How the New Haven Firefighters Ruling Affects Sotomayor

On Slate, Walter Dellinger and Linda Greenhouse agree that Judge Sotomayor has little to fear from today's Supreme Court ruling in favor of the white New Haven firefighters who sued their city when it threw out the results of a test for promotions. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion barely mentions the brief panel opinion Sotomayor signed. Justice Alito's concurrence is a little more critical, but not much. Court observers, including me, will patiently explain that the Supreme Court came up with a whole new rule in its decision today, which it wasn't Sotomayor's job, as a Second Circuit judge, to do. This is how the law is supposed to develop: The lower courts abide by their own precedents, and the Supreme Court's prior rulings, until the high bench tell them to shift course.

But as Linda points out, the right will try to make hay with today's decision anyway. Alito gave them some pretty good lines. He talks about the idea that the white firefighters who sued deserve "sympathy," an idea that is in the opinion Sotomayor signed on to, as well as Justice Ginsburg's dissent today. Then he bristles: "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 of discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today's decision, has been denied them."

This is a clear retort to Obama's call for judges with empathy. It's also a claim, fair or no, that the white firefighters were denied evenhanded enforcement of the law in the courts below. That will resonate with white people who think applicants of color are taking jobs away from them. Justice Kennedy is solicitious of these people, too. He treats New Haven's decision to throw out the test as a form of "racial preference" and says that "is antithetical to the notion of a workplace where individuals are guaranteed equal opportunity regardless of race." There are good answers for why this mischaracterizes what was at stake in this case. Sotomayor will surely be asked for one at her confirmation hearing. I'm eager to hear what she comes up with.

 

Photograph of Sonya Sotomayor by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

Tags: new haven firefighers case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sonia Sotomayor

Emily Bazelon is a founding editor of Double X, and a writer and editor at Slate.

Comments

Emily

By: Josh017 | Thu, 07/02/2009 - 17:08

"It's also a claim, fair or no, that the white firefighters were denied evenhanded enforcement of the law in the courts below. That will resonate with white people who think applicants of color are taking jobs away from them."

It's not about having jobs "taken away from them". It is about having consistent standards and being judged by those. You are confusing equality of opportunity with equal outcomes.

You seem to think that equal outcomes should occur, but for historic discrimination. However, there is no reason to expect equal outcomes in basketball, the 100 metres, or any other field of endeavour. As David Friedman writes:

"People who say they are against teaching the theory of evolution are very likely to be Christian fundamentalists. But people who are against taking seriously the implications of evolution, strongly enough to want to attack those who disagree, including those who teach those implications, are quite likely to be on the left...

The reasons to expect differences among racial groups as conventionally defined are weaker, since males of all races play the same role in reproduction, as do females of all races. But we know that members of such groups differ in the distribution of observable physical characteristics--that, after all, is the main way we recognize them. That is pretty strong evidence that their ancestors adapted to at least somewhat different environments.

There is no a priori reason to suppose that the optimal physical characteristics were different in those different environments but the optimal mental characteristics were the same. And yet, when differing outcomes by racial groups are observed, it is assumed without discussion that they must be entirely due to differential treatment by race. That might turn out to be true, but there is no good reason to expect it. Here again, anyone who argues the opposite is likely to find himself the target of ferocious attacks, mainly from people on the left."

Unequal by Nature: A Geneticist's Perspective on Human Differences Journal article by James F. Crow; Daedalus, Vol. 131, 2002.

http://www.amacad.org/publications/winter2002/Crow.pdf