Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.