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.

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.