The Ricci case

Call it the tale of two editorials;  Charles Krauthammer dismisses much of the affirmative action argument that lay behind Justice Sotomayor’s decision in the Ricci firefighter testing program and Courtland Milloy of the Washington Post apparently did some research.

These days, I tend to take much of Krauthammer’s arguments with a grain of salt.  But I do find it down right laughable that he would argue “racial discrimination” to ameliorate racial discrimination:  IE Affirmative Action.  Just in case Mr. Krauthammer forgot, but Affirmative Action as it was originally proposed was to end discrimination against this nation’s minorities; discrimnatory practices that were put into place by the white majority in power.  Since Affirmative Action was put into place, the challenges to it have entirely come from people (white) claiming to be “victims” of Affirmative Action discrimnatory policies.  Ahhhh, you mean, they actually have to compete with racial minorities now?  That education, employment, etc. is no longer an exclusive club for whites only?  Isn’t that so sad.  Well, excuse me, but there are many reasons why I am not now a Harvard graduate as someone who is mostly Caucasian.  But I don’t regard “racial discrimination” as the sole reason why I never attended Harvard.  Call it instead; the lack of money to attend such a prestigious university.  But, after that intentionally off the wall aside; but Caucasians in this society have always had far more opportunities to advance further in this society than minorities.  And it was always their choice to either make good or to be losers instead.  If you are a minority however, you might make good if someone gives you a hand up.  But if someone instead slams the door of opportunity in your face; you are more than likely to not do so at all.

And thus, the Milloy Washington Post column.  The author goes to great lengths to describe the sort of discrimnatory practices that lie behind the tests that apparently minority firefighters couldn’t pass and therefore wanted tossed out.  Discrimnatory tests that on the other hand, Krauthammer declared did not exist owing to the “impartiality” based on race of the various testing boards.  Really?

Remember the tale of the 3 blind men trying to describe an elephant?  One found his way to the elephant’s tale and described that the elephant must be a rope.  The second blind man found one of his legs and disagreed.  The elephant was a tree trunk!  The third blind man found the elephant’s trunk and described it accordingly.  But of course, being blind; it was totally impossible for each blind man to see the entire creature.  We can excuse the blind for not having the capacity to “see” everything.  But can we excuse partisan blindness that refuses to see everything?  There is one thing that I have to applaud Milloy for as to his final thoughtful analysis of the white fire truck and the minority fire truck.  Both that stop at the corner because that is where the fire is.  Both that must work together to put the fire out.

On the other hand; Krauthammer’s concept of “color blindness” is to assure that minorities can’t really compete or whites will simply run and whine to some government authority—mainly SCOTUS—for “unfair treatment.”

You have to wonder if Krauthammer has “come a long way.”