SACRAMENTO, CA -- In 1996 Californians voted overwhelmingly to ban racial preferences but a classic
discrimination case confirms that politicians and bureaucrats have yet to get the message.

The city of Sacramento harassed two longstanding public employees into early retirement because they were a)
white and, b) middle aged. These conditions, over which the pair had no control, meant that they had to be
sacrificed to a popular but unexamined policy called "diversity."

Former deputy police chief Fred Arthur and captain Michael Shaw, thought that this treatment constituted
discrimination and duly sued the city. During the first week in April, a multi-racial federal jury agreed with
them and the city agreed to pay Shaw $300,000. The jury found it particularly telling that the pair had been
derided as "middle-aged white boys." But for police chief Arturo Venegas Jr., who had targeted the men for
harassment based on their race and age, it was the jury, not his own behavior, that was wrong.

"Just like when you take a criminal case to court, sometimes it comes back in favor of the criminal,"
chief Venegas explained to the police force in taped remarks. The case revealed other contradictions of the
politically correct diversity crusade.

The trial was billed as a standoff of "reverse discrimination," as though one group held a monopoly on
racism or victimhood. If Sacramento officials had complained that there were too many "middle-aged black
boys" working in the city’s postal offices, forcing them into retirement in the interests of "diversity,"
and comparing them to criminals even after they won a harassment case, everyone would have understood this as simple racism. The crusade against Arthur and Shaw should be understood the same way, something the press seemed incapable of grasping.

Imagine the outcry if government officials had complained that were "too many Jews" on the faculties
of local schools and tried to force them out. If blacks had been targeted for harassment there also would have
been calls for the dismissal of those responsible. Sacramento mayor Joe Serna, a supporter of Venegas, has
been notably silent. Federal officials have not intervened and contradictions abound.

As PBS commentator Richard Rodriguez points out, there are white Hispanics, mixed-race Hispanics and black
Hispanics, but no Hispanic race. Chief Venegas is every bit as white as Jesse Helms but diversity advocates do
not count white Hispanics as whites. Then there is the ridiculous "people of color," designation, as though
some Americans had no color at all. But why should one expect a crusade for race preferences masquerading as
"diversity" to make any sense.

The U.S. Constitution does not say that all institutions must reflect the ethnic breakdown of society, the unquestioned assumption that ignores personal differences, effort, and choice. The Constitution champions equal treatment under the law for all individual citizens --not for groups--and equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. Under California law, the state cannot discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual based on race or ethnicity.

The people of California understand that simple principle, which they approved by passing Prop 209. By
upholding Prop 209 and ruling in favor of discrimination victims such as Arthur and Shaw, the courts have shown that they understand it too.

Bureaucrats and politicians still don’t get it, and until they do, it is going to cost taxpayers a lot of money.

--K. Lloyd Billingsley