Best case of reverse racism ive ever seen...

Ricci v. DeStefano

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

To sum it up for those who dont want to read through the pages of type:

Ricci v. DeStefano is a 2009 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States arising from a lawsuit brought against the city of New Haven, Connecticut by eighteen city firefighters alleging that the city discriminated against them with regard to promotions. The firefighters, seventeen of whom are White and one of whom is Hispanic, had all passed the test for promotions to management. City of New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the African-American firefighters had passed the exam, stating that they feared a lawsuit over the test’s disparate impact on a "protected minority". The complainants claimed they were denied the promotions because of their race—a form of racial discrimination.

The Supreme Court heard the case on April 22, 2009 and issued its decision on June 29, 2009. The Court held 5-4 that New Haven's decision to ignore the test results violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Seriously America, its about friggin time we wake the feth up and realise that stuff like the above is friggin wrong! It should have never been allowed to happen in the first place.

Discuss......

Is this that case that Sotomayor was involved in? or am i thinking of something else... cause in a current hearing with her, they keep bringing up some case with firemen...

I hate this planet.

First, there's no such thing as reverse racism. Its either racism, or it isn't.

Second, that is an example of racism. Thankfully the Supreme Court seems to have agreed.

If I understood the article correctly, a bunch of non-black firemen got passed over for promotion because the city authority decided to ignore their test results, basically on the grounds that they weren't black.

They took the case to law, and won under the Civil Rights Act.

Was it the wrong result?

Nope, not the wrong result... just the fact that the people involved should have never let it happen in the first place.

"Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain."

One have to wonder how long the race card will be in effect even when the president is already Obama.

He really should start addressing these things.

Kilkrazy wrote:If I understood the article correctly, a bunch of non-black firemen got passed over for promotion because the city authority decided to ignore their test results, basically on the grounds that they weren't black.

They took the case to law, and won under the Civil Rights Act.

Was it the wrong result?

No, it was the right one. The big deal being that it is really the first major case in which Whites (and one Latino) filed a case under the CRA and won.

dogma wrote:First, there's no such thing as reverse racism. Its either racism, or it isn't.

Second, that is an example of racism. Thankfully the Supreme Court seems to have agreed.

Yup. "Reverse-racism" is an American Republican talking point, presumably based on the idea that racism is about white people being nasty to non-white people, rather than people over-generalizing based on irrelevant qualities like race. I mean, 'reverse-racism' by the sound of it would be the 'I don't see colour' attitude that Stephen Colbert lampoons. The interesting thing about many affirmative action plans is that they are racist, in that they promote a race when the lack of representation by said race was an economic thing rather than anything to do with their race.

yep, that's Sotomayor and shes on her way to the supreme court.
she has been asked over and over about this and has skirted it every time.
its a shame though because no matter what comes out of it she will get in no matter what because the democrats are the majority.

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If I understood the article correctly, a bunch of non-black firemen got passed over for promotion because the city authority decided to ignore their test results, basically on the grounds that they weren't black.

They took the case to law, and won under the Civil Rights Act.

Was it the wrong result?

No, it was the right one. The big deal being that it is really the first major case in which Whites (and one Latino) filed a case under the CRA and won.

Perhaps that the evil influence of Democratism starting to make itself felt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

usernamesareannoying wrote:yep, that's Sotomayor and shes on her way to the supreme court.
she has been asked over and over about this and has skirted it every time.
its a shame though because no matter what comes out of it she will get in no matter what because the democrats are the majority.

That's the way it works, isn't it?

Reagan and Bush appointed as many right-wing judges to the Supreme Court as possible, Clinton appointed left-wing judges, and Obama will too.

What's to complain about?

I think the record shows that Supreme Court judges are less political in their decisions than might be expected and hoped by their appointers.

What an embarrassingly ironic court case...

This is not racism. If they didnt pass the test they dont deserve the promotians. end of story.
Also how can you make it so a minority cant pass a test.
I hate how other races think that racism if the driving factor of all white people. I remember in my advance classes we accepted some people who have a 1.o grde average just because they needed "More color"
I hate this world.

Here's some more intelligent discussion, including links to the details of the case in question.

It is quite easy to prepare a written test that contains an accidental bias. In IQ tests black people typically score a few points worse than white folk, and unless you're willing to claim this is because black are dumber, you have to consider that there might a cultural difference in play. Thing is, if you look at IQ tests today compared to IQ tests a hundred years ago, it looks like around two thirds of people taking them 100 years ago were functionally slowed by today's standards. Now people weren't that stupid back then, they'd just developed their intellect and capabilities very differently. People today learn to think abstractly, whereas learning in the past was much more practical. Consider the studies they've done with Polynesians (I think it was Polynesians), where they asked them to group a variety of objects, some were fruits and vegetables, some were farming tools, and some were cooking implements. The Polynesians scored terribly, because they didn’t put the fruits with the other fruits, or the farming tools with the farming tools. They put the potato with the spade and with the cooking pot… but it wasn’t because they were stupid, but because they didn’t think abstractly by group, they thought by process – the shovel digs out the potato then it goes in the pot.

So yeah, it's easy to make a test that favours people from one ethnic group over another. All you need to do is add in questions that are easier for people from a middle class background, when that knowledge is not relevant to the job at hand and you’ve got a bias. So when a test comes back that says 18 white fireman and one hispanic are good, and no black fireman are capable at all, you either have to assume you've had a ludicrously unlikely statistical distribution, that black people are actually worse at managing fireteams despite their service records, or that the test was biased.

From there you should probably study the test and check it for any problems. Then if it really was a bad test you should retract it and issue a new test.

The mistake made in this case was to throw out the test without examining the results at all, and for that reason I side with the white firemen. But people in this thread appear shocked that a test could be biased at all, and that’s just wrong.

And for the record, this is the big stick the GOP is using to go after Sotamayor. It’s worth noting they’re not using any other stick, because this is the only case where Sotamayor backed the minority (and it isn’t even her minority –she ruled against the Hispanic fireman). Pathetic really.

sebster wrote:So when a test comes back that says 18 white fireman and one hispanic are good, and no black fireman are capable at all, you either have to assume you've had a ludicrously unlikely statistical distribution,

Heh? How many of each took the test?

Ya know, I know a guy that saw one of those parades that basically sends the message "I'm proud to be black."

So he's thinking, what if white people had a parade like that? Alot of people wouldn't like right?

But He, as a white person, was proud to be white, just like those black people, so in that sense its really f-ed

Why can't we all just look at each other and just see a human being. That was the moral to a South Park episode!

Why divide ourselves, even if it is to say "I'm proud to be of this heritage or whatever"

Why can't we just see"That guy threw a rock at that guy"instead of,"That white guy threw a rock at that black guy, it's a hate crime".(plot of the episode)

Orkeosaurus wrote:

sebster wrote:So when a test comes back that says 18 white fireman and one hispanic are good, and no black fireman are capable at all, you either have to assume you've had a ludicrously unlikely statistical distribution,

Heh? How many of each took the test?

Found this:
"For the 118 firemen who took the exams, the pass rate for black candidates was approximately half that of the corresponding rate for white candidates:[6]

*The passage rate for the Captain exam was: 16 (64%) of the 25 whites; 3 (38%) of the 8 blacks; 3 (38%) of the 8 Hispanics[7]. The top 9 scorers included 7 whites and 2 Hispanics; given that there were 7 Captain vacancies when the tests were administered, and that the "Rule of Three" in the City Charter mandates that a civil service position be filled from among the three individuals with the highest scores on the exam, it appeared that no blacks and at most two Hispanics would be eligible for promotion.

*The passage rate for the Lieutenant exam was: 25 (58%) of the 43 whites; 6 (32%) of the 19 blacks; 3 (20%) of the 15 Hispanics. All the top 10 scorers were white; given that there were 8 vacancies, under the "Rule of Three" it appeared that no blacks or Hispanics would be eligible for promotion."

Orkeosaurus wrote:

sebster wrote:So when a test comes back that says 18 white fireman and one hispanic are good, and no black fireman are capable at all, you either have to assume you've had a ludicrously unlikely statistical distribution,

Heh? How many of each took the test?

I found the same summary as jp400 (I should have checked to see if someone else had posted the stats, it would have saved me some time ).

When you have 41 people take a test, that's a decent sized sample. Distribution within the the three groups should be somewhat representative of the whole. When two groups are markedly under represented and the other group markedly over represented, it's likely something other than dumb luck is going on.

Of course that is if you only look at statistics and assume all the applicants are equal that you would get a numerical equilibrium. It doesn't represent all white people just as it doesn't represent all black people. We have to take into account the individual as well. The city handled the situation poorly and got called on it.

Those wanting to make political hay out of this in the hearings for Sotamayor are either misguided or looking for any reason. Than again they are politicians.

Ahtman wrote:Of course that is if you only look at statistics and assume all the applicants are equal that you would get a numerical equilibrium. It doesn't represent all white people just as it doesn't represent all black people. We have to take into account the individual as well. The city handled the situation poorly and got called on it.

Sure, but across a decent sample size the impact of the individual is going to get nullified, and 41 people is a decent sample size. Now it may be that the white candidates were somehow superior, but there was nothing in their service records to indicate it.

But I agree that the city handled the situation poorly. You shouldn't have just thrown out the test and call it a day. They should have studied the test and identified any parts that might have led to better performances by certain candidates. If they couldn't find any, the test should have been upheld.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Of course that is if you only look at statistics and assume all the applicants are equal that you would get a numerical equilibrium. It doesn't represent all white people just as it doesn't represent all black people. We have to take into account the individual as well. The city handled the situation poorly and got called on it.

Sure, but across a decent sample size the impact of the individual is going to get nullified, and 41 people is a decent sample size. Now it may be that the white candidates were somehow superior, but there was nothing in their service records to indicate it.

Superior seems to be a bit of a loaded word, especially in the context of a racial issue. They may have just been more prepared, which isn't inherently superior, it is just advantageous. I don't think 41 is a descent enough sample myself. We would need to look at all the reults from promotion exams to get a better idea of the bigger picture. All this tells us is that in this city in this case the black fireman didn't do as well in this round of testing. If we just want to look at this city we would need to go back and look at the results from past tests to compare. This may have been an anomaly whereas all the previous tests fit into the standard deviation.

Ahtman wrote:Superior seems to be a bit of a loaded word, especially in the context of a racial issue. They may have just been more prepared, which isn't inherently superior, it is just advantageous. I don't think 41 is a descent enough sample myself. We would need to look at all the reults from promotion exams to get a better idea of the bigger picture. All this tells us is that in this city in this case the black fireman didn't do as well in this round of testing. If we just want to look at this city we would need to go back and look at the results from past tests to compare. This may have been an anomaly whereas all the previous tests fit into the standard deviation.

Fair call on 'superior'. But while it may be true that the white employees were better prepared that is opening a can of worms. If the test significantly advantaged candidates who were in a better position to prepare (the plaintiff in the case, Rizzi, took six months off and spent $1,000 on tutoring to prepare for the test), when that ability to prepare wouldn't represent a better ability to perform in the job, and the ability to prepare was more likely in the case of one race and not another, then it could be considered disparate impact discrimination. That was a mouthful of a sentence.

In terms of looking back at past results, believe it was the first time the test was given in this format, though I might be wrong. But you are right that just taking the majority of white successes and assuming that means the test was biased and discarding it was wrong. There should have been further study done into the test to establish if and how it might have actually been biased, which is what I've been saying and is how the Supreme Court ruled, stating that employers needed a strong basis in evidence to overturn a test's results.

I always find it interesting that they almost always ask you your race on job application forms (and indeed pretty much any other form) when race is supposedly a non-issue.

I understand that it is good to keep statistics of how many men and women apply, and I suppose I can see the point of tracking the race distribution as well, although affirmative action should not be used... the best for the job should get the job.

Overall statistics should be used to determine if the selection criteria is institutionally biased for or against any one particular group.

However, as has already been mentioned above, there is no way to show that everyone applying is of equal ability to start with, regardless of their race. You may happen to have candidates that fall to one end of the scale or the other, and they may just happen to be of one colour or sex or the other.

If such results continue through several years (or over a wide number of test centres, such as something like a national exam), it may be an indication that the test is biased, and should be rethought.

dogma wrote:First, there's no such thing as reverse racism. Its either racism, or it isn't.

I see no problem in labeling it as 'reverse racism'. It's a known term which in no way purports to be something that isn't a form of racism.

Sebster's observations are valid, but does the same apply to what some would call a "normal" test? By this I mean if the question was for example:

"You come across a room with a closed door in an area that is known to have a fire. What is your next step?"

Surely your culture has no impact on the test? The test is based on what you've learnt over the years as a fireman, so where is the bias?

People, just get a colour TV already, solves all your problems! Or go by the wise maxim of "I'm not a racist, I just hate everybody regardless".

If you pass the test then all is well.
If you don't than you have bugger all chance of a promotion.
Being black shouldn't mean sitting back and letting stuff get handed to you on a silver platter. You have to let EVERYONE get a decent chance. Black or white or Hispanic.

PASS THE TEST!

Aya, fire-fighters have those rules for a reason. No offence but people who score the best are probably the best choice for such demanding jobs. Though from some comments here I couldn't help but imagine the coloured fire-fighters looking like gangers sporting bandanas alongside their regular fire-fighting garbs.

Who do you want to save your ass in a fire?
The black dude who failed?
Or the white/Hispanic dude who passed?
Would you really care as long as they knew what the feth they were doing?!?

Kilkrazy wrote:

That's the way it works, isn't it?

Reagan and Bush appointed as many right-wing judges to the Supreme Court as possible, Clinton appointed left-wing judges, and Obama will too.

What's to complain about?

I think the record shows that Supreme Court judges are less political in their decisions than might be expected and hoped by their appointers.

Yep. balance is maintained. We still get to rant and rave though.

Because, that is what man (or in this case, angry internet personas) do.

Is that you Brook? Who is she? She is hawt!

You're a married man Frazz, shame on you for thinking of someone else other than she who must be obeyed!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, the country just suffers from its own past and really needs to stop being so sensitive about it. Stop treating people that look different like different entities and just, you know, people? Better luck next time guys, say hello to the new captains.

Ridcully wrote:

dogma wrote:First, there's no such thing as reverse racism. Its either racism, or it isn't.

I see no problem in labeling it as 'reverse racism'. It's a known term which in no way purports to be something that isn't a form of racism.

I've never heard of reverse racism. I understood the term by the context in which it was used.

It is racism. There's no need to invent a new term. Using the term 'reverse racism' implies it is different to normal racism, and either not as bad (wrong) or worse (wrong.)

Let's just stick with ordinary racism.

I have to go with Killkrazy on this one. BUT, I see where Ridcully is coming from. Just becuase this racism is directed at different people than history would tell us, does not make it a different KIND of racism though, mate.

Wolfstan wrote:Sebster's observations are valid, but does the same apply to what some would call a "normal" test? By this I mean if the question was for example:

"You come across a room with a closed door in an area that is known to have a fire. What is your next step?"

Surely your culture has no impact on the test? The test is based on what you've learnt over the years as a fireman, so where is the bias?

Except this isn't a test to be a fireman, it's a test to become a lieutenant or a captain. At which point you're at a level of expertise way beyond basic firefighting technique. So there is a potential you're looking at far more subjective questions. Frustratingly I can't example questions from the test anywhere, but the thing is that even the nature of multiple choice might be discriminatory by itself. It tests abstract thinking, which may be more stronger among white applicants who attended better funded schools. If further analysis was done and it was found that level of abstract thinking wasn't relevant in the test, then that criteria is invalid and discriminatory (on the other if that level of abstract thinking was important in being a captain the test was accurately assigning value according to merit).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:If you pass the test then all is well.
If you don't than you have bugger all chance of a promotion.
Being black shouldn't mean sitting back and letting stuff get handed to you on a silver platter. You have to let EVERYONE get a decent chance. Black or white or Hispanic.

PASS THE TEST!

Dude, have you read any part of this thread? Have you read anything on the case before coming in here and posting? Because this has nothing to do with making sure black people get in regardless of passing the test. This is about the fact that tests will often contain accidental bias, and results coming in that overwhelmingly favour one ethnic group should be considered suspect. The issue is whether the bizarre result by itself was sufficient to reject the test, or if additional analysis should have been done by the city of New Haven.

The concept of 'PASS THE TEST!' was never a factor in any party's decision making, and that's a very good thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Ridcully wrote:

dogma wrote:First, there's no such thing as reverse racism. Its either racism, or it isn't.

I see no problem in labeling it as 'reverse racism'. It's a known term which in no way purports to be something that isn't a form of racism.

I've never heard of reverse racism. I understood the term by the context in which it was used.

It is racism. There's no need to invent a new term. Using the term 'reverse racism' implies it is different to normal racism, and either not as bad (wrong) or worse (wrong.)

Let's just stick with ordinary racism.

It has origins in the original racialist theory. Basically when people started noticing that if you ranked societies from the richest and most powerful to the poorest and weakest, you'd have all the white societies up the top, the asian ones in the middle and the black and hispanic ones at the bottom. They struck upon the idea that this must be due to inherent genetic strengths, so they started assuming white people were the most advanced, then asians, then the rest. This was the 'racial order'. In time we developed far more sensible ideas about race, and noticed that the reason societies line up with white at the top isn't due to genetic superiority, but the underlying systems that distribute power are racist.

So the idea of a racist power structures was one that provided more opportunities to white people, and less to other ethnicities. From there, you can start to talk about 'reverse racism' as a situation that provides greater advantage to non-white people.

Dude, have you read any part of this thread? Have you read anything on the case before coming in here and posting? Because this has nothing to do with making sure black people get in regardless of passing the test. This is about the fact that tests will often contain accidental bias, and results coming in that overwhelmingly favour one ethnic group should be considered suspect. The issue is whether the bizarre result by itself was sufficient to reject the test, or if additional analysis should have been done by the city of New Haven.

The concept of 'PASS THE TEST!' was never a factor in any party's decision making, and that's a very good thing.

Thats BS and why the case was overturned. The test was specifically thrown out because a certain group, and only one group did not PASS THE TEST.

Frazzled wrote:Thats BS and why the case was overturned. The test was specifically thrown out because a certain group, and only one group did not PASS THE TEST.

No, the case was overturned because the Supreme Court felt that an odd result in the performance of ethnic groups by itself wasn't evidence to overturn the test, other information needed to be gathered. Because New Haven failed to gather additional information, their action was ruled as wrong. The basic idea that a test or performance review can discriminate unintentionally and that an employer is at fault for such is written plainly in law.

The idea suggested by Emperor's Faithful, that people need to march up and pass the test or not and never, ever question the nature of the test is wrong, and shows no understanding at all of the issues in this case.

Where the Lt and Capt candidates able to prepare for the exams by reviewing old exam questions? If they were, I don't see how this was a racially biased exam.

And, for the same reason, I don't buy that the SATs are racially biased (despite some groups tradionally doing poorly on it). Some schools do better preparing their students for the exam. I don't think there's a cabal that prepares the SATs with a mission statement of, "We need to make sure all the non-whites do horrible." Sample exams are made available to everyone. You know the basics of what will be on the test. If they all had the same chance to prepare, and some did better, then kudos to them.

For the example of the Polynesians. If someone went in and gave everyone a practice exam, and then told them that they wanted all the food grouped, all the tools grouped, and all the cooking pots grouped - they'd do fine. It's like asking my 3-year old daughter to sort her clothers. I might sort them into pants, shorts, and shirts. She might sort into pink, green, yellow, and blue.

Doing well on the SAT (or the firefighter exam or any other exam) doesn't mean you're smart, it just means that you did well on that exam on that day. While you're judged by the score, it isn't the entire measure of something.

Also, I'd disagree about 41 applicants being a good sample size. The problem is that the minority groups were much smaller, like 8 each (for the captain exam). That means the difference between 3 people passing the exam and 4 people passing is a big percentage, but statisically, it's not that relevant.

If people are serious about eliminating racism, then they need to stop Affirmative Action and other racially-biased programs.

Ok folks a few things comming from a Firefighter.....

1: It isnt the Depts fault that the other "Groups" were under represented. If you live in an area that is made up mostly of white males, then guess what your going to get more of in a hireing? Same thing goes if your in an area dominated by lets say Blacks or Latinos. So saying that they were "under" represented isnt fair at all. Not their fault more didnt test for the positions.

2: Ive seen the test first hand when my good friend tested and later became the Asst. Fire Cheif here at Station 1. Yes, you could study before hand.. in fact if you find out what version you are testing over you can download a studyguide for free online, or even go to a local Library and have one sent to you for checkout if it isnt local. So to say that the written portion is biased is a load of bull. Also its a standardized nation wide test.

3: For anyone thats ever taken a medical test, you know how frustrating a double negative pick-the-best-from-the-following-wrong-answers test can be. Firefighting tests are NOT like that. They are straightforward questions that test your knowledge. Doesnt matter if your white, black, or Grey.. firefighting is firefighting. You put the wet stuff on the red stuff and have a nice day.

More of my two cents.

probably matter if you're grey though...

Just say no to Zombie firefighters!

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats BS and why the case was overturned. The test was specifically thrown out because a certain group, and only one group did not PASS THE TEST.

No, the case was overturned because the Supreme Court felt that an odd result in the performance of ethnic groups by itself wasn't evidence to overturn the test, other information needed to be gathered. Because New Haven failed to gather additional information, their action was ruled as wrong. The basic idea that a test or performance review can discriminate unintentionally and that an employer is at fault for such is written plainly in law.

The idea suggested by Emperor's Faithful, that people need to march up and pass the test or not and never, ever question the nature of the test is wrong, and shows no understanding at all of the issues in this case.

This is WIN!!

Most of the supreme court decisions on cases are not because someone was right or wrong but because of some technicality in the law. If there was information that showed the test was biased then they would have overturned it.

The comment about being able to get study guides etc and it being an equal test then is not correct. The point of trying to figure out if the test is biased to ethnic groups has nothing to do with preparation but more with the tests them sevles being applied to an ethnic background. IE if you have a question about a specific food that a ethnic background eats more then another then the question would favor one ethnic background more then the other.


IMHO though I doubt the test was biased but who knows.

Zombie Firefighters are the best!!

Lady: Oh thank god your here to save me!!!

Zed Firefighter: Braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaain!

*Nom Nom Nom Nom*

*hands over medical bill before shamblen off*

How could the test be biased against everyone but whites? If the applicants came from radically different backgrounds, different nationalities, different types of firefighting expertise, that would be grounds to constitute a bias. But people educated by the same school system, under the same laws, surrounded by the same culture? There is no way that their race could have played a big enough factor to cause the results that were observed.

UNLESS they were bad, racially driven hires to begin with. If this was the case, then the trash was just passed until it reached an absolute barrier- the test. The effect is to make the test look racist- when in fact, the selection criteria was racially driven and invalid. This is the more likely scenario-- far more plausible than one based on some natural disparity between whites and blacks which the test targeted with unerring accuracy.

Does 'protected minority' make anyone else think of an endangered animal, or something? Like the California Condor, maybe.

@sebster: What question could possibly be discrimatory against a black person in the test?
Other than the obvious:
Are you a black dude?

Seriously, if those Firefighter that passed got a better education that allowed them to pass than the ones who didn't then I would rather have them in charge of rescuing my house or providing a system of firefighting, than the one who failed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Silverthorne: Actually, yeah it does. Kind of like they're worried about an endangered enviroment or poachers.

LoL I can see it now...

Question 1:

Are you part of a "Protected Minority?"
(If you answered YES then congradulations on your new job! Please skip the rest of the test and see your shift LT. for a work assignment and turnout issue.)

(If you answered No then please continue and answer the other 299 questions and may god have mercy on your soul you White Devil!)

Also I agree, like ive stated before ima Firefighter and let me tell you every test ive taken so far has been over everything that they have covered in schooling that ANYONE in the public could take. If you dont have the money then (at least around here) all you have to do is be a volunteer for a year at a station and they will cover your schooling costs.

If you didnt pass the test you have NOBODY to blame but yourself.

Technically right know white people are a minority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But still how can you make a test that only whites can pass.

Stuff like this makes me wish I was purple and not white..

garret wrote:Technically right know white people are a minority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But still how can you make a test that only whites can pass.

I'm pretty sure that is inaccurate. Even if whites are less than 50%, we are still the largest sect, and therefore not a minority due to plurality.

Still also im wondering if they cheacked how hard the black firemen studied for this test. i remember hearing that the white firemen got together the night before the test and crammend in a hotel room to studie all night.
One also didnt see his family for a few weeks because of him studing so hard.

I can see that. When I was studying for my State Exam I pratically lived at the station for a solid week before the test.

BrookM wrote:Stuff like this makes me wish I was purple and not white..

Well as it stands I am thinking you are more cream or pink than white to start off with. That should be how we combat racism... "Hey look at that pink guy walking with that cream guy, brown guy, dark brown guy, sort of yellow guy, sort of orange guy, bit of green guy, tad of blue guy, oh and not to forget that cream girl, brown girl, dark brown girl, sort of yellow girl, sort of orange girl, bit of green girl, tad of blue girl.

And a thousand years from now race will simply be put in code to best describe your genetic and cultural background...
"Well hey there 7pje. 984f guy, how are you doing today?"
"Well I have been better 9cjr. 837d girl, not that it matters or anything (tear)"

...

Emperors Faithful wrote:...

All funny aside, that is how I feel about this whole race thing. The fact that someone calls me "white" (which I am clearly not) has no reflection on my background and family history. Why is it that all "black" people in America are "African American" now? How many of them are actually from Africa? Does the fact that I have Irish family somehow make me Irish-American all of a sudden? Does the fact that I have Inuit family make my Native-American?

OF COURSE NOT!

When the oil runs out, everyone's going to taste the same on the BBQ. I won't discriminate. Just marinate.

Little do they know...

sebster wrote:Thing is, if you look at IQ tests today compared to IQ tests a hundred years ago, it looks like around two thirds of people taking them 100 years ago were functionally slowed by today's standards. Now people weren't that stupid back then, they'd just developed their intellect and capabilities very differently.

I had a psychology teacher who told me this story. Only she added a small detail, that the ones taking the test (i.e. russian, italian, etc - all immigrants) barely knew a word of english. Seeing as some tests have a written part, it would be very hard of them to pass, since the tests were in english. Thus the high fail rate and the high number of "retards".

Another thing is that the I.Q. test is essentially flawed, for the same reason you can't really describe a man by the size of his hair.

This is the fear of "being called a racist taken" to the extreme. It sounds like something Spike Lee would do (the same guy who said Clint Eastwood was racist because there weren't any black people in Flags Of Our Fathers).

Silverthorne wrote:How could the test be biased against everyone but whites? If the applicants came from radically different backgrounds, different nationalities, different types of firefighting expertise, that would be grounds to constitute a bias. But people educated by the same school system, under the same laws, surrounded by the same culture? There is no way that their race could have played a big enough factor to cause the results that were observed.

You really think its the same school system for black kids growing up in poor neighbourhoods and white kids growing up in middle class neighbourhoods? So that a kid growing up in an area with poor schooling might not perform as well with the kind of abstract thinking tested, even though he might be just as capable in the job?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:@sebster: What question could possibly be discrimatory against a black person in the test?
Other than the obvious:
Are you a black dude?

If the test ended up assessing capabilities that one ethnic group performed in better than another, when those capabilities are not relevant to the job, then . In multiple choice tests the most common failing is that it ends up testing abstract thought and not practical . The famous question of a train leaving one station at x miles per hour, while another train leaves somewhere else at y miles per hour... the biggest hurdle is in ignoring all the rubbish about trains and just writing down the basic formula it presents. This is a skill that is needed in some professions and not others.

It is entirely possible that in the firemen case that kind of knowledge was being tested, when the actual position required no skills of that sort at all.

Seriously, if those Firefighter that passed got a better education that allowed them to pass than the ones who didn't then I would rather have them in charge of rescuing my house or providing a system of firefighting, than the one who failed.

You're missing a very important legal distinction, it is fine by law to discriminate based on things that actually matter to the job, but not acceptable to discriminate based on things that do not. For example, if you applied an arm wrestling contest to an application process, this would be applying a strength test that one group, men, would perform better in than another, women. If the position was one where strength was needed, it would be fine. If the position was for a typist, it would not be.

What questions are racially discrimatory for a firemans test?

Are you black?
If no, we can tell that you're not a burn victim.
If yes, we can't.
Yes = you fail.

As if there is a question like that.

If you want to compare the proportions of different races in the population, it's worth visiting the US Census Bureau website.

You have officially crossed into the land of oversimplification Emperors Faithful.

Is an orange comparable to an apple? Yes
Because an orange is a fruit (FACEPALM FOR EF)

Does money grow on trees? Yes
Because money is made of paper (FACEPALM FOR EF)

Etc... Etc... Etc...

I was trying to argue that you can't ask a racist question in a test like that without it being picked up in court. The questions weren't racist were they? The court case was becuase it was felt that not promoting black people DESPITE their failure to pass was racist.

P.S. Aussie money is different so NAH!

Emperors Faithful wrote:I was trying to argue that you can't ask a racist question in a test like that without it being picked up in court. The questions weren't racist were they? The court case was becuase it was felt that not promoting black people DESPITE their failure to pass was racist.

P.S. Aussie money is different so NAH!

Hmm... plastic money, could that be why you get charged so much more for everything? (Wrex gets pelted with rotten fruit!)

http://goaustralia.about.com/od/practicalinformation/a/ausmoney.htm

(continue to pelt Wrex with rotten fruit...then switch to vegetables for a break)

Emperors Faithful wrote:What questions are racially discrimatory for a firemans test?

Are you black?
If no, we can tell that you're not a burn victim.
If yes, we can't.
Yes = you fail.

As if there is a question like that.

No, there isn't a question as blatantly obvious as that. I've explained several times now that it isn't just about questions that obviously and directly racist, but about questions that assess abilities that aren't relevant to the job and that might be more present in one ethnic group and less in another. As I've given in a example several times now, multiple choice frequently tests abstract thought. Abstract thought isn't needed in a lot of jobs, and the positions here may well have been such jobs. It is often the case that black people attend inner city schools, where education isn't as good, and so the kind abstract thinking needed to do well in certain types of multiple choice tests aren't as well developed.

Which means that if you hold a mutiple choice test where that kind of thinking is very important, but it is for a job where that kind of thinking isn't needed at all, you have a test that may not be racist by design, but may be racist in effect.

It isn't a complicated idea to grasp, and the fact that I've had to repeat it for you several times can only be explained that you are ignoring anything that stops you making silly little comments. So cut it out, read what people are saying and maybe you'll come away from this thread a little better informed.

I was trying to argue that you can't ask a racist question in a test like that without it being picked up in court. The questions weren't racist were they? The court case was becuase it was felt that not promoting black people DESPITE their failure to pass was racist.

No, the court case wasn't about that. It was about the level of evidence needed to decide a test was racist. New Haven had taken a racially discrepant result as sufficient evidence, but the Supreme Court said that wasn't enough by itself, further study had to be undertaken to establish the test had been racist. Which is a reasonable verdict, and one that I agree with, but it has to be understood how subjective this issue is.

The answer isn't simple, despite your efforts to pretend otherwise.

P.S. Aussie money is different so NAH!

Did you ever watch Space Above and Beyond?

As I've given in a example several times now, multiple choice frequently tests abstract thought. Abstract thought isn't needed in a lot of jobs, and the positions here may well have been such jobs. It is often the case that black people attend inner city schools, where education isn't as good, and so the kind abstract thinking needed to do well in certain types of multiple choice tests aren't as well developed

But it is a nice thing to know in a job whether or not they have abstract thinking.
Besides not all black people come from innercity. Beside i dont buy into that stuff that if you come from a bad school system thst means you cant do well.
you make school what you make it.

garret wrote:Besides not all black people come from innercity.

Please read what is written. He didn't say all black Americans are inner city, he wrote most are in the inner city. This is a true statement. Even if they don't there are also a myriad of studies that show that black kids in suburbs often don't do as well on standardized tests yet are not fundamentally less intelligent than their white and asian counter parts. The problem is the testing is aimed at certain concepts that are not as emphasized often times within certain groups, black or white. Understanding this helps makes the situation better much more than plugging ones ears and refusing to look at the evidence because they want to believe a certain thing. Many kids used to be torn down becuase they were thought to be stupid but then we learned what dyslexia is and have made leaps in getting these kids to do better by understanding their needs are a little different. This isn't that much different in some ways. Dooming them to live in shame because the system isn't considering other factors is disingenuous and cruel outlook, especially considering we understand things like institutional bias, unearned privilege, and economic conditions play a role in the education process.

The selection process most fire departments took to avoid this was to never use a written test when you could test the actual task.

Don't give a written test when you can evaluate the person really doing it.

As I remember it the decision the supreme court nominee had was not whether the test and the subsequent actions taken by the city was discriminatory (all agreed it had) but if the city could be sued for its actions and she decided that prior case law by a higher court had already answered that question.

Her decision is now moot since the supreme court has offered an opinion with a different view that will allow the fireman to refile and will likely succeed this time.

IF she had sided with the firemen with the older superior court view she would have be marked as a activist judge so instead a Latin judge is being called a racist.

Only in America could we have gone this route with out violence, it is a good country to live in, better than any other I have seen.

@Sebster: Sorry if I seemed to be ignoring your posts but I thought you were saying that putting abstract questions in a test was racist. What would you define as an abstract multiple-choice question? One that is racist by design? As I believe you (or someone else) said, this is not about being the average firefighter, this about a higher post. Someone who could be in command of directing the firefightnig forces of a whole district or suburb or whatever. This post could very well call for abstract questions, in order to test how the person would react to a vareity of different situations. One cannot afford to be too careful when choosing who is going to be responsible for such an important task, where lives and homes and families are at stake.

@NeedleofInquiry:
1) As I said, this was about higher posistions, not the average firefighter who you could easily evaluate through drills and such.
2)WTF is this about a Latin Judge?
3) Your patriotism, while admirable, borders on the fringes of being jingoisitc.

Any job can be tested to task. If it can not be tested to task then you surely can not provide a written test for it anyway.

Latino is what I meant, typos happen.

Jingoism is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy

I am not in favor of extreme action against other countries unless we are at war with them, in that case i cheerfully admit given the choice of sending a team in to kill someone where we might lose one or more team members or "Nuking it from orbit" as one movie put it, I am all for the method that causes the least risk to our guys. In the main, unless some one is invading our borders, and I do not mean illegals, I am for letting other countries handle thier problems without our help or troops. In my experience every country we have gone into has come out worse for the wear.

garret wrote:

As I've given in a example several times now, multiple choice frequently tests abstract thought. Abstract thought isn't needed in a lot of jobs, and the positions here may well have been such jobs. It is often the case that black people attend inner city schools, where education isn't as good, and so the kind abstract thinking needed to do well in certain types of multiple choice tests aren't as well developed

But it is a nice thing to know in a job whether or not they have abstract thinking.
Besides not all black people come from innercity. Beside i dont buy into that stuff that if you come from a bad school system thst means you cant do well.
you make school what you make it.

Because up to date, books, desks, and chalk don't mean anything right? Yes, all schools are created equal in the U.S. people that send their kids to private schools are just throwing their money away... right??? C'mon man, your environment determines what you are capable of learning. If I don't have the books and more importantly the time to teach a whole class SOMEONE is going to miss out. Out of 100 teachers that I have been in a class with, only one has the capabilities required of a public school teacher. It is just too much work for most people, not to mention all of the angry parents that want their kid to have the best schooling the state can provide. At the end of the day U.S. public schools are mid-range quality AT BEST, and most kids just want to leave school and never return... ever.

Kids flunk in private schools too wrexasur, though probably a little less commonly. Schools is DEFINITELY what you make it. The enviroment has an effect yes, but essentially, the best people make the best of thier given situations. In most cases (bar forieng invasion or some massive governmental screw-up) a lot of people can only blame themselves for thier predicament. If the guys wanted to pass, they should hav e studied harder.

@NeedleofInquiry:
1) The job of the common fireman could easily be evaluated through a task, and also possible at higher levels. But it is much easier to ask in an exam "How would you go about organizing the defense of the western suburbs in the case of a bushfire?", rather than test each and everyone of the exam(..ees?) through an actual procedure of getting the whole city riled up and organized for an imaginary bushfire.

2) I meant, WTF does the judge being LATINO or whatever having anything to do with this?

3) ...That is the wierdest justification I have heard to date. You're so...proud. It's really quite sickening that you would claim America to be the voice of reason in these times.

The Firefighter exam is made up of both a written portion and a hands on portion.

Once you reach the White/Red hat level its less hands on and more directing others actions from that point. A written test is the best way to test ones knowledge at this point.

And please... I came from friggin Idaho, which while I was going to school was ranked in the mid 40's out of 50 for public school funding/teacher pay. I applied myself and was one of 37 people that year to Graduate from my Highschool.

Dont sit their and try to say that school ISNT what you make of it. You can have the most craptastic school on earth and if you really apply yourself you can get a quality education.

feth Ive seen schools in Iraq with NOTHING and the damn 6th graders could speak multiple languages and know a hell of alot more then I did at that age.

Wrexasaur takes a deep breath and exits thread to avoid de-railing the discussion.

garret wrote:But it is a nice thing to know in a job whether or not they have abstract thinking.

But, as I've been saying all the way through, it depends on whether the ability being tested is relevant to the job at hand. For instance, if you were making applicants arm wrestle to test their strength you'd be favouring the test towards men over women. This would be acceptable if the job was for warehouse stocker or something where strength matters to the job, but not acceptable if was a position as a lawyer or something else where strength was not a factor.

Now, in the case at hand New Haven saw there was a discrepancy and rejected the test based only on that. It isn't clear whether the criteria that led to the black candidates doing poorly was relevant to the job because the research wasn't done (which, incidentally, was the key point the Supreme Court made).

Besides not all black people come from innercity. Beside i dont buy into that stuff that if you come from a bad school system thst means you cant do well.
you make school what you make it.

That's great advice for any individual, because it is in the best interests of each kid to make whatever they can of their situation, and not make excuses. But you're absolutely, 100% kidding yourself if you think that kids in some schools don't have it easier than kids in other schools, and that doesn't affect their final results. So while exceptionally gifted and hard working kids will still rise above, the average kid in your average suburban school is going to come out ahead of the average kid in the average inner city school. When you look at that at a societal level, you have to recognise the impacts it has on different socio-economic classes, and how the filters down into an impact on ethnic groups.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Only in America could we have gone this route with out violence, it is a good country to live in, better than any other I have seen.

What? You think that only in America could you have a legal dispute without it descending into violence? You really need to get out more.

jp400 wrote:
Once you reach the White/Red hat level its less hands on and more directing others actions from that point. A written test is the best way to test ones knowledge at this point.

This. There simply comes a point where physical testing cannot reasonably approximate actual practice.

@sebster: I think you mean this WOULD be acceptable where strength matters to the job.

P.S. Thankyou! He DOES need to get out more.

That's great advice for any individual, because it is in the best interests of each kid to make whatever they can of their situation, and not make excuses. But you're absolutely, 100% kidding yourself if you think that kids in some schools don't have it easier than kids in other schools, and that doesn't affect their final results. So while exceptionally gifted and hard working kids will still rise above, the average kid in your average suburban school is going to come out ahead of the average kid in the average inner city school. When you look at that at a societal level, you have to recognise the impacts it has on different socio-economic classes, and how the filters down into an impact on ethnic groups.

IM not say its easier.
Im say ing that you can still laern if you apply yourself.

I agree with garret. What school you go to does not entirely define you. You can always make the best if it.

Emperors Faithful wrote:@sebster: I think you mean this WOULD be acceptable where strength matters to the job.

Cheers, my typo made my point somewhat incoherent. Thanks for the heads up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:This. There simply comes a point where physical testing cannot reasonably approximate actual practice.

I find it bizarre that there's a test for that level of management at all. Once you get past basic technical work, every position over here is based on resume, references and interview.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

garret wrote:IM not say its easier.
Im say ing that you can still laern if you apply yourself.

Yes, you can still learn. Yes, exceptional kids do rise above.

But that has nothing to do with the issue here. Because we aren't talking about a specific individual, we're talking about populations. In general, an inner city school will not provide the same quality of education as a suburban school. So, in general, the populations that attend those inner city schools will not develop their skill sets to the same level as the populations that attend suburban schools.

In each case there will still be exceptionally good and exceptionally poor students, but most will fall somewhere in between. They are the people we're talking about, the large majority of kids that make up the middle, when it is noted that different social groups tend towards better and poorer performances in certain kinds of testing.

But we're not talking about kids who don't go to a public school being discriminated. (In fact one of the guys to pass was actually hispanic soooo...) This was about guys OF A CERTAIN COLOUR being discriminated. Of the guys to pass some,most or even all could have come from public schools.

If 16 white guys from private schools passed and the rest of the white guys from public schools failed, do you think there would be this amount of ruckus? No, but since some of those who failed are a different colour suddenly it's all racist.

Emperors Faithful wrote:But we're not talking about kids who don't go to a public school being discriminated. (In fact one of the guys to pass was actually hispanic soooo...) This was about guys OF A CERTAIN COLOUR being discriminated. Of the guys to pass some,most or even all could have come from public schools.

If 16 white guys from private schools passed and the rest of the white guys from public schools failed, do you think there would be this amount of ruckus? No, but since some of those who failed are a different colour suddenly it's all racist.

Yeah, it's true that if the test favoured a group on non-racial grounds this wouldn't have been noticed. And maybe that test would have been bad and unfair too, because it rewarded skills that aren't relevant to the job or maybe not, we don't know if that's the case in this example, let alone in the private school hypothetical. But there are limits to what the courts can do, how far they can look into business practices. The courts have decided poor selection criteria that favours a race is worth looking into, while poor selection that favours a socio-economic group is not.

Given history, I don't think that's an unreasonable priority.

This was an exam for Lts and Capts. While their educational background may have some effect on it, the (reported) ability to have practice exams to review and study beforehand shouldn't be ignored either.

But, I also don't know all the details of the case. Personally, it sounds more like affirmative action gone awry than racially biased.

Deadshane1 wrote:I hate this planet.

QFT.

sebster wrote:
I find it bizarre that there's a test for that level of management at all. Once you get past basic technical work, every position over here is based on resume, references and interview.

Standardized testing has become more popular in the course of promotion and hiring as a means of avoiding discrimination suits. The idea being that a test can provide an objective (or mostly objective) measure of a targets potential, which can then be used to easily explain why 1 person was hired while another was not. Obviously the method is far from fool proof.

dogma wrote:Standardized testing has become more popular in the course of promotion and hiring as a means of avoiding discrimination suits. The idea being that a test can provide an objective (or mostly objective) measure of a targets potential, which can then be used to easily explain why 1 person was hired while another was not. Obviously the method is far from fool proof.

I wonder if this case will discourage the practice?

What is really needed is a test of some sort that anyone can pass.

Wait a minute,....

That would be stupid.

Zip Napalm wrote:What is really needed is a test of some sort that anyone can pass.

Wait a minute,....

That would be stupid.

LoL

Zip Napalm wrote:What is really needed is a test of some sort that anyone can pass.

Wait a minute,....

That would be stupid.

What is needed is a legal requirement where employers are required to only assess the relevant criteria for the job, and to continue to monitor the results of their assessment criteria to ensure that only relevant criteria are being directly and indirectly assessed. Because that would be both equitable and good business practice. It's also what the legal requirement is right now, which is a good thing unless you want to complain about things on the internet. Except of course then you can always go for the 'ignore reality and make fun of a fictional situation that would be silly if it were true', always a favourite ploy.

Zip Napalm wrote:What is really needed is a test of some sort that anyone can pass.

Wait a minute,....

That would be stupid.

Zip Papalm FTW!

sebster wrote:

Zip Napalm wrote:What is really needed is a test of some sort that anyone can pass.

Wait a minute,....

That would be stupid.

What is needed is a legal requirement where employers are required to only assess the relevant criteria for the job, and to continue to monitor the results of their assessment criteria to ensure that only relevant criteria are being directly and indirectly assessed. Because that would be both equitable and good business practice. It's also what the legal requirement is right now, which is a good thing unless you want to complain about things on the internet. Except of course then you can always go for the 'ignore reality and make fun of a fictional situation that would be silly if it were true', always a favourite ploy.

So you would be in favor of laws and restrictions on hiring practices that are only job relevant?

As an employer I could not ask "What's your favorite TV show?", unless of course the job entailed work in television. Would your "legal requirement" be enforced by police or civil court? What army of bureaucrats do you intend to oversee and monitor adherence to the criteria, whether direct or indirect? Who will decide what is relevant? You? Me? A particularly wise latina women?

There is your reality.

Again Zip Napalm FTW.
(Who IS this god amongst men?!?)

sebster wrote:
I wonder if this case will discourage the practice?

Maybe. I suppose the less objective means of comparison utilized during the hiring process, the more difficult any discrimination case would be to make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zip Napalm wrote:
Would your "legal requirement" be enforced by police or civil court?

Why would it be enforced by the police? Anti-discrimination laws aren't even enforce by the police.

Zip Napalm wrote:
What army of bureaucrats do you intend to oversee and monitor adherence to the criteria, whether direct or indirect? Who will decide what is relevant? You? Me? A particularly wise latina women?

Presumably the judge that hears the case.

Zip Napalm wrote:So you would be in favor of laws and restrictions on hiring practices that are only job relevant?

Is this how you have conversations in real life? Take one sentence in isolation from the rest of the discussion, and then take that statement in as poor a light as possible? It isn't a very practical means of conversation. Because there have already been a few posts in this thread talking about how the law at present only became an issue when the non-relevant criteria has a racial impact. Did you not read them, or did you just find it easier to ignore them in order to make your point?

But if you need me to spell it out again, the law at present states that if you include criteria in your selection process that is not relevant to the job, and that selection criteria impacts some ethnicities more than others, this is racial discrimination. While it would be more equitable to extend this additional criteria to non-racial impacts, that is not remotely practical. I think the law at present is a sensible compromise.

As an employer I could not ask "What's your favorite TV show?", unless of course the job entailed work in television. Would your "legal requirement" be enforced by police or civil court? What army of bureaucrats do you intend to oversee and monitor adherence to the criteria, whether direct or indirect? Who will decide what is relevant? You? Me? A particularly wise latina women?

What on Earth are you talking about? What I mentioned was the law is it is right now, as has already been pointed out in this thread. So the police and legal involvement would be the exact same as it is now (that is to say none at all and only if there is a racial impact). Which is a sensible middle ground, ensuring equity in employment opportunities, without wasting the time of businesses and the legal system in checking every single employment process undertaken.

There is your reality.

It's everyone's reality. Well, the part where I pointed out what the law is right now is reality. The part where you envision police checking every single employment is apparently part of your reality, on whatever alternate dimension it is you're posting from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Maybe. I suppose the less objective means of comparison utilized during the hiring process, the more difficult any discrimination case would be to make.

It's an odd one. Normally the response is that when in doubt, formalise the process to make it more objective. But when the law requires no intention of bias, I'm not sure that's going to help.

Over here you'll often see formalised scoring of candidates, so you give candidates scores out of five for different criteria like 'communication skills' and 'technical knowledge', but that's about as far as it goes.