NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30346519//


City had a test for Fire fighter Promotions, few of the minority applicants passed the test. The city threw out the test and had come up with another un mentioned means of determining promotions. Those who had taken the test and scored highly got upset and sued.

My opinion is those who had taken the test should have gotten promoted. If the city wants to change the rules they need to change it next year before people had studied for and taken a test.

Yeah, you don't throw out a test or change the rules AFTER the event. You HAVE to beta test that test ahead of time, if you suspect that the results will be unfair.

If, on the other hand, you're looking for a predetermined outcome based on skin color, either pro or anti minority, then fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I don't care about the color of a person's skin when they're supposed to be saving lives.

Yeah, you don't throw out a test or change the rules AFTER the event. You HAVE to beta test that test ahead of time, if you suspect that the results will be unfair.

If, on the other hand, you're looking for a predetermined outcome based on skin color, either pro or anti minority, then fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I don't care about the color of a person's skin when they're supposed to be saving lives.

^^^This, ethnicity shouldnt be mentioned at all....

Yeah, you don't throw out a test or change the rules AFTER the event. You HAVE to beta test that test ahead of time, if you suspect that the results will be unfair.

If, on the other hand, you're looking for a predetermined outcome based on skin color, either pro or anti minority, then fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I don't care about the color of a person's skin when they're supposed to be saving lives.

I third this.

Oh, way to go affirmative action! Screw the white males to help everybody else. This kind of stuff annoys me. While I hardly support discrimination against minorities, it makes as little sense to discriminate against the majority. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the city, then I will seriously lose it.

I assume that the test they took pertains to their job, if so, then the people who scored low on it, they shouldn't be promoted. Mainly because it's obvious they did not know their stuff and need to study up on it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30346519//


City had a test for Fire fighter Promotions, few of the minority applicants passed the test. The city threw out the test and had come up with another un mentioned means of determining promotions. Those who had taken the test and scored highly got upset and sued.

My opinion is those who had taken the test should have gotten promoted. If the city wants to change the rules they need to change it next year before people had studied for and taken a test.
This is a very interesting and convoluted case, else the Supremes wouldn't be hearing it. Some of the issues are: Was the test used actually biased? How is that determined? If it is biased, why was it chosen? And then there's the whole issue of whether the city is at all liable in any way, to either honour the results, or pay damages if they don't. It is not nearly so cut-and-dried as might be made out, either in the popular media, or here on NSG, for that matter.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30346519//


City had a test for Fire fighter Promotions, few of the minority applicants passed the test. The city threw out the test and had come up with another un mentioned means of determining promotions. Those who had taken the test and scored highly got upset and sued.

My opinion is those who had taken the test should have gotten promoted. If the city wants to change the rules they need to change it next year before people had studied for and taken a test.

I'm with the plaintiffs on this one. Mainly because no one can explain to me exactly how this test discriminates against minorities.

The fact that no black firefighter passed the test could easily be a statistical anomaly, but so far it's the only "evidence" I've seen that there's a bias.

For a verdict against the plaintiffs to be fair the city would have to show
a) that there is something in particular that makes black people less able to score high on that test and
b) whatever that "something" is, it would have to have no affect on the applicant's ability to do the job.

White people don't need help, folks. They have had hundreds of years of discrimination in their favor. Its time the minorities started getting theirs, too. And let's not pretend that discrimination ended when slavery/segregation/Jim Crow/etc. did. Its still taking place and we all pay into the system that enables it. That the government does anything to curtail this blatant violation of minority rights is miraculous, because the government does so much already towards the continuance of majority privilege.

The affirmative action policies in this country don't go far enough, because of our ridiculous reliance upon our mythical "meritocracy". Baby steps for baby feet, I suppose.

White people don't need help, folks. They have had hundreds of years of discrimination in their favor. Its time the minorities started getting theirs, too. And let's not pretend that discrimination ended when slavery/segregation/Jim Crow/etc. did. Its still taking place and we all pay into the system that enables it. That the government does anything to curtail this blatant violation of minority rights is miraculous, because the government does so much already towards the continuance of majority privilege.

The affirmative action policies in this country don't go far enough, because of our ridiculous reliance upon our mythical "meritocracy". Baby steps for baby feet, I suppose.

Well, I wouldnt say they need help, but I would be against any kind of 'help' for any ethnicity, majority or otherwise...

Well, I wouldnt say they need help, but I would be against any kind of 'help' for any ethnicity, majority or otherwise...

That's exactly the problem. You don't see/ignore the help that the majority (white folks) receives, but when the government tries to institute programs to help the minority, suddenly everyone's up in arms over things not being fair.

That's exactly the problem. You don't see/ignore the help that the majority (white folks) receives, but when the government tries to institute programs to help the minority, suddenly everyone's up in arms over things not being fair.

Thats because I havent gotten any help, i get up in arms when anyone else does, :p

Thats because I havent gotten any help, i get up in arms when anyone else does, :p

I can practically guarantee you have. I don't want to attack you, because there's nothing wrong with receiving help, but the sooner we all accept that there are gross and unfair inequalities in our so-called just society, the sooner we can fix those inequalities, stop living in abstract liberalism, and start living in real liberalism.

I can practically guarantee you have. I don't want to attack you, because there's nothing wrong with receiving help, but the sooner we all accept that there are gross and unfair inequalities in our so-called just society, the sooner we can fix those inequalities, stop living in abstract liberalism, and start living in real liberalism.
Youd have to show me where, Ive only had one scholarship and it was the ACT scholarship, that im fixin to lose...I dont qualify for much else...

Besides, Liberalism is itself an abstract concept...

I can practically guarantee you have. I don't want to attack you, because there's nothing wrong with receiving help, but the sooner we all accept that there are gross and unfair inequalities in our so-called just society, the sooner we can fix those inequalities, stop living in abstract liberalism, and start living in real liberalism.

Just out of curiosity, what is this help that he has received, but minorities haven't?

Just out of curiosity, what is this help that he has received, but minorities haven't?

I cant figure it out, Ive never really been promoted to anything, I was asked once, but turned it down, it was at a Movie theater, lol...

And, in fact, the only reason I was asked was because the previous head usher, a minority, had left...

Now i dont blame him for having his spot, he was very good at it, I just didnt think I could do as good a job actually, lol...

I cant figure it out, Ive never really been promoted to anything, I was asked once, but turned it down, it was at a Movie theater, lol...

And, in fact, the only reason I was asked was because the previous head usher, a minority, had left...

Now i dont blame him for having his spot, he was very good at it, I just didnt think I could do as good a job actually, lol...

I can see some theoretical arguments, such as cultural expectations of white people vs black people, or some shit.

Besides, Liberalism is itself an abstract concept...

Sorry, abstract liberalism is a sociological concept. Its the adherence in words to objectives such as liberty and equality, but not in actions.

Just out of curiosity, what is this help that he has received, but minorities haven't?

Again, I don't want to single him out, because he could be unique. Its just, chances are him being white, he has received aid that a minority hasn't. Obviously there are poor white people and rich black people, but when I pick on Skallvia I am not really - he's just my example of the aggregate. I'm sorry if you took offense, Skall! That wasn't my intention! :)

I think Shapiro has a strong argument for the reproduction of inequality through inheritance. For Shapiro, inheritance isn't just after death, but any exchange of goods or money made during one's life as well. Since white people have greater wealth (due in most part to owning their homes at a MUCH greater rate than blacks, which is due in most part to the racist policies of the government and realtors post-WWII), they also have more assets to pass on during their lifetimes. I am going to college right now, but I don't have to buy my books each semester because my parents chip in and do so. That's thousands of dollars over the course of four years that I receive money that my fellow black student wouldn't receive, because his parents aren't able to contribute that much.

To put the concentration of wealth in perspective, the top 1% wealthiest people have under their control 34.3% of all the wealth. The top 10% have a WHOPPING 71.2% of all the wealth! Whereas the bottom 90% has a meager 28.7%.

There are other examples, if you'd like them. Government policies, other reproducing factors... all of them lead me to believe that active discrimination is hardly a thing of the past, and we need policies like affirmative action to just as actively combat it.

(Thomas Shapiro, The Hidden Cost of Being African American: http://books.google.com/books?id=ld3HPpJHHJgC)

That's exactly the problem. You don't see/ignore the help that the majority (white folks) receives, but when the government tries to institute programs to help the minority, suddenly everyone's up in arms over things not being fair.

I don't think you quite understand that racism doesn't mean "white people discriminating against every other race."

*snip*

Yeah, see thats the problem, my parents dont have that kind of money, my dad's a Truck Driver, his dad had various joe jobs and a small farm, as in dirt poor, and it gets less money further you go back...

there's no inherent wealth coming this way, and, being that Mississippi is the poorest in the Union, for the majority of our residents...

down here, that argument just doesnt fly...

EDIT: Now, personally, I think Affirmative Action programs should be based off of your Socio-Economic Status, rather than ethnicity, which, I think would solve this kind of problem...

Again, I don't want to single him out, because he could be unique. Its just, chances are him being white, he has received aid that a minority hasn't. Obviously there are poor white people and rich black people, but when I pick on Skallvia I am not really - he's just my example of the aggregate. I'm sorry if you took offense, Skall! That wasn't my intention! :)

I think Shapiro has a strong argument for the reproduction of inequality through inheritance. For Shapiro, inheritance isn't just after death, but any exchange of goods or money made during one's life as well. Since white people have greater wealth (due in most part to owning their homes at a MUCH greater rate than blacks, which is due in most part to the racist policies of the government and realtors post-WWII), they also have more assets to pass on during their lifetimes. I am going to college right now, but I don't have to buy my books each semester because my parents chip in and do so. That's thousands of dollars over the course of four years that I receive money that my fellow black student wouldn't receive, because his parents aren't able to contribute that much.

To put the concentration of wealth in perspective, the top 1% wealthiest people have under their control 34.3% of all the wealth. The top 10% have a WHOPPING 71.2% of all the wealth! Whereas the bottom 90% has a meager 28.7%.

There are other examples, if you'd like them. Government policies, other reproducing factors... all of them lead me to believe that active discrimination is hardly a thing of the past, and we need policies like affirmative action to just as actively combat it.

No. To fix that, you just redistribute income using different methods. In the UK, you can receive grants to pay help towards your education if your income is below a certain threshold. You don't need affirmative action, because income inequality is not something that JUST affects minorities.

No. To fix that, you just redistribute income using different methods. In the UK, you can receive grants to pay help towards your education if your income is below a certain threshold. You don't need affirmative action, because income inequality is not something that JUST affects minorities.

How come the UK always steals my ideas, :(

:p

I don't think you quite understand that racism doesn't mean "white people discriminating against every other race."

Uh huh, "reverse racism is still racism!" Unfortunately, in the past it sure has, and now we're trying to correct that. The term reverse racism is in itself a reproduction of the new racial order and I don't use it in general, plus "reverse racism is just and fair!" doesn't have the same ring to it. But, I guess it'll have to do.

I would also like to point you in the direction of White supremacy and racism in the post-civil rights era by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (http://books.google.com/books?id=rVcdyCYwnosC), which addresses such arguments far better than I can.

I agree that programs which address socioeconomic disparities would be favorable to affirmative action in its present form, but that's not what's on the table here. Our society hates poor people almost as much as it hates black people, but the issue of discrimination against blacks is easier to tackle than the issue of discrimination against poor people. In our capitalist "meritocracy", its very easy for people to explain away poverty by simply saying "they deserve what they have". Often, this is a racist argument (black people are lazy, therefore the fact that more of them are poor than whites is obviously a symptom of this), but on occasion it can be used against white people as well.

I would also like to point you in the direction of White supremacy and racism in the post-civil rights era by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (http://books.google.com/books?id=rVcdyCYwnosC), which addresses such arguments far better than I can.

Well, Ive never read the book and they want me to pay for it, so, Im probably not, :p

But I do take issue with some of the popular passages it lists...

"How strongly would you object if a member of your family wanted to bring a Negro friend home to dinner?"

I wouldnt at all, in fact, Ive done it, although not in the context I believe he's suggesting, my own relatives are testament to the fact that my family did not, my grandmother's side has a significant portion of Native/African-American descendants...

"White people have a right to keep Negroes out of their neighborhoods if they want to, and Negroes should respect that right"

They dont have that right down here, and any who tried, would be quickly sued, and defeated, my personal neighborhood does not do this, or one of my best friends, wouldnt be here...in fact, our literal neighbor wouldnt be there...

as far as the ghetto parts, I cant comment on those really, Biloxi doesnt really have those, poor whites and blacks live side by side...although there is a significant Asian segment, with few other ethnicities, although its mostly because of the lack of English...

Affirmative action at the expense of competance, when its a job where lives are routinely at stake, is staggering in its stupidity.

Of course, its possible that their's some side to this story I haven't heard about, but as it is, God that's retarded. The first time, God forbid, that someone dies because a firefighter failed to meet the standards of their job, the people behind this should perhaps be charged with criminal negligence. And sued again.

Testing for government jobs is usually only done at the preliminary phase. You're ultimately hired, assuming you can manage (usually) a 70% or better on the test, after an interview. Scoring of the interview, of course, is completely arbitrary. All interviewees must be asked the same questions in the same room in the same chair by the same people (etc.) but if the agency wants hispanic (for example), they get hispanic, and so on. If the testing doesn't yield hispanic applicants, it might be changed from a written to a verbal exam, whereby the applicant is graded arbitrarily; again, the agency gets their black/hispanic/whatever applicant in the job. Having worked a government job, I can say that this has been the protocol for a very long time. If an agency needs a minority hire, they get it. My advice to the white applicant is to get over it and hope for better luck at your next interview.

Uh huh, "reverse racism is still racism!" Unfortunately, in the past it sure has, and now we're trying to correct that. The term reverse racism is in itself a reproduction of the new racial order and I don't use it in general, plus "reverse racism is just and fair!" doesn't have the same ring to it. But, I guess it'll have to do.

"Racism is ok as long as it isn't white people doing it!"
Thanks Jesse Jackson.

This seems pertinent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ytfuqpibY

Testing for government jobs is usually only done at the preliminary phase. You're ultimately hired, assuming you can manage (usually) a 70% or better on the test, after an interview. Scoring of the interview, of course, is completely arbitrary. All interviewees must be asked the same questions in the same room in the same chair by the same people (etc.) but if the agency wants hispanic (for example), they get hispanic, and so on. If the testing doesn't yield hispanic applicants, it might be changed from a written to a verbal exam, whereby the applicant is graded arbitrarily; again, the agency gets their black/hispanic/whatever applicant in the job. Having worked a government job, I can say that this has been the protocol for a very long time. If an agency needs a minority hire, they get it. My advice to the white applicant is to get over it and hope for better luck at your next interview.

Not so easy to get over being sidelined for your skin colour, is it?

And don't tell me that other races have had it worse. A greater injustice does not excuse a lesser one.

Just out of curiosity, what is this help that he has received, but minorities haven't?

The right to vote, work a job and inherit property for the last 300 years... I'm just guessing.

The right to vote, work a job and inherit property for the last 300 years... I'm just guessing.

Why should inequality among past generations be an excuse to continue inequality today? Will we spend all of history taking turns between which groups we discriminate against?

Why should inequality among past generations be an excuse to continue inequality today? Will we spend all of history taking turns between which groups we discriminate against?

No, we just jump back and forth from one group discriminating against the other.

The right to vote, work a job and inherit property for the last 300 years... I'm just guessing.

IM 300 YEARS OLD!!! MY GAWD! :eek:

To everyone who thinks that this decision is outrageous/unfair and that the test is NOT culturally biased: To what do you attribute the inequality of the results? Is every minority who took the test just less qualified than every white person who took it? How exactly did the test show they were less qualified?

IM 300 YEARS OLD!!! MY GAWD! :eek:

Quiet down grandpa.

Why should inequality among past generations be an excuse to continue inequality today? Will we spend all of history taking turns between which groups we discriminate against?

Because so far, no one's thought of a better short-term solution.

To everyone who thinks that this decision is outrageous/unfair and that the test is NOT culturally biased: To what do you attribute the inequality of the results? Is every minority who took the test just less qualified than every white person who took it? How exactly did the test show they were less qualified?

I think the first thing to do is define culturally biased, based on ethnicity...


The rest, would be for the Supreme Court to decide, I dont dismiss that this test could be biased, my arguments were on Affirmative Action in general, as exampled by Virginia Cooper...

To everyone who thinks that this decision is outrageous/unfair and that the test is NOT culturally biased: To what do you attribute the inequality of the results? Is every minority who took the test just less qualified than every white person who took it? How exactly did the test show they were less qualified?

No, the people who scored highest on the test were white, but very few (two hispanics) minorities scored high enough to rate a promotion.

The one thing that really confuses me is that the test was 'culturally biased', I have no idea how a test on how to successfully put out fires in a safe manner can be 'culturally biased'. I don't think such a thing is culturally relative.

To everyone who thinks that this decision is outrageous/unfair and that the test is NOT culturally biased: To what do you attribute the inequality of the results? Is every minority who took the test just less qualified than every white person who took it? How exactly did the test show they were less qualified?

Well, I'll concede it might have been a poor test. But where does it say that every minority did worse than every white person? I mean, I doubt test results often match demographics perfectly.

Their's also the fact that minorities are often from poorer backgrounds, and may get inferior diets, health care, education, etc. But in that case, the solution is fixing the root causes of inequality, not balancing it out after the fact in a manner that puts less qualified people at the top (if that is indeed what happened here).

Why should inequality among past generations be an excuse to continue inequality today? Will we spend all of history taking turns between which groups we discriminate against?

The problem is that the discrimination isn't "among past generations". The inequality we are continuing today is the inequality of the past against blacks, just under new guises. Sure, it is far more covert than it was in era of Jim Crow and segregation, but it is still prevalent. The only argument against affirmative action is one of abstract liberalism and new order racism. You talk of equality, but the actions that you support are ones which perpetuate the discriminations which are, in fact, not past at all.

There are better ways than affirmative action to address these issues. But affirmative action is a current government policy.

The problem is that the discrimination isn't "among past generations". The inequality we are continuing today is the inequality of the past against blacks, just under new guises.

Please tell me where I said that all discrimination is past? If I gave that impression, it was certainly not intentional.

Sure, it is far more covert than it was in era of Jim Crow and segregation, but it is still prevalent. The only argument against affirmative action is one of abstract liberalism and new order racism. You talk of equality, but the actions that you support are ones which perpetuate the discriminations which are, in fact, not past at all.

How is a society of true equality "abstract liberalism?" And how is racism not a valid argument against a policy?

Also, I do not support actions that perpetuate discrimination. I believe I have made it explicitely clear that I want to eliminate the root causes of inequality, not try to patch things up in an unfair and incompetant manner after the fact. If you are attempting to play the racism card against me in a debate, you are making a sever mistake.

There are better ways than affirmative action to address these issues. But affirmative action is a current government policy.

Thank you for conceding my point. It is not the best way, but it is a current government policy in many places. I'm not going to argue that.

Not so easy to get over being sidelined for your skin colour, is it?

And don't tell me that other races have had it worse. A greater injustice does not excuse a lesser one.

Skin color might have nothing at all to do with it. Staffing patterns may simply follow demographic projections for the local area (esp. in library, teaching, social services, law enforcement (etc.) jobs), or proceed from some need to preserve an agency's organizational culture. It's just a fact of life. What I mean is that worrying about it isn't going to improve your lot, as a job seeker. These aren't things that the Supreme Court has any real ability to change.

Getting screwed for a job despite greater competency, especially if its because of what group you were born into, is not a small matter. It might not be the most practical course to take it to the Supreme Court, but the bitterness and anger such actions can inspire are at least understandable.

I wonder, would you tell a black person to "get over it?" Granted, their's more of a history their, but still.

How is a society of true equality "abstract liberalism?" And how is racism not a valid argument against a policy?
Because the society where affirmative action isn't a policy isn't one of "true equality". By that phrase I assume you mean one where affirmative action isn't discriminating against white people in favor of minorities. However, our society right now discriminates against minorities in more ways than one in favor of whites, so affirmative action is a policy which attempts to counter this current discrimination. I know SCOTUS has applied its own guidelines to such policies, but they are misinformed. The measure by which affirmative action should be constitutional is not one where a specific instance of discrimination can be pointed to, because this treats discrimination as it was pre-civil rights movement. Today, racism is covert, and systematic. I am not calling anyone in this thread racist for opposing affirmative action, for the same reason you can't rightly say that because you personally have never discriminated you shouldn't have to support such a policy. This is an individualist view of racism and discrimination. I am a follower of a systematic view, which is more in the vein of believing even though I have never personally been awarded a job over a black person just because I was white, doesn't mean I haven't paid into a system and society that values my skin over someone whose skin is darker than mine.

To everyone who thinks that this decision is outrageous/unfair and that the test is NOT culturally biased: To what do you attribute the inequality of the results? Is every minority who took the test just less qualified than every white person who took it? How exactly did the test show they were less qualified?

Quite possible, yes.

A county-wide survey at my last job found that about 65% of hispanic immigrants (recent immigrants being the majority of the hispanic workforce) in the agency's service area (the county) had not completed high school, whereas 85+% of Asian immigrants had some college or had completed college. The area being roughly 60% hispanic and 25% asian meant that our test results were lopsided. The proper result was eventually reached (a hispanic hire) but not without some difficulty.

Getting screwed for a job despite greater competency, especially if its because of what group you were born into, is not a small matter. It might not be the most practical course to take it to the Supreme Court, but the bitterness and anger such actions can inspire are at least understandable.

I wonder, would you tell a black person to "get over it?" Granted, their's more of a history their, but still.

Frankly, there are more important things than formally-recognized competency. If citizens are reluctant to approach an employee who is of a different ethnic background (as is very strongly the case with some groups), it's a simple fact that your staffing pattern needs to adapt to reflect that fact. A person being a good fit with an organization and a good fit with the community could be far more important than having one extra year of previous work experience, or a degree from a better-known school. My advice to "get over it" was against dwelling on difficulties - a self-defeating habit - rather than an injunction never to question the status quo. Finding a work environment that is suitable for you might take some work. That's all.

*sigh*

I deliberately avoided creating a thread on this subject because it involved complicated and nuanced questions of fact and law that go beyond mere knee-jerk reactions. Thus, it is unsuitable for discussion in NSG. :wink:

Labeling things "reverse discrimination" or "affirmative action" may make questions seem simple to some of you, but neither label fits this case very well.

The city instituted a new test for promotion designed by a private company. When the test was administered, the results were heavily weighed against minorities -- who were already underrepresented in the fire department. After months of public hearings and inquiry into the matter, the city determined the tests had been flawed and would not be rigidly adhered to in granting promotions. No "affirmative action" policy or changing of scores was implemented by the city. Nonetheless, those who had done well on the new test sued claiming that not blindly following the test results was a form of discrimination. One of the complicating issues is that tests in the past have been used that had a disparate impact on minorities and have been ruled to be discriminatory. It seems strange to say that, after consulting experts, the city deterimining that the test was improper could itself be called discrimination.

I am not without sympathy for those who would have been promoted based on the test. This isn't an easy case. But it turns the law somewhat on its head to say you must use a test even if you think it is discriminatory.

Of course, although none of it is really relevant to the case at hand, there are the usual arguments against minority advancement and ignorance of white male entitlement in this thread. If you don't think white males have a definite advantage in U.S. society, you are either deliberately ignorant or deluded beyond redemtion.

-snip-

I agree with most of what you say but..

I still find the idea that a test can be ethnically biased, very bizarre. I cannot envision a question, regarding fire safety, that would enable a white person to answer it with ease but would be considerably difficult for a minority.

*sigh*

I deliberately avoided creating a thread on this subject because it involved complicated and nuanced questions of fact and law that go beyond mere knee-jerk reactions. Thus, it is unsuitable for discussion in NSG. :wink:

Those seemed to be the types of reactions the article hoped to elicit. Probably because it's far more interesting to observe - the reactions can tell us more about ourselves than legal theory or the words which happen to have been spoken or written by judges none of us have heard of in past cases none of us are aware of. Some of the descriptions of our egalitarian, meritocratic government hiring/promotion process were enough to make the whole thing worth it for me. Max Weber would be proud, I guess.

This is just my personal observation, but it always seem like the people who are most bothered by affirmative action and "reverse racism" have never actually suffered from its consequences.

*sigh*

I deliberately avoided creating a thread on this subject because it involved complicated and nuanced questions of fact and law that go beyond mere knee-jerk reactions. Thus, it is unsuitable for discussion in NSG. :wink:

Labeling things "reverse discrimination" or "affirmative action" may make questions seem simple to some of you, but neither label fits this case very well.

The city instituted a new test for promotion designed by a private company. When the test was administered, the results were heavily weighed against minorities -- who were already underrepresented in the fire department. After months of public hearings and inquiry into the matter, the city determined the tests had been flawed and would not be rigidly adhered to in granting promotions. No "affirmative action" policy or changing of scores was implemented by the city. Nonetheless, those who had done well on the new test sued claiming that not blindly following the test results was a form of discrimination. One of the complicating issues is that tests in the past have been used that had a disparate impact on minorities and have been ruled to be discriminatory. It seems strange to say that, after consulting experts, the city deterimining that the test was improper could itself be called discrimination.

I want to know this evidence that the test is biased.
Saying "experts" have deemed it biased, is little more then an appeal to authority. More so with some money, I could produce experts and mathematicians that would claim the results to be a fluke and the test are the most unbiased way to gauge a applicant for pormotion


I am not without sympathy for those who would have been promoted based on the test. This isn't an easy case. But it turns the law somewhat on its head to say you must use a test even if you think it is discriminatory.

Declaring something discriminatory based upon its results is dangerous. Test are designed to test aptitude which people will have in varying degrees. To throw out test results because you don't like them makes test relevant only when those in power, approve of those who passed.

Of course, although none of it is really relevant to the case at hand, there are the usual arguments against minority advancement and ignorance of white male entitlement in this thread. If you don't think white males have a definite advantage in U.S. society, you are either deliberately ignorant or deluded beyond redemtion.

We are not talking about people being denied employment. We are talking about people already in the system, abiding by the rules of that system. Is it possible the minority applicants were newer hires? It is good the fire department has opened up from what was before described as a good old boy network. But perhaps there are other factors on the applicants pass /fail rates then are being mentioned.

I agree with most of what you say but..

I still find the idea that a test can be ethnically biased, very bizarre. I cannot envision a question, regarding fire safety, that would enable a white person to answer it with ease but would be considerably difficult for a minority.

Well they do exist. It is largely tied to how the question is answered not the question itself. You can see these in the SAT on more than just race. The SAT is written to the standards of north easterners, and as such north easterners tend to score higher then people from other parts of the US. However, once your in a profession I would be rather insistent on you knowing the linga franca of the profession.

*sigh*

I deliberately avoided creating a thread on this subject because it involved complicated and nuanced questions of fact and law that go beyond mere knee-jerk reactions. Thus, it is unsuitable for discussion in NSG. :wink:

Labeling things "reverse discrimination" or "affirmative action" may make questions seem simple to some of you, but neither label fits this case very well.

The city instituted a new test for promotion designed by a private company. When the test was administered, the results were heavily weighed against minorities -- who were already underrepresented in the fire department. After months of public hearings and inquiry into the matter, the city determined the tests had been flawed and would not be rigidly adhered to in granting promotions. No "affirmative action" policy or changing of scores was implemented by the city. Nonetheless, those who had done well on the new test sued claiming that not blindly following the test results was a form of discrimination. One of the complicating issues is that tests in the past have been used that had a disparate impact on minorities and have been ruled to be discriminatory. It seems strange to say that, after consulting experts, the city deterimining that the test was improper could itself be called discrimination.

I am not without sympathy for those who would have been promoted based on the test. This isn't an easy case. But it turns the law somewhat on its head to say you must use a test even if you think it is discriminatory.

Of course, although none of it is really relevant to the case at hand, there are the usual arguments against minority advancement and ignorance of white male entitlement in this thread. If you don't think white males have a definite advantage in U.S. society, you are either deliberately ignorant or deluded beyond redemtion.

The problem then exists that if an arbitrary written test doesn't discount "racism" then nothing does.

Those seemed to be the types of reactions the article hoped to elicit.

Thanks for your faith in my posting of an article.

Thanks for your faith in my posting of an article.

Hm? I was talking about the article's author, not you. You're only working with what's readily available.

Hm? I was talking about the article's author, not you. You're only working with what's readily available.

Yeah I honestly Want more info. I want to see what was on the test.
here is an additional article.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-22-scotus-firefighters_N.htm?csp=34

Declaring something discriminatory based upon its results is dangerous. Test are designed to test aptitude which people will have in varying degrees. To throw out test results because you don't like them makes test relevant only when those in power, approve of those who passed.

If the results of a test are severely skewed, the anomaly lies with either the test or the participants. If you don't think the test results showed any bias, then you must agree that the bias and racism inherent in our society has done many minorities in this country a grave disservice--one that should be intolerable to us all. Or you think there's something fundamentally different between white people and many minorities beyond the cosmetic.

If the results of a test are severely skewed, the anomaly lies with either the test or the participants. If you don't think the test results showed any bias, then you must agree that the bias and racism inherent in our society has done many minorities in this country a grave disservice--one that should be intolerable to us all. Or you think there's something fundamentally different between white people and many minorities beyond the cosmetic.

Or maybe this particular fire department doesnt equal the rest of fire departments everywhere...

and that the result reflects the actions of its employees, and not all firemen as a whole...

I mean, I dont know that this test wasn't biased, but I dont know if it was either, and until that can be determined, the firemen do have a case...

The right to vote, work a job and inherit property for the last 300 years... I'm just guessing.
Except that you are looking at this in a ridiculously collective-blame point of view. He is not 300 years old. He has only had the right to vote, work and inherit property for however old he is, and during those years of life, all other races and ethnicities have had the same rights as he has. Thus, you're calling for him to participate unequaly in something due to historical misfortunes far beyond his control.

So, if you look at this from an individual and not a collective standpoint, you are negatively discriminating against individual A in order to postively discriminate against individual B, and your excuse is saying that individual A was born into a race (an action of which he had no control) that, years before he was born, commited crimes, thus he should be held accountable for his race's historical actions. Individual A's only individual crime was being born into his race. Clearly a crime he had no control of.

If we look at ourselves as individuals, this argument makes zero sense because we clearly are not responsible for things which we have no control of.

Isn't that right, Ledgersia?

If the results of a test are severely skewed, the anomaly lies with either the test or the participants. If you don't think the test results showed any bias, then you must agree that the bias and racism inherent in our society has done many minorities in this country a grave disservice--one that should be intolerable to us all. Or you think there's something fundamentally different between white people and many minorities beyond the cosmetic.

why do skewed results of participants have to be skewed by racism?
Take a classroom. Number students randomly 1-4. Average all the 1's all the 2's and so on.. test results. The averages will differ.
if the 4's scored lower then the 1's it does not prove that the test favored 1's and discriminated against 4's, and it does not prove that society discriminates against 4's.
I haven't even seen a search for other possible causes.
Why does every time that a statistical difference arises it has to discrimination or racism.

I don't mean to be inflammatory, but if we're going to blame people for being born with a lighter skin tone, which gives them a higher probability of having the privileges caused by being born into a rich family, and then put that blame into "compensation for racism" wording, wouldn't that be exactly the same as saying "all white people are racists"?

That's what it looks like to me, but I'm an outsider in this whole issue...

To me, the problem isn't why they changed the results; it is that they changed the results. You can have the best reasons in the world, and shifting the goalposts is STILL an unacceptable action.

The city was damned if it did damned if it didnt. If they redid the test, they screw people who did well originally and if they dont they are stuck sticking with the results of a biased bad test.

The city was damned if it didnt damned if it didnt. If they redid the test, they screw people who did well originally and if they dont they are stuck sticking with the results of a biased bad test.

Is the original test actually biased??

Is the original test actually biased??

Beat me to it.

Isn't that right, Ledgersia?

*wakes up, groggy*

Huh...what?

*wakes up, groggy*

Huh...what?

I just knew you were very individualistic so I was wondering if you agreed.

I have a theory! As we all know, firefighting is a physically and athletically demanding profession. And obviously black people are genetically superior to white people. Of course, firefighting has always been a horribly underpaid profession. So clearly the superior black people must have all gone to the higher-paying physically and athletically demanding jobs. This leaves a greater proportion of white candidates for the lower-paying firefighting jobs.
QED

sad... I would rather sink back to the belief that those who are running the local FD's got there because they are the best at what they do and not because of Ethnicity.

sad... I would rather sink back to the belief that those who are running the local FD's got there because they are the best at what they do and not because of Ethnicity.

The question from the opposing direction does the test measure fire fighting abilities accurately.

The question from the opposing direction does the test measure fire fighting abilities accurately.

it's not just firefighting abilities, but command abilities as well. and last I've checked, the color of one's skin does NOT count to one's ability to command and lead.

it's not just firefighting abilities, but command abilities as well. and last I've checked, the color of one's skin does NOT count to one's ability to command and lead.

Okay. does the test measure those leadership and command abilities ?

*sigh*

I deliberately avoided creating a thread on this subject because it involved complicated and nuanced questions of fact and law that go beyond mere knee-jerk reactions. Thus, it is unsuitable for discussion in NSG. :wink:

Labeling things "reverse discrimination" or "affirmative action" may make questions seem simple to some of you, but neither label fits this case very well.

The city instituted a new test for promotion designed by a private company. When the test was administered, the results were heavily weighed against minorities -- who were already underrepresented in the fire department. After months of public hearings and inquiry into the matter, the city determined the tests had been flawed and would not be rigidly adhered to in granting promotions. No "affirmative action" policy or changing of scores was implemented by the city. Nonetheless, those who had done well on the new test sued claiming that not blindly following the test results was a form of discrimination. One of the complicating issues is that tests in the past have been used that had a disparate impact on minorities and have been ruled to be discriminatory. It seems strange to say that, after consulting experts, the city deterimining that the test was improper could itself be called discrimination.

I am not without sympathy for those who would have been promoted based on the test. This isn't an easy case. But it turns the law somewhat on its head to say you must use a test even if you think it is discriminatory.

Of course, although none of it is really relevant to the case at hand, there are the usual arguments against minority advancement and ignorance of white male entitlement in this thread. If you don't think white males have a definite advantage in U.S. society, you are either deliberately ignorant or deluded beyond redemtion.
Thank you for saying what I wanted to say, but better :fluffle:
Here's a linky-clicky-thingie to a PDF about white privilege (http://www.case.edu/president/aaction/UnpackingTheKnapsack.pdf) that may enlighten (or not).

Okay. does the test measure those leadership and command abilities ?

don't know since I am not a firefighter.

don't know since I am not a firefighter.

Well lets say the test was flawed. Do you throw it out now ? Or do you accept the results and make a new test for next year ?

Well lets say the test was flawed. Do you throw it out now ? Or do you accept the results and make a new test for next year ? We can say alot of things. IS the test flawed? some say yes, some say no. and it's now up to SCotUS.

however, it don't matter to me. as I said, I'm going back to the belief that those leading my local FD's have the job due to their skills and NOT their ethnicity.

In other words, I have no opinion about the test nor their actions since I can only go by second hand accounts. until SCotUS makes a ruling, I have nothing to say about their tests nor the FD tests for Hawaii.

Should an unqualified person get into such a posistion, all that does is risk not only the Firefighter's lives, but those they need to help. and that opens the city and the department up for lawsuits.

Well lets say the test was flawed. Do you throw it out now ? Or do you accept the results and make a new test for next year ?

If the test was flawed, I would say they should make *tentative* promotions (since I would assume that they do need someone in those positions). Then, fix the promotion criteria and use the new rules to determine permanent positions.

If the test was flawed, I would say they should make *tentative* promotions (since I would assume that they do need someone in those positions). Then, fix the promotion criteria and use the new rules to determine permanent positions.

I kinda like this. especially if those that 'fail' the test are allowed to be first to take the new one.

The city was damned if it did damned if it didnt. If they redid the test, they screw people who did well originally and if they dont they are stuck sticking with the results of a biased bad test.

Then they should have just hired the cheapest lawyer they could find to defend against the reverse-racism accusation and let the plaintiffs win.

That way they save money on legal fees because they just have one case and let it go.

They can't be sued for damages for violating civil-rights laws, because they're awarding the promotions under the obligation of a court-order.

Any further legal action would be between the black fire-fighters and the white ones and could leave the city out of it.

If the test was flawed, I would say they should make *tentative* promotions (since I would assume that they do need someone in those positions). Then, fix the promotion criteria and use the new rules to determine permanent positions.

Though that creates issue down the line. It disheartens employees to be promoted then demoted. Could be very bad for retention.

Though that creates issue down the line. It disheartens employees to be promoted then demoted. Could be very bad for retention.

Could be. But the answer to that is openness; accept the results as they stood, but be clear that the results may have caused a problem and different measures will be implemented in the future. Those disappointed this year will be relieved that inequities are being addressed, while those favoured do not suddenly have the rug pulled from under their feet.

Some may be unhappy anyway, but you can never come to a conclusion that will satisfy everyone. You can attempt to be unbiased and fair.

I agree with most of what you say but..

I still find the idea that a test can be ethnically biased, very bizarre. I cannot envision a question, regarding fire safety, that would enable a white person to answer it with ease but would be considerably difficult for a minority.
a possibly biased question regarding fire safety:

1. John william hammilton III, is asked to play tennis with Denice richards of canteburry. After a 20-love match, a fire erupts in the foyer of the Darcy estate. Which reletive should you call first to ensure that the proper fire insurance company is contacted regarding the repairs of the building?

A. The closest living realitive of the Queen's second cousin.
B. John's attorney's brother.
C. Denise's tennis coach who is also her third cousin
D. The Darcy estates accountant?

If the test was flawed, I would say they should make *tentative* promotions (since I would assume that they do need someone in those positions). Then, fix the promotion criteria and use the new rules to determine permanent positions.

If the test was indeed flawed then the city did the proper thing to throw away the tests and the results. Look at it a different way, had the City accidentally issued the answer key along with the test, would people sue because they took the flawed test and did well on it?

So, if you look at this from an individual and not a collective standpoint, you are negatively discriminating against individual A in order to postively discriminate against individual B, and your excuse is saying that individual A was born into a race (an action of which he had no control) that, years before he was born, commited crimes, thus he should be held accountable for his race's historical actions. Individual A's only individual crime was being born into his race. Clearly a crime he had no control of.

Your entire argument is flawed. Black people weren't just discriminated against, they are discriminated against.

The issue at hand is "disparate impact".
in general this criteria is used for written test.
EEOC's Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Criteria, which finds an adverse impact if members of a protected class are selected at a rates less than four fifths (80 percent) of that of another group.
How these are guidelines not laws, at least I think I haven't found it.
My opinions is that measures like this throwing out test results tend to treat the symptoms of racial disadvantage and not cause of racial disadvantage.

Though that creates issue down the line. It disheartens employees to be promoted then demoted. Could be very bad for retention.

It wouldn't really be promotion and then demotion. It would be a matter of having an acting person in the position until a permanent replacement is determined. It would be clear from the start that these were temporary.

And, unless they keep coming up with problematic criteria, it would be a one-time thing.

The right to vote, work a job and inherit property for the last 300 years... I'm just guessing.

Ah, but I don't have that... I'm not that old. :p

To everyone who thinks that this decision is outrageous/unfair and that the test is NOT culturally biased: To what do you attribute the inequality of the results? Is every minority who took the test just less qualified than every white person who took it?
It's possible

How exactly did the test show they were less qualified?
Don't know, didn't take the test.

It wouldn't really be promotion and then demotion. It would be a matter of having an acting person in the position until a permanent replacement is determined. It would be clear from the start that these were temporary.

Except for the part where you increase their pay then decrease it.
Frocking then defrocking rank pay and position is always bad for the moral involved. A temporary appointment should either come with a permanent pay increase, or position leading to a permanent promotion once this mess has been cleared.

And, unless they keep coming up with problematic criteria, it would be a one-time thing.

In the course of the history of Civil rights the one thing that remains constant is recurring problems.

another important reason for affirmative action policies has to do with the way jobs are found in the first place. depending on which study you look at, as many as 50-86% of all jobs are never advertised. these jobs are acquired through connections, which considering their place of privilege, whites have and blacks don't. forcing employers to end this connection-based mentality towards hiring is an important step towards equality. let's not pretend that the job market is one where jobs are gotten based on merit and deservedness. obviously many people (including some of you all) prefer to lie to yourselves about the reality of this situation, but please keep your ignorance out of government policy.

see george lipsitz's the possessive investment in whiteness for my source. I apologize for my shoddy typing-this was sent from my iPod touch

Except for the part where you increase their pay then decrease it. depending on how it's worded, you can decrease impact to moral.

by calling it a "Temporary" position, the understanding is that any pay increase would be temporary. infact, the pay increase may not necessarily reflect the pay a promotion would give. Or another solution would be NOT to give a pay increase but should that person then get his permament promotion, have his pay retrograded to cover his 'temp' status.

In the course of the history of Civil rights the one thing that remains constant is recurring problems.
actually, the constant is that someone will be crying discrimination... no matter what the situation.

btw... any idea on what was on that test?

depending on how it's worded, you can decrease impact to moral.

by calling it a "Temporary" position, the understanding is that any pay increase would be temporary. infact, the pay increase may not necessarily reflect the pay a promotion would give. Or another solution would be NOT to give a pay increase but should that person then get his permament promotion, have his pay retrograded to cover his 'temp' status.

it still wont go over well.
Also how long they hold the position is a factor.
Give how city bureaucracy works I suspect at least 6 months, if not over a year or before the city figures out a new way to conduct promotions.
a great many people will assume if they hold a position for a year that the temporary promotion has become permanent . They will take out loans based upon projected income, maybe move into a new bigger house.
you suddenly yank that rug out from under them it will cause a lot of problems.


actually, the constant is that someone will be crying discrimination... no matter what the situation.

btw... any idea on what was on that test?

That is what Ive said, just more neutrally.


No idea whats on the test. I do know 40% of the test was verbal issued by the city, so I suspect those applicants that failed did abysmally on the written part, and were unable to get favorable results from the verbal part.

it still wont go over well.
Also how long they hold the position is a factor.
Give how city bureaucracy works I suspect at least 6 months, if not over a year or before the city figures out a new way to conduct promotions.
a great many people will assume if they hold a position for a year that the temporary promotion has become permanent . They will take out loans based upon projected income, maybe move into a new bigger house.
you suddenly yank that rug out from under them it will cause a lot of problems.
Either way, you piss people off. those who did well on the test who didn't get their promotion or those who get a "temporary" step up.


No idea whats on the test. I do know 40% of the test was verbal issued by the city, so I suspect those applicants that failed did abysmally on the written part, and were unable to get favorable results from the verbal part. well, with a promotion, chances are they would be required to communicate properly to their men during high stress situations.

I can't see where ethicity comes in the way of proper english speaking... or is the argument is that Dark Skinned people can't talk clearly...

I can't see where ethicity comes in the way of proper english speaking... or is the argument is that Dark Skinned people can't talk clearly...

In government and some university admissions often means to get points to minority applicants. They award points for things that are likely unmeasurable in a single interview like "leadership ability" or some such.
So to see 40% of the exam was verbal and they still failed suggest there was a really poor showing among the minority applicants in the written.

In government and some university admissions often means to get points to minority applicants. They award points for things that are likely unmeasurable in a single interview like "leadership ability" or some such. which is baised on what? their skills or ethnicity?
So to see 40% of the exam was verbal and they still failed suggest there was a really poor showing among the minority applicants in the written.

and without a look at the test, we can only speculate what was on it and what was being tested.

which is baised on what? their skills or ethnicity?


and without a look at the test, we can only speculate what was on it and what was being tested.

Like Is aid it is just an accuse to add points to desegregate test results.

Anytime i hear a government body or university mention a verbal test or interview in I suspect this practice.

Like Is aid it is just an accuse to add points to desegregate test results.

Anytime i hear a government body or university mention a verbal test or interview in I suspect this practice.
I suspect alot of things, but untill it's proven either way, I keep such suspicions to myself and don't let it color my opinions.

White people don't need help, folks. They have had hundreds of years of discrimination in their favor. Its time the minorities started getting theirs, too. And let's not pretend that discrimination ended when slavery/segregation/Jim Crow/etc. did. Its still taking place and we all pay into the system that enables it. That the government does anything to curtail this blatant violation of minority rights is miraculous, because the government does so much already towards the continuance of majority privilege.

The affirmative action policies in this country don't go far enough, because of our ridiculous reliance upon our mythical "meritocracy". Baby steps for baby feet, I suppose.

I know people who think like this. I can see many in power also think like this. 9 out of 10 times they are rich bastards... usually white liberal rich bastards who have never worked an honest day in their life , nor lived in any 'diverse' area, or went to any 'diverse' school .. but yet portray themselves off to as the be all end all of the working class, poor and minorities.


Besides the occasional black dude/chic they happen to run into in Crackerville .. they've never really been around minorities, the poor or the 'working class'. Never lived nor worked in any such way that would actually required them to understand anything of the people they portray to represent from their cushy residences.

They know jack shit. But somehow reign supreme on telling us how the fuck we are suppose to live.

Of course .. all the while lying , thieving and doing whatever it takes to make them another dollar, and at the same time winning them brownie points.

See.. I don't hate people with money. I hate people with money with big mouths in political positions.