That was the reason given by a St. Louis-area public school system for refusing to allow a black student to attend a school that he would have been allowed to go to had he been any other color. This discrimination was justified by a desire to achieve the right racial mix in public schools. So there you have it: Politically correct diversity trumps individual rights and educational opportunity. Read all about it here.
More on Race-Based Decision-Making in Education:
There have been a couple of newspaper pieces in the last week that make the (dubious) case for hiring fewer white teachers: “Black teachers steer black students to gifted programs” in USA Today, as well as “We need a diverse teaching force” in the Washington Post. But, just as it is wrong to deny a black student a spot at a school because of his race, so it is wrong to hire teachers with an eye on race.
The USA Today article says that a new study show that black teachers are more likely to recommend black students for gifted programs than white teachers are. But of course the possibility is not considered that perhaps it is black teachers who are biased in favor of black students, not white teachers who are biased against them. In any event, it would not make sense to solve any bias problem by giving less-qualified teachers of one race a preference over more-qualified teachers of another race (that point, which is not only true as a matter of policy but mandatory as a matter of law, goes to the Washington Post piece, too). The better solution is to demand that all teachers avoid bias and train them to do so.
A Short Bathroom Break:
As a public service, the Center for Equal Opportunity prints here the relevant text of Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments of 1972:
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance ….”
So the question to bear in mind as you read various news stories these days is whether, if it is permissible to have male and female restrooms (as all agree that it is), the quoted language means — and was meant in 1972 to mean — that is illegal to define male and female in biological terms.
Rice-A-Rooney:
According to this news story from the Washington Times, Susan Rice, President Obama’s National Security Adviser, gave a commencement speech last week in which she said “there are too many white people in key government posts, endangering national security because they think alike.”
Well! I’m prepared to believe that it is a good thing to have different perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences available among our decision-makers and analysts, but there are two obvious problems with looking at this issue the way that Susan Rice does — and these problems have nothing to do with her race or sex, since there is little doubt her view is shared by her current boss (President Obama, who is not female) and her long-time ally (Secretary Clinton, who is not black).
First, it makes no sense to use skin color as a proxy for a person’s perspective, background, or experience: Most whites are not rich Ivy Leaguers, and many nonwhites are. Second, it is very dangerous to lower qualifications in national security positions in order to achieve a predetermined racial and ethnic mix.
No matter. To quote a news story in the Washington Post, the administration is considering the adoption of some version of “the Rooney Rule” at the Pentagon with regard to “minority candidates for prestigious jobs, such as aide-de-camp and military assistant.”
The Post article rightly notes that there may be legal problems with this, though. Here’s my comment on a recent USA Today column, “3 Ways the NFL Can Boost Minority Coaches”:
Most of what the op-ed argues for is the application and expansion of the “Rooney Rule,” which requires that at least one minority be interviewed whenever there is a vacancy in a particular position. But there’s a big problem with the Rooney Rule: It’s illegal.
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits racial discrimination in private employment. The statute covers hiring, of course, and also makes it illegal for an employer to “classify his . . . applicants for employment” in a way that denies equal treatment on the basis of race.
It might be objected that there’s no harm here, since it’s only requiring an additional interview. But suppose the shoe were on the other foot, and the requirement was that at least one white candidate always be interviewed. Would that fly?
And there will be harm. Suppose that a team normally narrows the field to four candidates and then interviews them. If it keeps this rule, then if you’re white candidate number four, you’re out of luck, because now you have to make way for the minority interviewee. Suppose the team decides to interview a fifth candidate instead. Well, the minority coach who was the tenth choice now leapfrogs over white candidates six, seven, eight, and nine — all out of luck because they are the wrong color. And, of course, if the minority candidate is hired, then one of the white finalists — the one who would have gotten the job otherwise — is out of luck, too.
No Rest — Not Even on Mother’s Day — for Social Justice Warriors:
Even the President’s annual Mother’s Day proclamation has to be used to advance the cause of political correctness. From the first paragraph: “Regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status, mothers have always moved our Nation forward and remained steadfast in their pursuit of a better and brighter future for their children.” From the second paragraph: “For generations, mothers have led the charge toward a freer, more inclusive country — embracing the task of ensuring our Nation upholds its highest ideals so that they, and America’s daughters, know the same opportunities as America’s fathers and sons.” And then in the third paragraph there’s a tendentious reference to the dubious “gender pay gap.”
