"I believe anybody who tells you he is unbiased is a liar. Being human gives you bias, and you can't avoid that. The best you can ever hope to be is fair."
-David Poole
Click to read David Poole tribute
RJO's Favorite Charities
Good friends of RJO
Joe Gibbs is Happy to be Second. Do you know why?
Official Beasts of RJO
07/30/1993 - 01/11/2010
 |
Drive For Disaster: NASCAR Sued Over Diversity | | By Carol Einarsson | 01/28/2010 | Category: Various Other Articles | | | Well now it seems NASCAR is in the middle of another lawsuit and this one has the potential to blow the sombrero off the ill-conceived "Drive for Diversity" program.
It seems a certain blue-eyed, blond Puerto Rican racer named Michael Rodriguez is suing NASCAR and its program for violating his civil rights when they excluded him from the program built around encouraging minority participation.
Michael says he was referred to as "the poster boy for the Ku-Klux-Klan," and if that happened, we agree it was a wrong choice of words. However, can he really sue for a violation of civil rights when the whole program is built around excluding fair-skinned folks?
It seems the idea of the program suited young Michael quite nicely as long as he was one of the ones favored by the rules. He knew the program was to the exclusion of fair-skinned white folks, and he didn't have a problem being part of it. It’s okay if it violates lots of other people's civil rights, as long as it didn't violate his. Now that he finds himself on the other side, though, lawyers are involved and Michael Rodriguez feels violated.
I’ve had a problem with this program from the beginning because I don’t believe it’s necessary. Did Juan Pablo Montoya need to be helped because of his Latin background? Did Danica need a hand-out because she’s a woman? How did Chrissy Wallace manage without being given special favors? NASCAR doesn’t need to be in the business of helping people into the sport based upon the color of their skin. If a driver works hard and catches the right breaks, no matter the color of his skin, his hair, or his eyes, he will make it. If he doesn’t, that’s part of life. And it’s part of life for young Latino drivers just as much as it is for young white Southern drivers.
Now I know some will say that I'm spewing my hatred all over the Internet (thanks, Jenna!), but really, why is it that the people who cry foul were more than happy to be fouling upon others in the first place? Until and unless we have a Union for Uniformity, I don't think anyone that participates in a program designed to seclude one group from another has any right to complain about the outcome.
| | | Comments: | | "If a driver works hard and catches the right breaks, no matter the color of his skin, his hair, or his eyes, he will make it. If he doesn’t, that’s part of life."
Amen.
|
| | Well said, Carol! I totally agree!
|
| | First of all, the only driver whose career was advanced by the Drive for Diversity was Denny Hamlin's. The irony of this has not escaped me.
In sports, as well as the outside world, it's all about competition. Once you get into the race track, arena, office, or classroom, you have to produce. It doesn't matter what foot you used to get into the door (nepotism, affirmative action, or good old fashioned winning at lower levels). If you can't to the job, you don't belong there, and your team or employer will suffer.
NASCAR originated the Drive for Diversity in an effort to attract minority fans to the sport. Hey, it worked for Branch Rickey. The difference is, Jackie Robinson played for years in what was then known as the Negro Leagues, honing his skills and becoming a superior ballplayer before Rickey brought him to Brooklyn.
But Robinson was the beneficiary of an infrastructure that was in place for decades before he came along. He was able to play against, and learn from, some of the greatest baseball players of his era.
What NASCAR was trying to do, however, was to circumvent all of this, throw a few random drivers into divisions that were too advanced for their skills, and see who, if anyone, rose to the top. Unsurprisingly, the answer to that was, "nobody."
Look. If you want to be a race driver, your race, color, creed, gender, or sexual preference don't matter. Go out, put yourself together a Street Stock or Legends Car, and go racing. Engines don't care if your skin is black or white. Tires don't care if you curse at them in English or Spanish. The fence is no less hard for a man than it is for a woman. Build your skills, rise through the ranks, impress the right sponsor(s), and you'll do just fine. There are no shortcuts, no matter what NASCAR will tell you.
As far as building minority attendance, there's no shortcut to that, either. Get into these communities and show them how much fun racing is. Every track on every level should be doing this: Driver appearances in schools; show car displays in parks and other commercial recreational areas; advertising in local publications and on ethnic TV and radio stations; free/discounted tickets (with transportation, if feasible) to race tracks; enhancing track concession menus with items that are popular with the audience you're trying to attract.
Maybe one of the kids that you bring to the track will catch the racing bug. Maybe he'll (or she'll) go to work, log his laps, and pay his dues. Maybe he'll work his way up the racing ladder. If he does, he'll bring a lot of friends and neighbors along for the ride.
THAT's how you build popularity among minorities. Oh, and other fans, too.
--Mike. |
| | Eddo,
You do know Westside High School is about a mile from my house, right? LOL
Reminds me of a friend of ours who, when she went to college, filled out forms for scholarships and classes indicating she is "native American." Of course they questioned her fair skin and red hair. But of course, she was born here and is, thus, a native. LOL Ever since, when I see that option, I am oh so tempted to put an X in the box.
C |
| | LOL! I did not know that Carol! Too Funny!
I, too, have been often tempted to mark that I am Native American. :) |
| | I put considerable thought into responding to this post. I hope no one is disappointed that my response will be limited to the law as it exists, not my opinions about the law. Also, this post will run longer than the allotted space, so it will be split in twain.
First, the simple answer is yes, Michael Rodriguez CAN sue for a violation of his civil rights. Furthermore, he may prevail IF he can show that he is a member of a protected class AND that NASCAR discriminated against him by not recognizing his membership in that protected class.
Taking a step back, we need to define discrimination. Discrimination merely means that we notice differences. Discrimination can be either negative (against the differences) or positive (in benefit of the differences). Under current Constitutional law, discrimination in the favor of a protected class may be permissible. Discrimination against a protected class is almost never permissible. Also, laws may actively discriminate for or against a certain class, or they may passively discriminate for or against a certain class. For example, affirmative action laws discriminate actively in favor of certain protected classes (see more below); these same laws may discriminate passively against other classes of people.
Racial based discrimination by the U.S. and state governments is not allowed under the 14th Amendment, and later, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Historically the Supreme Court has applied strict scrutiny to any laws or policies that discriminate based on race. Strict scrutiny means that the Court will require that the government show that the discriminatory law is narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. Laws that actively discriminate against certain classes of people are almost never upheld under strict scrutiny. However, the Court has found that the Feds and the states have a compelling state interest in helping disadvantaged classes against whom historical discrimination has been significant, and laws designed to discriminate based on race in favor of such a “protected” class are upheld as long as they are narrowly tailored to meet the compelling interest implicated, and as long as the passive discrimination against other classes is not too onerous.
By the way, it is interesting to note that neither gender nor age discrimination require the same level of scrutiny as racial based discrimination. For a law/policy to discriminate based on gender, all that is necessary is a showing that the law/policy furthers an important government (or employer) interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest. Age based discrimination is permissible as long as a rational basis for the discrimination exists. So, NASCAR can discriminate against drivers under 18 because a rational basis for excluding such drivers exists, but it cannot discriminate against female drivers unless such a policy furthers an important interest in a relevant manner.
|
| | The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also expanded the concept of racial based discrimination in favor of protected classes to business, prohibiting businesses from discriminating against classes that the Court has identified as protected. Over the years, the Court has continuously upheld affirmative action programs as long as they are not mere quota systems. However, there is a sense among some of the judiciary that the wrongs of the past have been significantly ameliorated by 40 years of affirmative action. The last 20 years has seen a scaling back of what types of practices are allowed in affirmative action programs, and recently the Court has been more willing to consider cases involving passive discrimination that is the result of affirmative action programs. However, it is important to understand that discrimination in favor of protected classes is allowed in many instances, and NASCAR’s Drive for Diversity is such a program under which NASCAR likely can permissibly discriminate in favor of members of protected classes.
It is important to note that the test for inclusion in a protected class has never been based on the color of skin or the percentage of “blood” of an individual, but rather on the racial/ethnic heritage of the person injured by impermissible discrimination. Because the Court was and is opposed to imposing a racial litmus test, membership of an injured party in a protected class must be proven as part of the plaintiff’s case in chief. Thus, a person who manifests a “white” physical appearance may still be part of a protected class if they can show that their heritage implicates membership in the protected class.
The issue with Mr. Rodriguez then becomes is he of Latino ethnic heritage, regardless of the color of his skin. I do not know his family history, but the existence of Latinos of Caucasian ancestry has long been an accepted reality by demographers, as the Latino/Hispanic designation is an ethnic designation, not a racial designation. Further, Latin America countries are peppered with Spanish speaking (or in Brazil, Portuguese speaking) folks who are descended from German, Dutch, and English colonial settlers. For example, Mexico City has a relatively large community of people of German ancestry who are nevertheless part of the Latino ethnic group.
I also am not privy to the criteria established in the Driver for Diversity program, so the following is hypothetical. If such a program provided for the inclusion of people who were members of the Latino ethnic group, then excluding someone from inclusion in the program as part of that group based on the color of that person’s skin, not his ethnic heritage, may indeed by impermissible discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and more recent laws that amend/extend the Act.
Let me close by saying I have great respect for the manner in which JPM came to NASCAR. Take from that what you will. |
| | As far as I know, the NHRA does not have, and never has had, a diversity program. And yet somehow they have both black and Hispanic drivers, and they also have women drivers, in all classes...heck, PSB competitor Peggy Llewellyn is a woman of mixed African-American and Mexican-American heritage (with a Welsh name yet), she covers all the bases(*).
Somehow the NHRA has this figured out, and NASCAR needs to be taking lessons from them, not working on an ill-considered diversity program.
John
(* and yes, she's good looking, too...had to throw that in for the guys here) |
| | Far be it from me to defend another one of NASCAR's poorly conceived and ineptly implemented policies, but to be fair to NASCAR, the NHRA, and drag racing in general, is far more accessible to a wide variety of folks than stock car racing has been (at least historically).
I am connected (marginally) with an entry level drag racing driver/team. Our local drag strip attracts racers and fans from many different racial, ethnic, and socio-economic backgrounds. Our local short track, before it was bulldozed to make way for overpriced, substandard housing, attracted mainly a working class Caucasian demographic, as does a dirt oval about 30 miles away.
Drag racing, because of the relative ease of and low cost of participating, as well as the plethora of classes and programs available (I did some bracket racing myself when I was in college), is the form of racing most embraced by the masses across the country, and thus it is not unreasonable to expect the demographic among professional drivers to reflect the base. Stock car racing has historically been regional (South, Midwest, rural Northeast), and even as recent as 20 years ago drivers from the Midwest and the Northeast were still considered outsiders in NASCAR’s “national” touring series. The base lacks the diversity needed for results like those the NHRA was able to obtain naturally.
So yes, the NHRA does provide a nice example of how diversity can develop from the base of the sport, but unfortunately the base NASCAR is drawing from has historically lacked the diversity necessary for a similar result. To that extent, I agree with giluvracing that NACAR needs to “[g]et into [demographically diverse] communities and show them how much fun [stock car] racing is.” That would be money much better spent, in my opinion, than on developing, and defending, the Drive for Diversity program.
|
| | | Reminds me of an acquaintance from South Africa - a fair skinned, blonde with blue eyes, who would always check the "African-American" box. |
| | @jpn001:
You (and Mike) are making the same point I was - NASCAR's solution will come in finding a way to make grassroots racing more affordable and accessible, as the NHRA has (perhaps by luck rather than intention), not by providing a "diversity" program to elevate a selected few.
As an aside, I note that NASCAR's actions (such as expanding Saturday night Cup events) in the past decade or so have generally been harmful to grassroots racing. Just another way that NASCAR is it's own worst enemy.
John
|
| | | It is too bad this kid couldn't have been born into a mega rich family like Elliot Sadler was. His family has made so much money from their car dealerships in Virginia that they were able to start their own cup team for their son. I hope Elliot's family still has a bunch of money because after this year I think they will have to reopen that family owned team because I don't think any team owner wants to employ a driver who hasn't won in I can't even remember how long and is only gets his name out there by doing TV. |
| | | Um. Stewbert. You should maybe do a little research next time ... Elliott Sadler has, in his career, driven for Gary Bechtel, the Wood Brothers, Yates, and the Evernham/Gillett/Petty/Yates amalgamation. None of those people are members of the Sadler family. |
| | @ v35322:
Stewbert rarely lets logic or facts get in the way of his arguments.
:) |
| | | I agree that this program is not a good idea and I also feel groups should be eliminated like gyms for women and the NAACP as well as others that segregate in any way shape and form. We should all be judged by WHO we are, not by what we look like or what we are. That is one reason I do not like Danica is she feels she should be given special treatment. If you want to compete, then do so on the same level and if you can not, then just go home! |
| | I agree the time for the NAACP has come and gone. When there is an African American elected as President, it's clear that the time of helping "colored people" to "advance" is long gone.
But gyms for women I don't look at the same way. They don't exist to help women as much as to make them feel more comfortable than being stared at by sometimes-lecherous men.
C |
| | | Gyms for women are fine, 'cause men just don't care enough to complain. |
|
Follow RJO on
Sprint Cup 2010 Schedule
Saturday night races in red
Feb 14 Daytona FOX 1pm
Feb 21 Fontana FOX 3pm
Feb 28 Las Vegas FOX 1pm
Mar 07 Atlanta FOX 1pm
Mar 14 OFF
Mar 21 Bristol FOX 1pm
Mar 28 Martinsvl FOX 1pm
Apr 04 OFF
Apr 10 Phoenix FOX 7pm
Apr 18 Texas FOX 3pm
Apr 25 Talladega FOX 1pm
May 01 Richmond FOX 7pm
May 08 Darlington FOX 7pm
May 16 Dover FOX 1pm
May 22 ALL STAR SPEED
May 30 Charlotte FOX 5pm
Jun 06 Pocono TNT 1pm
Jun 13 Michigan TNT 1pm
Jun 20 Sonoma TNT 3pm
Jun 27 Loudon TNT 1pm
Jul 03 Daytona TNT 7pm
Jul 10 Chicago TNT 7pm
Jul 17 OFF
Jul 25 Indianapolis ESPN 1pm
Aug 01 Pocono ESPN 1pm
Aug 08 WatkGlen ESPN 1pm
Aug 15 Michigan ESPN 1pm
Aug 21 Bristol ABC 7pm
Sep 05 Atlanta ESPN 7pm
Sep 11 Richmond ABC 7pm
Sep 19 Loudon ESPN 1pm
Sep 26 Dover ESPN 1pm
Oct 03 Kansas ESPN 1pm
Oct 10 Fontana ESPN 3pm
Oct 16 Charlotte ABC 7pm
Oct 24 Martinsvl ESPN 1pm
Oct 31 Talladega ESPN 1pm
Nov 07 Texas ESPN 3pm
Nov 14 Phoenix ESPN 3pm
Nov 21 Homestead ESPN 1pm
 
  
 
What happened to me in 1983?
|
