news-record.com

Several months ago, Aaron Stevens, a black police officer in Hopeville, Ill., quit his second job in order to prepare for a written exam. Passing the examination, which was taken by several dozen other candidates, was prerequisite to promotion within the Hopeville Police Department. Stevens, who is dyslexic, spent $1,000 on study materials, which he mastered through months of hard work. Despite his dyslexia, Stevens, like several other black officers, aced the HPD's exam. Although many white candidates also took the test, their scores fell below those of the black candidates.

The enlightened elected officials of Hopeville, like their counterparts in Greensboro and elsewhere, believe the racial composition of their work force should reflect that of the population it serves. Seventy percent of Hopeville's citizens are black and 20 percent are white, with the balance composed of Asians and Hispanics. The HPD, however, is 85 percent black and 12 percent white. City officials, upon recognizing that whites were "underrepresented" on the police force, instituted a diversity policy, under which whites would be actively recruited into the HPD.

Because the HPD's test results were incompatible with the town's diversity program (the coveted white candidates underachieved), the results were thrown out. Hopeville officials denied Aaron Stevens the promotion for which he was eminently qualified because, in their view, his skin is the wrong color. Promoting Stevens would do nothing to enhance the "diversity" of the HPD.

There is only one rational conclusion to draw from events in Hopeville: Stevens was a victim of racial discrimination.

Aaron Stevens and Hopeville, Ill., are fictions that I created to make a point, but Stevens' ordeal parallels precisely that of Frank Ricci, a white, dyslexic firefighter in New Haven, Conn. Ricci, like Stevens, was denied a promotion only because of the color of his skin.

The point of our intellectual exercise is this: President Obama's Supreme Court Nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, does not believe Frank Ricci was the victim of injustice. When the case came before her on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Sotomayor curtly dismissed Ricci's complaint. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided the case has merit and is likely to overturn Sotomayor's ruling. (Of the five majority opinions authored by Sotomayor and reviewed by the Supreme Court, three have been reversed.)

Racial discrimination was wrong a century ago, and it is wrong today. The race of the victims and perpetrators is irrelevant. Stevens and Ricci were equally victimized; neither offense is less egregious than the other. Both fell prey to racialist public policies that violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Under that provision, no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Regardless of the good intentions and self-proclaimed moral superiority of those who embrace diversity policies, the racial discrimination inherent to such practices violates the Equal Protection Clause. Ricci, despite his dyslexia, understands and respects this fundamental principle. Are we to take seriously a Supreme Court nominee who does not?

Citizens of conscience are obligated to voice their opposition to Sotomayor's confirmation. A recent news report confirms that Sotomayor thinks (and more importantly, judges) in racialist, unconstitutional terms. She "has championed the importance of considering race and ethnicity in admissions, hiring and even judicial selection at almost every stage of her career." The source of this quote is neither an "extreme right-wing" politician nor a "radical, far-right" talk radio host. On the contrary, the quote is from a bastion of left-wing thought: The New York Times.

Janet Marguia, president and CEO of the radical National Council of La Raza (to which Sotomayor once belonged), is disturbed by what she calls "gross mischaracterizations" of the judge, and by the "deafening silence of the Republican leadership," which has failed to quell the uprising of conservatives. Marguia is quoted by The Associated Press as warning that, "Much hangs in the balance, including our votes."

But most portrayals of Sotomayor from the right have been accurate, and if anything, the GOP has been too forgiving of the nominee's overtly racialist philosophy. Besides, something far more important than losing votes hangs in the balance of Sotomayor's confirmation: that is, abandonment of every citizen's right to equality under the law.

Sotomayor's remarks about a "wise Latina" making better decisions than white males were not, as her defenders claim, "taken out of context." Over a span of six years, she repeated the same line in multiple speeches. Assuming Sotomayor means what she repeatedly says, she is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

Charles Davenport Jr. (daisha99@msn.com) is a freelance columnist who appears alternate Sundays in the News & Record.