Adrian Haymond If you’d like to discuss
or just express your disgust, feel free to contact Haymond at
[email protected].
Click Here for more articles by Adrian Haymond
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that individuals cannot
sue public agencies for systemic segregation unless it can be
proved that the discrimination was intentional. Specifically, it
ruled that a Mexican immigrant couldn’t claim that
Alabama’s English-only policy was unfair to racial or ethnic
minorities, as this arguably was not the intended result of the
policy.
Right-wing advocates will probably applaud this ruling as one
that will cut down on the number of frivolous lawsuits and
encourage minorities to assimilate into the prevailing culture.
Left-wing dissenters, however, see this as a serious erosion of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, allowing clearly discriminatory policies
and guidelines to exist as long as the effect is not
“intentional.”
The United States does have a better record of human rights
than, say, the Congo, South Africa, Myanmar (Burma), Iraq and North
Korea. This does not mean, however, that we as citizens should rest
on our laurels and assume that all is right with our society.
 Illustration by ED OYAMA The centuries of racism and
segregation practiced by this country created severe inequities
within our socioeconomic structure that cannot be whisked away by
spouting the belief that “we are all equal.” When
policies that impoverish minorities have been entrenched for an
extended period of time, it does not seem far-fetched to reason
that when the policies are finally lifted, a stratified
socioeconomic system with disadvantaged minorities at the lower end
will still exist.
The Supreme Court decision seems to assume inequities have gone
away with the progress made in the last two decades. This cannot be
further from the truth.
Immediate effects can impact many areas, including arguments for
and against the equality of women’s athletics and for the
continuance of using SAT scores as viable and fair indicators of
academic knowledge and achievement for college entrance
requirements.
For instance, women’s athletics have prospered over the
last decade at UCLA. The successes of the softball and gymnastics
teams are prime examples. Unfortunately, cuts have been made to
men’s programs in order for UCLA to reach gender parity in
athletics (the termination of support for the men’s
gymnastics and crew teams are examples). Some would then argue that
the Supreme Court decision would have prevented this from
happening. All this assumes that the addition of one program takes
away from another for the opposite gender ““ in effect, a
zero-sum situation.
The ruling by the Supreme Court can also reverse the trend of
many colleges and universities to review and disallow SAT scores as
measures for admission. The argument goes that cultural affinity of
the questions on the test translates into higher scores for those
with exposure to the context in which the questions are framed.
Correspondingly, those who lack this exposure tend to score lower
on such tests (through no fault of their own).
This does not mean that those who created or modified the SAT
were racists. However, when our own UC president acknowledges that
some cultures have an unfair advantage over others when taking
these tests, then the implications must be considered. The Supreme
Court decision would make it virtually impossible to sue for test
modification or abandonment since it was not intentionally made to
be discriminatory.
Other areas that may be affected are outreach programs targeting
disadvantaged minorities, federal affirmative action programs and
other areas involving discrepancies between ethnic groups. If one
tries to address the disparate impact of these and other programs
along cultural or racial lines, administrators and/or executives
can hide behind the reasoning that the policies weren’t meant
to be discriminatory ““ if the results seem to indicate such a
discrepancy, so be it.
It is generally understood that capitalism works best when
competition is left to market forces and the abilities of
individuals; however, our system should allow all groups the same
basic tools to access the academic and business arenas.
When one argues that a person should let their abilities or
inherent resources indicate their success or failure (as opposed to
government help), it dooms whole groups of people without adequate
access to resources. This, in effect, is what the Supreme Court
decision would allow.
There will be those on both sides of this issue who will accuse
their opponents of “racism.” Advocates of the decision
will use the word to tear down those who support race-based
programs such as affirmative action, while opponents will decry the
institutional inequity the Supreme Court appears to uphold.
Perhaps some will accuse the other of being
“racists,” which is rather unfortunate, for such words
will never bind the wounds that continue to scar the psyche of this
country, and instead will desensitize the general populace to
actual instances of racism in this society.
Nevertheless, racism does abound in this country. The difference
between racism today and 20 years ago is that hate-mongers or
demagogues who cater to the fears of certain sections of the
populace do not propagate today’s racism.
Racism today is propagated by a system that inherently
discriminates in financial, political and social aspects. Women and
minorities continue to face “glass ceilings” in certain
industries. Policies such as insurance “redlining”
costs disadvantaged minorities millions in unequal expenses based
on financial formulas derived from statistics that may or may not
be valid for particular groups.
This is racist because although the intent may be merely to
maximize profits or determine the “best,” the result
favors a particular group over another ““ and such favoring
does not necessarily stem from natural abilities or inherent
strengths.
Along with other recent court decisions (the right of police to
incarcerate people for minor offenses, the unconstitutionality of
the California Coastal Commission, the Bush vs. Gore decision,
etc.), this court has become much more conservative. This is also
seen in President Bush’s decision to back justice appointees
nominated by the Federalist Society (an ultra-conservative group)
instead of the American Bar Association. Clearly, the makings are
ripe for a major push to reinterpret civil rights issues in a
conservative light. This means many of the hard-won victories by
liberals in discrimination issues may be reversed.
Racism is not over, for the effects still remain. To discard the
remedy before the patient is truly cured risks a relapse. Can this
country afford to relapse into racial disharmony and strife?