Diversity Trumps Ability

1960's comedian Tom Lehrer once noted that:

"The Army has carried the American ... ideal to its logical conclusion. Not only do they prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, creed and color, but also on ability."

That observation, initially, elicited laughter; now, it produces sighs of resignation.

The refusal to permit something as trivial as merit to stand athwart arrigiving at the racially-correct, "diverse" result, is precisely the import of "affirmative action" and "diversity", as amply demonstrated in a case pending before the SCOTUS.

In 2003, New Haven needed to promote firefighters to serve as captains and lieutenants, so it administered an exam. The gyrations it endured to ensure that the test was "fair" are detailed in the opinion of the USDC. Alas for the "diversity" mavens, all but one of the top scoring candidates was a non-Hispanic white male. Hence, promoting on the basis of merit, measured by an entirely fair and unbiased test, would produce a lily-white cadre of promoted firefighters. Doing otherwise would, obviously, disadvantage the best candidates simply because of their skin color.

Given the choice between fairness – treating people as they deserve rather than on the basis of their skin color – and "diversity", which alternative do you suppose the wise City Fathers chose?

The Administration, like most liberals, ever willing to subordinate irrelvances like ability on the altar of pandering to minority voters, refused to promote from the results of the test.

The high scoring folks sued, making the self-evident point that the City’s refusal could only be explained by the officials’ objection to the monotone skin color of the most qualified applicants. The Clinton-appointed trial judge sided with the City. The three Clinton-appointed Judges of the Second Circuit affirmed.

Plaintiffs appealed, and the Supremes granted cert. The question presented is, in effect, may government ignore merit when promotions based upon ability produce racially disproportionate results?

Naturally, liberal organs, like The New York Times, mischaracterize the case, as one in which the test itself was problematic. Not so. The test was almost unanimously agreed to be fair. Instead, the results of the test are challenged, because the skin color of the high scorers did not match some group-think ideal.

Now, it may be that the District Court’s opinion accurately reflects the status of the law as it presently exists, that shafting one group of folks in favor of another based upon skin color is, in fact, permissible, perhaps mandatory. Indeed, the Court specifically pointed to precedent in which the Court of Appeals permitted "race norming" – adjusting scores based upon the race of the test takers – in order to achieve a "diverse" applicant pool. It will not do to blindly condemn the result at which a Court arrives simply because it’s obnoxious: to do so would be to lapse into Times-style legal illiteracy. A District Court, for instance, which declined to apply even a excruciatingly stupid precedent, like Roe v. Wade, would be violating the rule of law, however inane the result. Change, if it comes, must come from Congress or, depending upon the genesis of the rule of law involved, from the SCOTUS.

But as a matter of policy, this case demonstrates, yet again, the horrific results of race-consciousness. The public suffers: important positions in the fire department remain unfilled. The plaintiffs suffer: they lose their deserved promotions. And for what? Because the racial bean counters object to the distribution of qualifications in the population.

"Diversity" trumps ability.

The City officials are clearly entitled to some sympathy, in the abstract. Had they promoted on the basis of qualfications, the local Al-Sharpton analog would clearly have raised an enormous stink. They faced the obvious potential of an expensive lawsuit from under-qualified applicants who equate failure with racism. One can hardly blame the City Counsel for his advice – throw the qualified white guys overboard – because the law, often, seems to compel precisely that result.

The clear solution, then, is to completely abolish all official consideration of race whatsoever. The fact that every captain in the New Haven Fire Department is white is of no more concern than the fact that the entire starting lineup of some professional football teams, and most pro basketball teams, is black, or that Hispanics are grossly over-represented on the New York Mets’ roster. In all walks of life, the most qualified applicant should prevail.

Period.

New Haven allowed extraneous, group-think irrelevancies to color its hiring decisions. If that’s not illegal now, it should be.