FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Ricci Case and the Myth of Special Treatment

One of the most pervasive questions swirling around the probable confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court has been, “did she receive preferential treatment because she was a Latina from the Bronx?”  Commentators, particularly from the far right, have spent air and ink to argue that Sotomayor was only admitted to Ivy League schools, received top grades, swiftly advanced in her career, and was selected to be the next Supreme Court justice—exclusively because she is Latina.

Many of these same commentators have pivoted from these unfounded conclusions to attack Sotomayor for showing bias against average, hard-working, White men, by repeatedly discussing her limited, noncontroversial role in the New Haven firefighter case, Ricci v. DeStefano.  Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee have brought up the Ricci case everyday this week during Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings, and called on Mr. Ricci to testify yesterday against Judge Sotomayor.  Their argument seems to be: Sotomayor has been a beneficiary of unfair preference over White men like Mr. Ricci, and she will continue to prefer people like her (i.e. people of color) over Whites from her seat on the Supreme Court.

Frank Ricci could say nothing about Judge Sotomayor’s fitness for the Supreme Court. The case was not even about preferential treatment, but instead challenged our reliance on testing regimes. What Mr. Ricci’s testimony did do is voice the unspoken fear behind the discussions of preferential treatment: White men are wronged when people of color and women are “favored.”

The political motivation behind the claims of preferential treatment and the spotlight on Frank Ricci has ignited a new round of discussions about the dreaded alliteration: affirmative action.  And so while the allegations made to diminish the accomplishments of Judge Sotomayor are outrageous, they cannot simply be tossed away as far right rhetoric.  There is a critique of affirmative action shared by many in the mainstream, namely that all preferences do is diminish the real achievements of people of color and women and engender resentment in working class White communities whose opportunities are being stolen.  The mainstream fear is that any “unequal” treatment will harm rather than help the march toward equality.

This mainstream critique of affirmative action has something in common with the egregious proclamations that have been made about Sotomayor.  They both rely on the same falsehood: that there is an even playing field across racial, economic, and gender lines.

It is this myth of the even playing field that allows the notions of “preference” and “unfairness” to exist in the first place.  As soon as you acknowledge that the playing field may be uneven, the concepts of preference and fairness become much more complicated: If I have a head start in a footrace, can I reasonably complain that my opponent is given a boost along the way?  And if my head start is long and the boost is short, does it really make sense for me to call it “preferential treatment?”  The reality is that the playing field of American society is not even.  The appeal of the ideal, however, is strong, and the pride associated with it deep.  It is a vision so fundamental to American identity that it is the second line of the Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal.  It is a beautiful ideal, and some have shown its promise, notably our current president, the current first Black Attorney General Eric Holder, and the first female Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

But these examples are, at best, positive indicators that we may one day all be equal.  What they do not represent is that structural exclusion is a thing of the past.

Take, for example, our public education system.  Every kid in America gets a fighting chance to succeed through hard work.  But how does this play out when our schools are not even playing fields?  The still segregated and poor urban and rural schools that most students of color attend do a worse job of educating those students than the more integrated and wealthy suburban schools.  And so, in 2006, 51 percent of Black students graduated from high school nationwide, as compared to 76 percent of White students.   In that same year, a Black student was more than three times more likely than a White student to be suspended, despite research showing that Black students are no more likely to misbehave.  Add to all this that Black and Latino students are far more likely to attend schools armed with metal detectors and police, and you see how drastic the differences really are.

These statistics are a few among many that lay bare the extreme racial injustices that persist in our society (others: the infant mortality rate for Black families is twice that for White families; one in fifteen Black males over 18 are in prison, compared to one in 106 White males in the same age group).  The strong temptation when those with privilege are presented with statistics like these is to protest–it is not our fault, we did not create these inequities.  But these inequalities exist and persist because of our actions and inactions.  There is no credible movement, for example, to revamp the criminal justice system, despite statistical evidence of gross racial disparities.

Once we debunk the myth of an even playing field, the concepts of preference and unfairness crumble.  This is when we can see clearly and talk honestly about the reality of our society.  Every human-made structure (schools, courts, the market, etc.) in our society systematically “prefers” those with power and privilege, who presently are White men.  And so, our society is systematically “unfair” to people of color and women.

As for Judge Sotomayor: What does it mean to say that she received “preferential treatment?”  Would anyone dispute that she would have had more material advantages in a working class, White suburb?  Was she “preferred” over a White student when she got into Princeton?  What about all the legacy students who were preferred to non-legacy students at Yale?  Was she “preferred” when she was nominated to the Supreme Court?  There are currently seven White men on the court—were they not “preferred” all their lives because of their identities?

It is hard to acknowledge that the privilege undergirding the power structure in our society may not be entirely justified, or worse, that it may be based on an unjust set of rules.  It is far easier to frame attacks on the status quo distribution of privilege as unfair and preferential.  To accept the shallow colorblind fairness argument makes it far too easy to ignore the deeper injustice that we see every day in our society.  Ignoring that injustice is not only, itself, unjust, it also delays us from fixing real, systemic problems that affect us all.

Anita Sinha is a Senior Attorney and Daniel Farbman is a legal fellow at Advancement Project, a national policy, communications and legal action group committed to racial justice. To watch a video produced by Advancement Project on the negative rhetoric surrounding Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation, click here.  For more information about Advancement Project, go to www.advancementproject.org.  You can email the authors at asinha@advancementproject.org and dfarbman@advancementproject.org.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:
April 26, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
As Trump Berates Iran, His Options are Limited
Daniel Warner
From May 1968 to May 2018: Politics and Student Strikes
Simone Chun – Kevin Martin
Diplomacy in Korea and the Hope It Inspires
George Wuerthner
The Attack on Wilderness From Environmentalists
CJ Hopkins
The League of Assad-Loving Conspiracy Theorists
Richard Schuberth
“MeToo” and the Liberation of Sex
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Sacred Assemblies in Baghdad
Dean Baker
Exonerating Bad Economic Policy for Trump’s Win
Vern Loomis
The 17 Gun Salute
Gary Leupp
What It Means When the U.S. President Conspicuously and Publicly Removes a Speck of Dandruff from the French President’s Lapel
Robby Sherwin
The Hat
April 25, 2018
Stanley L. Cohen
Selective Outrage
Dan Kovalik
The Empire Turns Its Sights on Nicaragua – Again!
Joseph Essertier
The Abductees of Japan and Korea
Ramzy Baroud
The Ghost of Herut: Einstein on Israel, 70 Years Ago
W. T. Whitney
Imprisoned FARC Leader Faces Extradition: Still No Peace in Colombia
Manuel E. Yepe
Washington’s Attack on Syria Was a Mockery of the World
John White
My Silent Pain for Toronto and the World
Dean Baker
Bad Projections: the Federal Reserve, the IMF and Unemployment
David Schultz
Why Donald Trump Should Not be Allowed to Pardon Michael Cohen, His Friends, or Family Members
Mel Gurtov
Will Abe Shinzo “Make Japan Great Again”?
Binoy Kampmark
Enoch Powell: Blood Speeches and Anniversaries
Frank Scott
Weapons and Walls
April 24, 2018
Carl Boggs
Russia and the War Party
William A. Cohn
Carnage Unleashed: the Pentagon and the AUMF
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
The Racist Culture of Canadian Hockey
María Julia Bertomeu
On Angers, Disgusts and Nauseas
Nick Pemberton
How To Buy A Seat In Congress 101
Ron Jacobs
Resisting the Military-Now More Than Ever
Paul Bentley
A Velvet Revolution Turns Bloody? Ten Dead in Toronto
Sonali Kolhatkar
The Left, Syria and Fake News
Manuel E. Yepe
The Confirmation of Democracy in Cuba
Peter Montgomery
Christian Nationalism: Good for Politicians, Bad for America and the World
Ted Rall
Bad Drones
Jill Richardson
The Latest Attack on Food Stamps
Andrew Stewart
What Kind of Unionism is This?
Ellen Brown
Fox in the Hen House: Why Interest Rates Are Rising
April 23, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
In Middle East Wars It Pays to be Skeptical
Thomas Knapp
Just When You Thought “Russiagate” Couldn’t Get Any Sillier …
Gregory Barrett
The Moral Mask
Robert Hunziker
Chemical Madness!
David Swanson
Senator Tim Kaine’s Brief Run-In With the Law
Dave Lindorff
Starbucks Has a Racism Problem
Uri Avnery
The Great Day
Nyla Ali Khan
Girls Reduced to Being Repositories of Communal and Religious Identities in Kashmir
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail