Lawyers for the city have until January 10 to respond to a motion filed by 11 present and former parks department employees who say they were discriminated against by the parks commissioner in the Giuliani administration, Henry Stern. The 11 want to expand their grievances into a class action lawsuit, making all the department’s 1,000-plus African-American and Hispanic employees plaintiffs in the suit.

The class action lawyers have thrown as much mud at Mr. Stern as they can find. But from what we can tell so far from the filings, what this case illuminates is less the poor state of race relations in the parks department and more the need for tort reform to reduce the incentive for frivolous lawsuits.

One charge that is getting attention, for example, is made by Daniel Weizmann, former director of special events and marketing for the parks department. Mr. Weizmann claims, “I overheard Commissioner Stern say in substance that former Mayor Dinkins had ruined the city by giving too many blacks handouts, and that there was a mentality among minorities that they deserved handouts.” The Weizmann affidavit goes on, “Mr. Stern would often expound on the theme that he opposed hand-outs.”

If the Weizmann account is accurate — a big if — is Mr. Stern’s view of the Dinkins administration and “hand-outs” so far out of line as to constitute discrimination? Consider the following statement: Black Americans must “understand and acknowledge the roots of white fear in America. There is a legitimate fear of the violence that … too often has a black face … It’s not racist for whites to assert that the culture of welfare dependency, out-of-wedlock pregnancy and absent fatherhood cannot be broken by social programs unless there is first more personal responsibility.”

Were these words spoken by a bigot? No, in fact, the words were uttered by our “first black president,” Bill Clinton. It seems there is a wide disparity in the frankness with which the cultural censors allow different persons to speak on matters of race, which is something to think about as the case against Mr. Stern progresses. For if the tort lawyers want to make support for welfare reform a cause of action for discrimination lawsuits, Mr. Clinton, who signed the welfare reform law, would be a more logical target than Mr. Stern. On this basis, it starts to look like a handout is just what the plaintiffs in this case are looking for.