EthnicMajority

(Wall Street Journal) In the Research Triangle of North Carolina, there’s a struggle over school busing that probably signals serious problems for the future of economic affirmative action – the idea that only a few years ago had been the hope of those looking to replace legally questionable programs based on race.

The headlines over the school dispute in Wake County, N.C., which includes Raleigh and many of its suburbs, go to the activists who claim the school board is adopting a plan that will once again segregate the public schools.

The new school board majority, elected on the promise of return to community schools, has reversed a decade-old policy of busing kids to schools to create a desired level of children from varying economic backgrounds.

Inevitably, given housing patterns in Wake County and much of the country, market economics and the natural inclination of people to seek out those like themselves as neighbors, any effort to have kids attend their nearest school would create student bodies that are much more racially and economically homogenous.

Full story…

(WMAZ) President Obama came into office determined to stop the rightward shift of the federal courts – after eight years of appointments by President Bush – and to add more diversity to the bench.

So far he is setting records for the number of women and minorities nominated to lifetime appointments. Nearly half of the 73 candidates he has tapped for the bench have been women. In all, 25% have been African Americans, 10% Hispanics and 11% Asian Americans.

“What’s happening so far with nominations is extraordinary,” says Sheldon Goldman, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, who has tracked the confirmation process since the 1960s. “Seven out of 10 Obama court nominees are non-traditional,” meaning they have not been white men.

Yet as Obama tries to make gains in diversity among judges, he faces a deeply polarized confirmation process in the Senate. During his first 18 months in office, his administration has been thwarted by unprecedented delays. The situation, which has received little notice against the backdrop of a pending Supreme Court nomination and the administration’s complex legislative agenda, could undercut Obama’s effort to significantly infuse the federal courts with more women and minorities.

Full story…

(CBS News) While working as a domestic policy adviser to President Clinton, Elena Kagan emphatically agreed with a proposal to strongly defend affirmative action in the Supreme Court, while at the same time siding with a white teacher who was laid off instead of a black colleague solely because of her race.

“I think this is exactly the right position–as a legal matter, as a policy matter, and as a political matter,” Kagan wrote by hand in the margin of a memo from then-Solicitor General Walter Dellinger about the controversial case, Piscataway Board of Education v. Taxman.

That posture — strategic and careful — is reflected throughout the 46,500 pages of documents contained in the Clinton Library and released on Friday. The documents represent about a third of the Kagan documents stored in the Library and cover her time as a deputy domestic policy adviser to President Clinton from 1997-1999.

Full story…

(UPI) Civil liberties groups have mounted a passionate constitutional attack against Arizona’s tough new illegal immigrant law, saying its “sweeping requirements” violate the U.S. and state constitutions and will lead to racial profiling.

A complaint filed in federal court in Phoenix last week raises the specter of a Hispanic-American, or any other ethnic American, having to carry a passport to prove U.S. citizenship to avoid detention.

Feelings run just as high on the other side. Proponents of the law say illegal immigration costs Arizona about $2.7 billion a year in education and police operations — read Hispanic gangs — among other things.

Rassmussen Reports says a national telephone survey of 1,000 likely voters, conducted April 22-23, found 60 percent of voters nationwide support the law while 31 percent oppose it. Still, 58 percent said they believe implementing the law will result in civil rights violations for some people. The margin of error was 3 percentage points.

Full story…

This week the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of white firefighters in New Haven CT whose promotion exam was thrown out by the city for fear of litigation because the results yielded no qualified black candidates. The Court ruled that the fear of litigation is not enough evidence to show racial discrimination.

I agree, and for once find myself agreeing with the conservative wingnuts of the Court – Roberts, Scalio, Alito, and Thomas. But on the other hand this court decision really doesn’t meet the smell test when it comes to a referendum on affirmative action.

According to a recent opinion poll, 56% of the public support affirmative action for minorities while only 36% oppose it. And yet a poll conducted by Quinnipiac University cited in a June 3rd McClatchy article before the Supreme Court ruling indicated a 71% opposition to nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s appellate court decision to rule in favor of New Haven on the case, and a 56-36% support for abolishing affirmative action altogether.

Even though these polling results seem contradictory, I think they are reflective of the public’s acknowledgment that we still have a race problem but no easy way to solve it. The problem is not whether THE test is biased. The problem is that A test is biased.

Is a written test the best way of determining who is the most qualified firefighter? Or for that matter is a written test the best way of determining the most qualified candidates for any job?

We need to stop evaluating affirmative action based on test results, even though it is tempting to do so because of the quantitative nature of tests. Otherwise there are a few million Asian Americans in this country who deserve a promotion.

For more information, check out this article in the New York Times.

Ethnicmajority Affirmative Action page.

Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court is imminently qualified and her credentials and experience are indisputable. And she is a Latino woman. This is the ultimate “two-fer” for Obama and the Democrats.

The right-wing Republicans were going to protest against any nominee further left than Antonin Scalia anyway, just to show their ever-shrinking base that the party is still alive. In the process, their opposition has irritated scores of women and Latinos. Not a good idea for a party struggling to convince the public that their tent is getting bigger, not smaller.

That’s bad enough, but how do you make the situation even worse? Start by claiming that Sotomayor is racist for her comments a few years ago that her background and experiences made her a better judge. This is basically the same thing every judge says during their confirmation hearing because it is reasonable and logical – except if your experiences include being a Latina and a woman.

It appears that the Republicans are still using the Karl Rove playbook – attack your opponent for your own weaknesses. I await step two from the playbook. Accuse Sotomayor of being: a) a terrorist, b) an illegal immigrant, c) unpatriotic, or d) all of the above.

EthnicMajority Politics page.

While the election of Barack Obama has signaled a more liberal attitude towards diversity in politics by the American public, we shouldn’t forget that the Supreme Court still has considerable authority over race relations through its case decisions. Here the Bush legacy lives on in the form of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. Their appointments by Obama’s predecessor have turned the court far to the conservative side and their opinions thus far on race issues have not been encouraging.

This session the court will take on four significant civil rights cases.

The most high-profile case involves a promotions test for New Hampshire firefighters the results of which were set aside because no African Americans and only one Hispanic American passed. The firefighters who passed the test are suing to eliminate any diversity considerations from the promotion eligibility process.

There is also a challenge to the Voting Rights Act that questions Congress’ authority to enforce voting rights at the State and local level, an English-only case in Arizona public schools, and discriminatory lending case in New York.

The conservative leanings of the court already do not create an optimistic view toward potential rulings, but it seems that the country is in a different place on race relations since Obama’s election. The election of the first African American President has created an “anything is possible” attitude, in spite of a worsening economy, two wars raging on, and fragile international relations.

With all of these problems and a black man as President, are race relations even an issue? Stay tuned to see how the Supreme Court gives its two cents.

For more information, see related stories in the USA Today and Washington Post.

Ethnicmajority Civil Rights page.