Naturally the New York Times did its best to make the case that the 6-3 majority decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which I wrote about last week here, was an example of the political Right denying the reality that the United States remains a racist society requiring special protection (and privileges) for African American citizens. Its “best” was pathetic; indeed I’m amazed an editor didn’t 86 the piece because it was so self-refuting.
The headline is “Behind Voting Rights Case, a Clash Over the Reality of Racism” (Gift link!) The subhead reads, “The Supreme Court ruling said there must be proof that a racial group was “intentionally” disadvantaged. The dissent called it ‘well-nigh impossible.’” How anyone could objectively think the wan, confirmation bias argument Times reporter Richard Fausset puts forth could be persuasive to a reader who hadn’t already made up his or her mind that the decision was, as one of my Trump Deranged Facebook friends wrote, a disastrous blow to “legal provisions that for 60 years have helped ensure that you could not be denied political representation because of your race” is beyond me.
The mordantly amusing question Fausset poses to frame his analysis is “Has anti-Black racism eased, or has discrimination against African Americans simply become more subtle, disguised as a web of rules embedded in regular partisan politics?” It’s risible because he correctly describes the Southern racism that the 1965 Voting Rights laws thusly: “Senator James Eastland, a Democrat from Mississippi who wanted to kill the landmark legislation, once openly stated that Black people were an “an inferior race.” During his 1963 inauguration speech, Gov. George C. Wallace of Alabama, a Democrat, infamously declared, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” In the early Sixties, black churches were burned and the KKK was still active in parts of the South. Three civil rights workers were murdered in Mississippi in 1964.
Ethics Alarms 
Irrespective of intent what specific cultural norm do they speak of that is subtle racism? Which candidates have been shut out of the electoral process because of these perceived cultural norm? If you cannot define the cultural norm it may not exist and if it does exist then it should be brought to light so a solution can be developed.
It seems to me that the need to create Black majority districts suggests that Black elected officials will only represent the interests of Black voters. So why should any other race vote for them? If skin color, race or ethnicity determines which group’s interests are represented then it would be necessary to create districts for Asians, Middle Easterners, Native Americans and so forth. CVB ran the numbers in another post and the number of representatives would be unwieldy. Moreover, if we are to force identity groups into specific districts wouldn’t we have to relocate all those discrete populations into a specific geographical area proportionate to their relative numbers in the population? But that would lead us back to Plessey territory. So obviously this would be ridiculous but creating a Black majority district would require compensating adjustments for all other races to provide equitable treatment under the law.
I will ask this again. Why do groups spend millions of dollars on litigation to protect voter rights when those dollars could be spent on ensuring actual ability to access the voting booth. Specifically, how many of these so-called disenfranchised citizens exist? Why do we never see an actual person and why do their advocates try so hard to keep them at a disadvantage economically rather than use the litigation resources to help these phantom victims get the documentation they need or help getting them to the polling place. Instead of protesting drive someone to the polling place.
What are their arguments that discrimination against White Americans is good discrimination?
Oh, easy. 1. Whites deserve it because they discriminate. 2. Whites need to be discriminated against for as long as they harmed minorities by discriminating to compensate for the harm they did.
How did you deduce this? Do you have quotes?
Better than that: I took part in extensive policy debates over affirmative action when I was an assistant dean at Georgetown law center and have been sudying that issue (and reparations) ever since. I’m sure there are “you owe us” quotes all over the EA archives.
The answer is equal priotection. Collective racial responsibility does not exist.
OK, but without the SPLC and other civil rights groups, how much racism is there?
If we call the natural biases all groups have toward (or against) “others,” then plenty. But that kind of bias is hard-wired, and only addressed by awareness and ethics. And if you call considered realization regarding certain groups based on persistent group conduct “racism,” that’s another measurement. I learned, as a manager, that if I hired a black staff member and had to fire him or her for cause, I and my organization would be sued for presumed discrimination. I could avoid this risk by hiring only white and Asians. I didn’t. I also got sued.
The disturbing part, from what I can find, is that the courts read a ‘mandate’ in a law that wasn’t there and followed it for 60 years. Our Congressional districts have been racially gerrymandered by this judicial ‘law’ for decades. This is much like the different standards of evidence for filing a racial discrimination lawsuit based on your race. Yes, the courts required a racially discriminatory standard to file a suit for racial discrimination.