Greetings:
Please post and distribute the IBW Statement (below) on the Supreme Court New Haven Firefighters Decision. Thank you.
IBW Statement on the Supreme Court New Haven Firefighters Decision
The recent Supreme Court 5-4 decision Monday in Ricci v. DeStefano continues the decades old march from Bakke to constrict and narrowly define affirmative action in the most conservative and limited manner possible.
In ruling for the 20 White New Haven firefighters according to Dennis Parker, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union Racial Justice Program, "the Court was clear today that employers need to scrutinize their hiring procedures before administering them to ensure that they are fair and non-discriminatory."
Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg says there was adequate evidence in the record that the New Haven test was flawed and resulted in bias against Black and brown firefighters
However Associate Professor Jamal Greene, a constitutional law expert at Columbia Law School, observed that the civil rights movement "dodged another bullet." He noted that "the 5-4 decision Monday in Ricci v. DeStefano held that New Haven violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bars employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex or religion. It also bars job requirements and exams that have a "disparate impact" on applicants from traditionally underrepresented groups. By not striking down Title VII but ruling there was discrimination, the Court did not change any law, which Greene said proponents of affirmative action and civil-rights advocates should be grateful for."
We can be thankful that Title VII was not ruled unconstitutional, but we must remain forever vigilant as conservative assaults on the framework of civil rights legislation that safeguard the precious rights and progress won so the 1960's are not further undermined. The ultimate goal of the conservative right wing is to have the core tenet of civil rights legislation; the disparate-impact standard embedded in Title VII ruled unconstitutional and that government, public and private entities must conduct business in a color blind fashion never considering race as a factor in any way in any decision.
The Institute of the Black World 21st Century (IBW) strongly supports the position taken by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights that "The Court's decision is clearly contrary to Congress' intent in passing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." The Leadership Conference went on to say that "the ruling does not eliminate the legal responsibility of employers to find non-discriminatory solutions in hiring, promoting, and compensating employees."
We just as strongly support the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters (IABPFF) who submitted an Amicus Brief to Ricci v. DeStefano to support their position and perspective on the case. "These (The New Haven 20) firefighters want the Court to hold that any race-based remedies for African-American workers, particularly fire and police, are swept out of existence. This includes settlements, consent decrees, and possibly entire right of action under Title VII or the U.S. Constitution." "As a “voice of reason,” we are advocating and believe it is most important to keep Title VII and our Constitutional protections alive" said Joseph B. Muhammad, President of the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters (IABPFF). IBW supports the IABPFF in its continuing struggle to get equity and justice for Black firefighters and emergency personnel,
Rev Jesse Jackson remarked and we concur that "For hundreds of years, White males have enjoyed more than 95 percent of the best jobs, the best housing, the best incomes, the best health care, whether they were best suited or not. When small steps are taken to level the playing field, the court determines that no inconvenience to White applicants is permissible. The firefighters had no "right" to be promoted, merely an opportunity."
The IBW was cautiously concerned that in the euphoria of electing the first African American President of the United States that all the rhetoric of a “post racial er” would lend itself to an unrealistic naiveté at best and at worst provide cover for the racists to roll back important legal protections because they were allegedly unnecessary or somehow un-American and unreasonable. There is now evidence that our fears were justified. To the contrary, affirmative action policies and race-based remedies are very American and in fact are utilized in many countries to achieve social and economic justice.
We note that specific race-based remedies are accepted and practiced around the world. For example: South Africa’s Constitution explicitly endorses affirmative action Section 9 (2) of the Bill of Rights is dedicated to equality and provides that "To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken." Brazil is pursuing affirmative action in higher education and in corporate employment. In 2001, the State Legislative Assembly in Rio de Janeiro set aside 40% of the state university seats for black and brown people. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in it’s equality clause lays the foundation for affirmative action, giving the government the power to create "any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups, including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."
Perhaps Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said it best “a society that has done something special to harm the Negro should now do something special to help him” — otherwise equality will remain out of reach".
The IBW is encouraged by the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor whose affirmative ruling in a lower court was overturned in Ricci v. DeStefano. We are hopeful that as other vacancies occur on the high court that more staunch supporters of civil rights will be appointed.
We further hope Justice Ginsburg is correct when she says in her dissent, "the Court's decision today is so outrageous that it will not have staying power."
The struggle continues!
From: theradioactivist (theradioactivist@prodigy.net)
Sent: Sun 7/05/09 10:47 AM
https://theblacklist.net/
Comments