The End of Reverse Discrimination?

Reverse Discrimination, according to Wikipedia, is defined as, “the practice of favoring members of a historically disadvantaged group at the expense of members of a historically advantaged group.” Since the 1964 Civil Rights Act when the phrase came into usage, it has been practiced in many different ways. Some examples include employment practices and college admissions. A more euphemistic way of saying reverse discrimination would be “affirmative action.” However you say it, it is still discrimination plain and simple.

The United States Supreme Court tackled the issue in the seminal case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 US 265 (1978). In that case, the Court found that race could only be one of numerous factors in determining admission to a university. It stated that the University of California policy was unconstitutional, but that the policy used by Harvard was a valid type of affirmative action. The result was that Mr. Bakke was admitted to medical school and became a respected physician.

Since that time, there have been many more challenges to the doctrine, some of which were successful and some of which failed. This week, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court, basically eliminated affirmative action or reverse discrimination or whatever you want to call it.

In the case of Ricci v. Destefano, the Supreme Court held that an affirmative action policy by the City of New Haven, Connecticut was invalid. The litigation began when the City tossed out the results of a promotion exam because too few minority members passed. Accordingly, the white firemen who did pass the test were not promoted.

The Court ruled that the white firemen who did pass the test should have been promoted. Four justices in dissent felt otherwise. The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who stated that although the court felt sorry for the passing firemen, it wasn’t enough.

Hopefully, this decision puts the final nail in the coffin of reverse discrimination, which is anything but fair to either side. By definition, it is discrimination. Anything that puts one group above another is discrimination whether it is to make up for past wrongs or not. What has happened in the past is the past. What matters now is the future. And, in the future of the United States, there should not be discrimination of any kind, reverse or otherwise. These policies have lived past their time, if, in fact, they ever had one.

But, this case is interesting on other grounds besides what it may mean to affirmative action. The Supreme Court, by deciding as it did, was overruling a decision in which Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotamayor took part. Does this mean her nomination is in jeopardy? I think not, but it does mean that she should be more carefully examined by the Senate. Remember, this is the woman who stated that her rich cultural background as a Puerto Rican woman would qualify her more to decide certain types of cases than a white man.

Maybe, she is the one who is guilty of discrimination and being racially biased. I do not believe that the Senate should give her a free ride. She should be examined very carefully before being put on the bench.