When confirmation hearings begin next week, it is likely that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor will be questioned at length about her views on discrimination ”“ and reverse discrimination.
If so, the story of Frank Ricci’s struggle for a fire department promotion in New Haven, Conn., will be heard many times. For many, it is an example of how racial sensitivity can be transformed into racial discrimination against white job applicants.
Ricci, a fire lieutenant, studied long and hard for the captain’s exam in New Haven, and his high score put him in a strong position for the next available promotion. But the results were thrown out by the city when it was noticed that white firefighters far outscored minorities.
Judges in several lower courts, including Sotomayor on a court of appeals panel, said the city acted reasonably, out of fear that the tests would be found discriminatory. But the Supreme Court last week reversed these decisions, finding that the white New Haven firefighters were the victims of reverse discrimination.
The case raises questions about how far remedies for racial discrimination should go. In New Haven, a city with a record of racial discrimination in hiring, whites and blacks had equal access to information about the test. The test was prepared by an independent consultant with input from professional firefighters. There was no evidence of any intent to discriminate.
But who can say the city’s fears were unrealistic? When the poor scores of black firefighters became known, they caused a furor in the black community, and the city was advised that the disparity in scores made the city vulnerable to a civil rights lawsuit. Minority firefighters threatened to sue unless the results were thrown out.
Under these circumstances, a U.S. district court said New London was within its rights to discard the test results and start over. Sotomayor’s court of appeals panel upheld the verdict against the white firefighters’ lawsuit.
The Supreme Court has set these findings aside, but we’re still far from a clear understanding of how far local officials can go or must go in search of racial fairness. The 5-4 decision took just a small step toward clarity, advising municipal officials that disparate scores on a promotions test are not necessarily evidence of discrimination.
Some critics of Sotomayor’s nomination believe the reversal may reflect badly on her during confirmation hearings. We hope she will directly address the case, reviewing of the facts of this case, and the legal points it raised. Discussion of race and discrimination during the confirmation hearings will be another step toward clarifying a difficult issue.
— Questions? Comments? Contact Kristen Schulze Muszynski or Nick Cowenhoven at 282-1535 or kristenm@journaltribune.com or nickc@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
