Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Does Mitt Romney’s decision not to seek a second term as Massachusetts Governor help Deval Patrick’s chances for a victory next November?

Only in theory.

First, he has to secure the Democratic nomination. Then, he has to address the issue of his questionable past, as just a decade ago, in his official capacity as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Clinton Administration, Patrick endorsed racial discrimination.

He did so in a now-famous case known as Piscataway v. Taxman. The case began in 1989, when the Piscataway, New Jersey school board, faced with budget cuts, had to lay off a teacher in the business education department at Piscataway High School.  Two teachers in the department—Sharon Taxman, a white woman, and Debra Williams, an African-American woman—had the least seniority, therefore one of the two would be let go.

Citing a desire to preserve racial diversity in the school’s faculty, the school board decided to lay off Taxman, who filed a federal discrimination lawsuit in response. The George H. W. Bush Justice Department supported Taxman’s claim, and she prevailed in US District Court. The school board appealed, and the Justice Department—now under Bill Clinton’s control—continued to support her…

Until Deval Patrick, who was appointed by Clinton in March 1994 as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights (taking the job originally offered to controversial choice Lani Guinier), encouraged the Justice Department to switch sides, endorsing the school board’s “diversity” rationale and arguing that dismissing Taxman because she was white did not violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This curious argument—that retaining a teacher (Williams) because of her color, and cutting another teacher (Taxman) because of the same, was not inconsistent with civil rights principles—was resoundingly rejected by the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower court ruling in Taxman’s favor. The case was on its way to the US Supreme Court when a consortium of civil rights groups, fearful that the High Court would use the case to declare all race-based affirmative action programs unconstitutional, paid Taxman over $400,000 to get her to settle the case.

It’s curious as to why Patrick saw nothing wrong with Taxman’s dismissal. Does he believe that “diversity” is so important as to sanction reverse discrimination? Does he not recognize that the purpose of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was to establish legal color-blindness, not further legal color-consciousness? Does he not believe that Sharon Taxman had a civil right not to be laid off because she was white?

These are questions that Patrick has been able to duck for years, but now that he’s a candidate, he’ll have to confront them. His responses will be interesting, to say the least.

Patrick has a history of savaging those who have questions about race-based affirmative action programs: in 1996, he accused quota opponents of “[having] engaged in simple, rank race-baiting,” and in 1997 he slandered those who disagree with his vision of civil rights by claming they believed that “once slavery was ended, nothing more had to be done.” Glib quips such as these may warm the cockles of Globe editors’ hearts, but they will certainly not endear him to moderates and independents, especially those who remember a fairly recent Massachusetts court case dealing with the notion of racial discrimination for the sake of diversity.

What will Patrick say when he is finally confronted with his actions in the Piscataway case? How will be able to spin his past behavior? The state’s hard-left obviously has no problem with what he did, but what about those who feel that Taxman got the royal shaft?

It’s hard to fathom that a man as supposedly high-minded as Patrick could have done something so morally wrong in the name of civil rights. Sharon Taxman should not have been thrown to the wolves in the name of political correctness, but Patrick did just that, and had no problem doing so. This is leadership?

Let’s face facts: Deval Patrick wants to be the state’s first African-American governor. In order to do so, he will need the support and goodwill of a predominately white state. Former Senator Edward Brooke was able to generate both in the 1960s and 1970s. How can Patrick do the same in the 2000s, considering his endorsement of discrimination against whites in the 1990s?

UPDATE: A super-liberal Bay State pol declares Patrick "the best man for the job." Oh, really.

SECOND UPDATE: Patrick claims that "to understand civil rights, you must understand that the victims of discrimination feel a deep and helpless pain." Like Sharon Taxman, Deval?