SobekPundit

Still Pissed Off About the Hawley-Smoot Tariff

Thursday, March 31, 2005

Racial Discrimination in New Orleans

It would be nice if racism were the worst of our problems, I suppose. Louisiana is sort of like a jambalaya of screwed-upedness. Racism is just one of the fun flavors.

Here's the CNN rundown. District Attorney Eddie Jordan was sued when, after taking office, he fired 56 people, of whom 53 were white. Uh, hey Eddie, how would you feel if those numbers were reversed, under a white D.A.? That's what I thought. And get this: Jordan denies that his firings were racially motivated, and yet:

"Jordan acknowledged he wanted to make the office more reflective of the city's racial makeup, but said he did not know the race of the people fired."

How did he plan on achieving his admitted racial goals if he didn't consider race in hiring and firing practices? I guess we're still waiting on the answer to that one.

"We thought the facts as well as the law favored us. I still maintain that I did not use race as a factor in my hiring practices," he said."

The facts favor you? 53 of 56 is an ugly percentage- those aren't the kinds of numbers you want to go up against in court. Granted, after the Supreme Court's decision in Washington v. Davis, numbers alone aren't good enough to prove racial discrimination, but they are admissible as evidence of racist intent, and when the facts run so strongly counter to your assertions, you can't be surprised at the verdict.

The case presents a number of interesting questions, the least of which is "Is Eddie Jordan a racist." That's not an interesting question because most or all of you have never heard of Eddie Jordan, and will never meet Eddie Jordan. He could be a fascist anarchist for all you care - you'd still have to bum rides off people.

The first interesting question in this kind of case is, even if we all agree that Jordan fired people because of their skin color, is that ever justified? Because you can argue that the history of America is such that a little race-based balancing is justified.

The second is about the appropriate remedy. Because I'll tell you what will most likely happen: the D.A. office will say they don't have enough money to pay out a $1.8 million verdict and still run the office which, in a place with as much crime as New Orleans, would be a decidedly bad thing. That means the taxpayers will foot the bill, meaning I am paying money because Eddie Jordan is a racist (well, if I had income, anyway). That's an odd form of justice, indeed. And there's little likelihood that Jordan will suffer for this the next time he's up for re-election, because I suspect the overwhelmingly black and poor population of New Orleans will be unmoved by either the fact that a) the D.A. prefers blacks over whites, and b) people from wealthier parts of the state are footing the bill.

I therefore propose that Jordan be sent to Zimbabwe, where he can disriminate against white folks with the government's blessing. It's win-win, really.

Update: Jeff Crouere is the Louisiana politics guru, and he's none too happy with Jordan.

Links: I've never heard of Common Bastard before today, so I don't know his politics, but his blogroll includes Atrios, Kos, Oliver Willis, Josh Marshall and Wonkette, so I think I can make an educated guess about his political views. And here's his take: "I’m sorry, but to me this is so obvious that it borders on the surreal. And the silence in the so-called 'progressive' neighborhood of the blogosphere is deafening… and embarrassing. We are either going to view each other as members of one race, the human race, or we are not. Make your decision." Sound advice, even if it's coming from a Lefty (which I can only assume).

A different view: "I suggest every black guy who gets the power, follow the Eddie Jordan example. We could redress racial imbalance within a generation with the Eddie Jordan brand of affirmative action."

This guy agrees with me.

This guy used to work with Jordan and says he's no racist. Make sure you read his comments, where you can find Edwin Edwards, David Duke and Tom DeLay arguing that white political machines are never racist or corrupt. Apparently, racism excuses racism, in the eyes of some.

Here's a great statement: "That was an awful dumb move for a lawyer. Sounds to me like the people of New Orleans need someone a little sharper in that position." This is Louisiana we're talking about, bud. The pool of candidates isn't as stellar as you might expect.

This one is ironic: After a long post on the evils of reverse racism, a commenter named "redneckcivilrightsadvocate" says, "We need more people to spak [sic] out about reverse discrimination." Uh, I'm not really in any position to chastize people for spelling errors, but something about a self-professed redneck who can't spell the word "speak" struck me as terribly funny.

Bobby thinks that even patronage-based firings are unacceptable, so even if we take Eddie Jordan's defense at face value he's still a huge crapweasel (my word, not Bobby's). Somewhat ironically, Justice Scalia - the most conservative guy on the Supreme Court - thinks patronage hirings and firings should be totally unrestricted. How odd that Jordan is relying on a Scalia argument.

Thoughts from a law student (boo! hiss!). She brings up three oddities of the case, two of which I hadn't seen anywhere else.

Several people (here's an example) have noted that Jordan's asserted desire to make the D.A. office look like New Orleans tends to fly directly in the face of his claim that the firings weren't racially motivated. Yeah, I haven't been able to figure out that one yet, either.

If I missed any Louisiana bloggers who want to chime in, let me know and I'll link you.