Ta-Nehisi Coates has gotten some attention with his essay “The Case for Reparations” in The Atlantic, but I’m not impressed. There’s no dispute that America has a long sad history of racial discrimination and that it and its effects are still with us, despite inspiring progress, and there’s also no shortage of talk and scholarship (serious and otherwise) on this topic. The other part of Mr. Coates’s thesis is, as the title of the essay says, some sort of “reparations,” but he is openly vague about what that would look like, though he does endorse Rep. John Conyers’s proposed bill that would set up a commission to “study” the matter. But this is a bad road to go down, as I explained in my testimony against that bill years ago, which you can read here. Harvard historian Stephan Thernstrom testified at the same time against the bill, and you can read his excellent testimony (starting on page 82) here. Finally, videos of the hearings are available here and here.
* * *
The National Law Journal recently had an article about efforts being made to increase the number of minority law clerks for judges. It’s clear enough that these efforts are not limited to preventing discrimination, of course; rather, race is to be weighed.
I won’t belabor the moral problems raised by hiring with an eye on skin color, but I think it is worth mentioning — especially given the context — that this is illegal.
For starters, judges are state actors, as are government agencies, so there are constitutional problems with their involvement in these efforts. To the extent that nonprofits, also mentioned in the article, are involved, they are likewise prohibited from engaging in racial discrimination by Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act if they get any federal money. Of course, the Supreme Court in its wisdom has interpreted Title VI and the Constitution to allow racial preferences in university admissions, but this “diversity” rationale has never been recognized by the Court in the employment context.
Most important, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has never had a “diversity” exception carved out of it by the federal courts, and it prohibits racial discrimination by federal and state employers, which would include judges. What’s more, it bans discrimination by any “employment agency,” which it defines as “any person regularly undertaking with or without compensation to procure employees for an employer or to procure for employees opportunities to work for an employer and includes the agent of such person,” which would cover the nonprofits and others discussed in the National Law Journal article.
To paraphrase Luke 4:23, “Judge, sue thyself.”
* * *
You just can’t get away from political correctness these days, not even at the science fair — at least not if the Obama administration is involved. Here’s an excerpt from a White House press release last week (“President Obama to Host White House Science Fair”):
With students from a broad range of STEM competitions, this year’s Fair will include a specific focus on girls and women who are excelling in STEM and inspiring the next generation with their work. Since day one, the President has been committed to getting more underrepresented groups, including women and girls, excited to excel at STEM subjects. For example, in the Administration’s signature education reform initiative, Race to the Top, President Obama granted states competitive preference if they demonstrated efforts to close the STEM gap for girls and other groups that are underrepresented.
Not that this could possibly encourage discrimination, of course, in favor of “underrepresented” racial, ethnic, and gender groups.
* * *
Finally, Charles Lane of the Washington Post has a measured and thoughtful piece on the topic of “mass incarceration” here. He argues that sometimes it makes sense to lock people up. I’m flagging it in particular because of the recent New York Times editorial, titled “End Mass Incarceration Now.” There are people of both sides of the aisle on this issue, but you can never go right be reading only a New York Times editorial.
