Half Sigma offers a lucid review of Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion in Ricci:

Instead of rejoicing over the outcome of the Ricci case, the fact that four justices signed on to GInsubrg’s dissenting opinion fills me with both anger at liberals and dread that the liberal viewpoint will eventually triumph over reason and sensibility. Ginsburg writes, “The Court’s order and opinion, I anticipate, will not have staying power.” I translate this as meaning that Obama is going to be president for another seven and a half years, so the liberals are only one heart attack away from reversing Ricci and imposing their will. It’s an unusually unsportsmanlike statement and demonstrates a disrespect for stare decisis that’s unbecoming of a Supreme Court justice. When something like that shows up in a dissent, it indicates that the decision created a great deal of ill will.

As I explained in my previous two posts analyzing the Ricci decision, the statutes passed by Congress are racially neutral and state that it’s unlawful “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 USC §2000e–2(a)(1). It doesn’t say that it’s only unlawful to discriminate against minority races. The Supreme Court has continuously paid at least lip service to the concept of race neutrality, and theoretically there are only a few limited circumstances in which it’s legal to discriminate against whites in order to favor minority races. One such circumstance is in education where the need for “diversity” is such a compelling interest that it allows colleges to consider race as a factor in admissions See Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).

(more…)

From AOL News:

A Swedish couple’s decision to keep their toddler’s gender a secret is stirring debate, especially now that the parents are expecting a second child.

“Pop” is 2 ½ years old, but so far only those who change the child’s diapers know whether the youngster is a boy or a girl, TheLocal.se, an English-language site for Swedish news, said last week.

Back in March, the parents gave an interview to the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper, saying they decided not to reveal their child’s sex because they believe gender is a social construction. “We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mold from the outset,” said the child’s mother, “Nora.” (The paper used fake names for the entire family to protect their privacy.)

(more…)

First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh writes

Anti-Defamation League Regional Director Asserts That “Freedom of Speech Does Not Extend to Racist Groups”:

That’s the view of Alan Potash, the ADL’s regional director for Nebraska, Iowa, and Kansas. Pretty appalling, it seems to me — simply false as a statement of current free speech law (which it sounds like it is), and deeply misguided as a matter of what the law should be.

And in the wake of attempts to condemn Israeli policies as racist, it should be pretty clear to American Jews that such a position could easily be turned around them. After all, any university administration that takes the view that Israeli actions towards the Palestinians are racist could easily conclude that defenders of those actions are racist as well, and therefore suspended or driven off campus. Or how about Orthodox Jews (and perhaps quite a few other Jews as well) who believe that homosexuality is against God’s will? Once “racist groups” lose their free speech rights, it’s hard to see why “homophobic groups” wouldn’t equally lose them.[More]

Volokh ends his post by hoping that the “national ADL promptly condemns Mr. Potash’s statements.” Seeing as how the National ADL is in the middle of a campaign for the hate crimes bill, this seems unlikely.

People always get mad at me whenever I suggest that Zimbabwe might hold some suggestions about South Africa. Yet, it’s as if something happened to Canada, you wouldn’t be too surprised if it later happened to the U.S.

They tend to sputter when denouncing the very idea that Zimbabwe isn’t just South Africa with a 14 year head start. Everything is so different!

I’ve finally figured out one relevant difference. The old Rhodesians had to work, hard and competently, for their wealth. They were world class farmers, and then during the embargo of 1965-1980, they built up their own industries.

So, when the new rulers of Zimbabwe started murdering the farmers, stealing their farms, and driving off the other people who knew how to do stuff, it all went to hell.

In contrast, much of South Africa’s economy is mineral, which generates huge profits with small skilled workforce; the mines wealth can paper over much shortfall in other parts of the economy.

The ignorance and just plain dumbness of the purveyors of conventional wisdom is one of the most obvious lessons of the Ricci case. They got drubbed in the Supreme Court decision in large part because they don’t know anything about topics like testing and couldn’t think rationally about it even if they did.

Consider this statement today from the Washington Post-owned Newsweek by Slate’s regular Supreme Court reporter Dahlia Lithwick:

Once upon a time, civil rights laws had two vehicles—one forbidding “disparate treatment” (overt racial discrimination) and one prohibiting disparate impact (discriminatory effects, regardless of intent). These two vehicles have been chugging along side-by-side for years, ostensibly to the same destination, until today, when they suddenly turned on each other and charged.

Stop for a second and savor just how stupid her assertion is.

Who could make a career reporting on legal controversies and simply not get until 6/29/2009 that there is a fundamental contradiction in both theory and practice between abolishing disparate impact discrimination and abolishing disparate treatment discrimination?

Clearly, the Slate team largely thinks about civil rights not in terms of equal protection of the laws, but in terms of “Who? Whom?”

Still, doesn’t that get boring after awhile?

Something worth thinking about is the valuable role the firefighter’s union in New Haven played in keeping the politicians from getting their hands all over the fire department. It was the union that had negotiated the compromise by which 60% of the weight would be given to a written test (i.e., objective and blind-graded), while the city got only 40% of the weight given to a subjective oral test, where minorities made up almost 2/3rds of the judges.

In general, in cities that have tipped toward minority political dominance, where conmen like Rev. Kimber are trying to get their hands on control of the jobs, unions sometimes provide a bulwark against race discrimination.

This provides a new/old perspective on the much-denounced subject of teachers’ unions. It’s widely believed that if only we got rid of teachers unions, then we’d have superstar teachers in every inner city classroom. Yet, history suggests that we might wind up with worse teachers because rising politicians would try to fire the old white teachers and give their jobs to co-ethnics.

That’s exactly what happened in the late 1960s in the black Ocean Hill neighborhood in New York City, when the NY school board temporarily decentralized. Black politicians immediately fired huge numbers of white teachers (mostly Jewish) and hired blacks. Albert Shanker, the union boss of the United Federation of Teachers, went on the warpath. A huge brouhaha ensued and Shanker eventually mostly won and got the white teachers re-installed. In “Sleeper” (1973), Woody Allen is told by the people of the future that his age had been obliterated when “a man named Albert Shanker got hold of a nuclear warhead.”

That teachers unions and their seniority rules keep white teachers in jobs in minority-run cities is one of those phenomenon that nobody talks about but is staring you right in the face.

Read that twice.

In this afternoon’s comments on my morning post offering to debate him on whether or not “Diversity was a major factor in the mortgage meltdown,” investment adviser, blogger (The Big Picture), and author of Bailout Nation: How Greed and Easy Money Corrupted Wall Street and Shook the World Economy Barry Ritholtz asks:

Ritholtz said…How about some evidence, hard data, facts?

Or are you more comfortable with nudges, hunches and squishy junk.

Show me some hard evidence!

Mr. Ritholtz apparently hasn’t been paying attention here, but I also fear I’ve overloaded my regular readers so much on the topic of diversity and mortgages over the last couple of years that many would rather hear that I’m about to start a new 9-part series on track & field statistics (my all-time least popular obsession) than hear the same old same old about diversity and the mortgage meltdown.

So, I’ll just link to a few highlights in chronological order. The data piles up as we get closer to the present, but it’s helpful to understand how my thinking evolved from the point when I had no idea what I was talking about regarding mortgages.

Let’s begin with my first blog post on the subject on August 12, 2007, a couple of weeks into the subprime collapse, where you can see my hesitancy to get involved in a topic with a topic where I didn’t know anything, but I did remember a few things that almost everybody else seemed to have forgotten:

A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon we’re talking about real money

I’m sure the private financial markets were quite capable of blowing up a big bubble by themselves in the eternal see-saw struggle between greed and fear, but this political pressure for lending to minorities with doubtful credit must have exacerbated the problem. About half of all mortgages for blacks and Hispanics are subprime, versus about one-sixth for whites.

A reader has sent me some links to articles from 5 to 9 years ago to show me I’m not hallucinating about what I remember. The first are from early in this decade about Fannie Mae’s big plans for boosting mortgages for minorities. Now, I don’t pretend to understand what Fannie Mae is (but does anybody?). It’s some kind of quasi-governmental publicly-traded for-profit thinga-ma-bob, but Fannie Mae’s past pronouncements do make interesting reading at present.

(more…)

(more…)

(more…)