmates at the fire academy. “Why the other guys viewed him as a turncoat I really don’t understand. He did it because he’s principled and he thought it was the right thing to do. Benny’s nobody’s token.”

Chief Marquez said his old protégé was “an easy target because he didn’t fall in line.”

“It seems that if you’re not the right type of minority, you get hammered,” he said.

Identity politics is destructive to the very groups it claims to help and society as a whole.

Comments  Print This Post

---

The New York Times, unsurprisingly, has thrown out a sob piece regarding the Ricci decision to prohibit government racism.  The poor local governments simply don’t know what to do.  How can they pander to leftist identity groups if they aren’t allowed to make racist, anti-white decisions? First I should dispel some falsehoods:

With the court’s ruling making it harder for cities and other employers to throw out tests they conclude are unfair, employers are expected to work harder to make sure their written tests — indeed their entire selection process — are fair.

This is a lie.  The New Haven test was not demonstrated to be unfair.  No specific question was determined to be racist in any way.   Rather it was concluded that, merely because they did not meet some racial quota, the results could be disregarded.  Any claim that the test was racist just because no black candidates scored high enough to earn promotion is based on faulty logic.

In fact, the city did work very hard to ensure “the entire selection process” was fair.  What some people can’t seem to get through their thick skulls is that a fair process does not guarantee, or even make more likely, equally distributed success.  Unequal distributions, then, are not evidence of unfair processes.

But on with the crying:

“We don’t see clear, bright-line guidance here,” said Lars Etzkorn, a program director with the National League of Cities. “This is going to be good for employment lawyers.”

Really? No clear guidance?  For the racially obsessed, let me make it real simple.  This is advice any local government idiot can follow. Are you ready? Ok, here it is:

Disregard all irrelevancies like race or sex and hire or promote the most qualified candidates!

That bright enough for you?

Comments  Print This Post

---

Rejecting the identity politics of the like of Sotomayor, the Supreme Court today overturned the decision of the Second Circuit panel, on which Judge Sotomayor sat, which upheld a lower courts decision to allow the city of New Haven to throw out the results of a hiring test for firefighters because no blacks qualified for promotion.  This decision in Ricci, et al. v. DeStefano, et al. is a blow against the kind of racist identity politics pushed by Obama and Sotomayor, and a victory for the rule of law.

Ilya Shapiro:

This ruling is the latest in a series of steps the Court has taken to strike down race-conscious actions that violate individual rights—and thus is a blow both to the Obama administration (which sided with the city in Ricci) and to the nomination of Judge Sotomayor. Those who bring cases before the courts deserve much more than empathy or even “sympathy”—the word Justice Ginsburg uses in her dissent—they deserve equal treatment under the law.

Jonathan Adler on what this means for Sotomayor:

The length of the Supreme Court’s opinions (a 34-page majority, 39-page dissent, and two concurrences) is evidence that the case raised difficult and weighty issues. It reinforces the position of Judge Sotomayor’s colleagues who criticized the panel’s initial disposition and, on their own initiative (and without the filing of a petition for rehearing en banc), sought full court review of the case. Yet even if her handling of this case reflects poorly on her judgment, I do not see it as disqualifying, and I do not believe it will prevent her from being confirmed.

And finally, Alito’s concurrence rejects the “empathy” approach (from page 13 of full decision):

Petitioners were denied promotions for which they qualified because of the race and ethnicity of the firefighters who achieved the highest scores on the City’s exam. The District Court threw out their case on summary judgment, even though that court all but conceded that a jury could find that the City’s asserted justification was pretextual. The Court of Appeals then summarily affirmed that decision.

The dissent grants that petitioners’ situation is “unfortunate” and that they “understandably attract this Court’s sympathy.” Post, at 1, 39. But “sympathy” is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law—of Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today’s decision, has been denied them.

Check SCOTUSBlog for more analysis.

Comments  Print This Post

---

Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.