« The John Conyers Question | Main | Those Rare AMC Prototype Pickup Trucks »

Sotomayor, Firefighters, Racism and Title VII

Yesterday a reader commented on a post I'd written which discussed Sotomayor's decision in the Ricci case, which has now been overturned by the Supreme Court.

Keith wrote:

Let's see.....a bunch of people whose job it is to save lives take a written test as a major part of their promotion process. All these people work at the same job and have the exact same access to study materials as the others. In other words they are 100% equal at this point with the possible exception of seniority in the department.

The test scores are tabulated and as luck would have it mostly whites scored the highest. New Haven scrapped the test.

Now, had it been that mostly blacks scored the highest no one would have cared.

That's racism right there.

So instead New Haven is most likely going to rewrite the test with the result of "dumbing it down" so those who typically would have been weeded out will be allowed to pass.

Inferior and deadly.

Sotomayors decision was 100% racist in this case. She simply sided with the blacks that there was not enough representation. Sotomayors decision was also 100% stupid in this case in that she wholly ignored the law.

As for her whole "white man bad, latina good" malarkey we happen to live in a country founded upon the concept of the Rule of Law. Justice is blind woman for a reason. As soon as you start taking into account skin color and other racial markers into your decision making process you effectively start playing favoritism and this is 100% why Sotomayor must not ever be given a bench on the USSC.

Like so many other conservatives, Keith is grossly uninformed -- which is a state encouraged by right wing media like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, etc -- who ignore the underlying law behind Sotomayor's decision and focus on the color of her skin to make a race-based case against her Supreme Court nomination.

Yes -- in fact it's the law that if all things were equal and whites scored high and blacks didn't under the current law the test gets thrown out.

The law that applies says that there must be bias built into the test if race is a determining fact in the outcome.

Keith stated that the black applicants were in this case equally qualified and experienced, etc. Obviously there is something wrong with the test if equally qualified people score differently based on their race. It isn't racism, it's the law, that under those circumstances the test is scrapped.

Yesterday a conservative majority of the Supreme Court rewrote the law.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act speaks to equal pay for men and women of all colors. And yes, if race is a determining factor in the results -- if equally qualified blacks score lower than their equally qualified white counterparts, the test should be thrown out.

Conservatives don't see it that way -- when white people benefit from the biased test. Had the results gone the opposite way, and blacks scored higher than equally qualified white applicants then these racists would be screaming long and hard that the test was biased.

In their efforts to make a race-based case against Sotomayor, conservatives are using their own racism as a club, The "disparate treatment" provisions of Ttitle VII required -- by law -- that New Haven throw out the test.

In yesterday's decision the conservative majority of the Supreme Court didn't decide Sotomayor had decided in contravention of the law -- instead the conservatives rewrote the law, nullifying the provisions of the Civil Rights Act that applied to the New Haven decision.

While a case could be made that Title VII is outdated and should be rewritten, to use Sotomayor's decision to scream racism is just plain wrong.

Sotomayor, in her lower court decision, followed the law.

To claim otherwise is racism, and that's exactly what the right wing is engaged in at this time. Keith used the typical right wing Republican tactic of fear mongering to denigrate Sotomayor's law-based decision to support the black applicants -- black applicants who Keith calls...

Inferior and deadly.

It's the same tactic used by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and their followers in the right wing blogosphere.

Ironically, the Republican racists were handed a club by the conservatives on the Supreme Court - and now they are claiming Sotomayor was racist in her decision to uphold the law, And, ironically, had Sotomayor decided against the New Haven township in her lower court decision, she'd have been accused of legislating from the bench -- which is exactly what the Supreme Court conservative majority did in their decision yesterday to support the firefighters.

Racism has reached a boiling point in America, and the Republican party is the racists' flag bearer...

We defeated them in the 2006 and 2008 elections, and we'll defeat them here. I have absolutely no doubt that Sotomayor will be confirmed -- but not until after the Republican racists do their best to brand lies, misinformation and fear into Americans.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 1.7/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 1.7/5 (11 votes cast)


Comments (50)

J.R.:

racism, racism, racism, racism!!!!! That's it, end of story. Who knew we had 5 racist judges on the Supreme Court. lee did, that's who. And btw, everyone who agrees with their decicision yesterday, that's right, they're all racists too. End of discussion, in lee's world that is.

Here is my comment from the original thread lee used in this post:

Obviously there is something wrong with the test if equally qualified people score differently based on their race.

Really lee? Is there something wrong with the SATs then? the MCAT or LSATs? any high school student is 'qualified' to take the SAT as are college grads to be with the MCAT or LSAT, yet people score differently on those and there are breakdowns because of race.

Tests are not administered so that everyone comes out equal, that's why people take tests. sheesh. And how the hell can you rig a fire fighting test to favor only white applicants?

entgineer:

"Keith stated that the black applicants were in this case equally qualified and experienced, etc. Obviously there is something wrong with the test if equally qualified people score differently based on their race. It isn't racism, it's the law, that under those circumstances the test is scrapped."

Gee, just maybe in this particular case the white firefighters studied harder, were more intelligent or were more motivated, and had nothing do to with race at all. If the black firefighters scored better, the same argument would apply. Differences in test scores doesn't automatically mean that a test is 'biased'. Being equal, doesn't mean 'everything' about them is equal.

And before you cry 'racist', note that I state 'in this particlar case'. It is not a blanket statement that blacks are inferior to whites, because they are not. People are different. Period.

Tim:

"Keith stated that the black applicants were in this case equally qualified and experienced, etc. Obviously there is something wrong with the test if equally qualified people score differently based on their race. It isn't racism, it's the law, that under those circumstances the test is scrapped."

Obviously if people score differently on a test they're not "equally qualified". And it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with how they score. If Lee gets an A on a math test, and I get a C, I am obviously not as qualified at math as Lee is. If I get an A+ in logic, and Lee gets an "incomplete", then Lee is obviosuly not as qualified at logic as I am. Of course, Lee will not understand that, so he will remain happily ignorant.

engineer:

My roommate in college was taking the same engineering courses that I was. We were in the same classes. We had the same IQ, we had the same references available and we both had the same time to study. We both knew the subject material. I chose to study for the test. He went out and partied. I scored higher than he did. The only conclusion I can come with now is that the test was biased against people of Irish ancestry.

LiberalNightmare:

Both qoutes from Lees post:

"While a case could be made that Title VII is outdated and should be rewritten, to use Sotomayor's decision to scream racism is just plain wrong."

"Racism has reached a boiling point in America, and the Republican party i their flag bearer"

Apparently, screaming "Racism" is only wrong
if you disagree with a democrat -

Looks like Lee is a subscriber to the Jeanine Garofol school of democracy.

Jay Tea:

Yes -- in fact it's the law that if all things were equal and whites scored high and blacks didn't under the current law the test gets thrown out.

The law that applies says that there must be bias built into the test if race is a determining fact in the outcome.

In other words, we've moved on from "equal opportunity" to "equal results?"That of all the other potential factors in explaining it, a racial bias within the test -- undiscovered prior to the examination of the results -- is the only possible factor?

I think not.

It's a possibility, but hardly conclusive.

Here are a few questions that ought to be addressed before making any conclusions:

Did the black test takers consistently get the same questions wrong?

Did the non-black questioners consistently get those same questions right?

What did those questions involve that would lend themselves to a racial bias?

Why didn't anyone note and object to the racism either prior to the test or immediately after it was taken? Why was it only after the results were posted that the racial bias was so flagrant?

BTW, Mr. Ward, I took you up on your invitation and e-mailed you some questions about commenting policy. If you didn't get it at your own e-mail address, I re-sent it to the "tips" box.

Although I now note that your invitation to e-mail you in no way promised a response...

J.

John:

Guess Martin Luther King would be vilified by today's Democrats given his dream of being judged by one's character instead of color.

The irony of Lee and his cries of racism is his insistence that race makes one inferior to another and that they require a bias, "help", in order to succeed. This contention that a group of people need a bias to succeed because of their race is sad commentary.

But beyond the Ricci case are questions of other exams. If a majority of Asian students pass a math exam above White students who pass above Black students, are we to seriously throw the test out because the test was biased? How are we then to explain medical exams in college? Are we going to tell the National Board of Medical Examiners that their tests should be thrown out if certain numbers of (insert race) students did not pass?

The Sotomayor factor is the paragraph ruling that simply said, "Yeah, too many whites passed, not enough blacks" is the issue. Under what grounds did she reach her judgement?

This case reminds of what happened here in Maryland, 2007. Allegations of cheating lead to cries of RACISM, a noose was hung in a firehouse, more cries of RACISM! The subsequent investigation and FACTs found that the top scoring African-Americans CHEATED, the noose was FAKED, hung in the firehouse by an African-American hoping to throw RACISM into overdrive and derail the investigation.

Even after the facts were presented of cheating and a FAKE HATE CRIME, the cries of RACISM lingered: "...[P]resident of the Vulcan Blazers, a black firefighters group, says there's more to this scandal. "This is a larger picture of the uncovering of racism in the Baltimore Fire Department," says Harris Burris." BUT, Firefighter Union chief, Rick Schluderberg, stood by and put it EXACTLY RIGHT: "If you cheat and your white you a cheater if you cheat and your black you're a cheater it has nothing to do with that."

Firefighter Cheating and Racism

Yes, sad commentary when people still believe race

John:

Oof, last line should have read

Yes, sad commentary when people still believe race should be used as criteria for success.

Lee Ward:

"The irony of Lee and his cries of racism is his insistence that race makes one inferior to another and that they require a bias, "help", in order to succeed."

In the case of a biased test, yes - a particular race may need help. That's what the Civil Rights Act does, and Tile VII in particular deals with that aspect of race in regards to employment, equal pay, etc.

"Fair" is not the same as "Equal"

J.R.:

apparently fir-fighting techniques vary by race and the exam in question focused on the caucasian varieties with some hispanic versions thrown in. Hence the biased test!

Who knew?

J.R.:

fir-fighting

what the hell is that?? please excuse my mistake.

SCSIwuzzy:

But is a job like firefighting the place for this kind of "help"?
In Philadelphia we had for years a policy that said if 80% of the applicants to the police academy were of a given race (pick your percentage or race), then that same percentage should be admitted.
If you had 1000 applicants for 100 positions, 200 of them Chinese, then 20 Chinese would enter the academy. It didn't matter if only 5 passed the entrance exams and physicals. If the census data said you were, say native American, you could be fairly sure that you'd get a spot given the dearth of competition (I should have applied!).
The end result of this policy after some years of application was a large contingent of incompetent and unqualified police officers
(like one that famously got lost transporting a rape victim to the station only to be pulled over by a NJ trooper outside Newark, NJ).

Access to schools, training, loans and the like I "get". Putting someone in a job that they aren't ready for that could very well cost someone else their life... not so much.

And now let the wags apply that last part to Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton etc, based on which ox they prefer to gore.

Jay Tea:

SCSI, that's the "old" definition of equal opportunity. The new standard is equality of results. People are simply not allowed to excel or fail outside of their assigned quotas.

J.

Lee Ward:

In the case of New Haven:

In 2003, the city of New Haven administered a test to select firefighters for officer positions. One hundred and eighteen firefighters, including 68 whites, 27 blacks, and 23 Hispanics took the test. The top 19 would be eligible for an immediate promotion. When the tests were scored, those 19 turned out to be 17 whites and 2 Hispanics. Overall, the pass rate for minorities was about one-half that of white candidates.

Percentage wise:

Of the White firefighters who took the test, 17 or 25% of the 68 white firefighters "passed".

23 or 9% of the 23 Hispanic firefighters "passed".

0% of the 27 Black firefighters passed.

The results fit the definition of "disparate treatment" as outlined in Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act.

Sotomayor affirmed New Haven's decision to toss the test based on the obviously race-skewed results.

Sotomayor's decision was not "racism" - it was based on the law.

Sotomayor followed the law - to claim she was a racist for doing so is to focus on her race and claim that it was a factor.

To claim Sotomayor is a racist for affirming the New Haven decision is in itself racism. Claiming she decided as she did because she's Hispanic is racism..

Jay Tea:

No, the results MAY FIT the particulars of the law. Or they may not.

Statistical results are insufficient in and of themselves. "Equality of opportunity" is no guarantor of "equality of results." People are individuals first, classes second.

Some useful information could be garnered from the questions I asked earlier:

Did the black test takers consistently get the same questions wrong?

Did the non-black questioners consistently get those same questions right?

What did those questions involve that would lend themselves to a racial bias?

Why didn't anyone note and object to the racism either prior to the test or immediately after it was taken? Why was it only after the results were posted that the racial bias was so flagrant?

The test may or may not have been racially flawed. The results are indicative that it may have been, but hardly conclusive. The results should have triggered an investigation, not a dismissal of the results entirely.

J.

LiberalNightmare:

In the case of a biased test, yes - a particular race may need help. That's what the Civil Rights Act does, and Tile VII in particular deals with that aspect of race in regards to employment, equal pay, etc.

"Fair" is not the same as "Equal"

Posted by Lee Ward | June 30, 2009 11:54 AM

Posted on June 30, 2009 11:54

Last time I checked, it was considered racism to believe that blacks were part of a seperate race. Will someone tell me when the liberals in this country will lay down there racist beliefs?

Lee Ward:

"But is a job like firefighting the place for this kind of "help"?
In Philadelphia we had for years a policy that said if 80% of the applicants to the police academy were of a given race (pick your percentage or race), then that same percentage should be admitted."

Race-based quotas were not a work in this instance.

Determining that because zero percent of the black applicants "passed" and that the test is invalid as a result isn't a decision to pass a percentage or quota of black applicants. It merely recognizes that the test is flawed.

More on "disparate treatment" from the EEOC - link

Jay Tea:

By your own link, Mr. Ward, the test in and of itself is not proof of anything. And to mandate equality of results is pretty much the definition of a quota.

J.

engineer:

"Determining that because zero percent of the black applicants "passed" and that the test is invalid as a result isn't a decision to pass a percentage or quota of black applicants. It merely recognizes that the test is flawed."

So I guess I missed where the city of New Haven analysized the test to show where it was flawed, and thus biased. Just because 0% of a certain race passes doesn't mean the test is flawed. The city deserved to lose because they didn't provide any proof that the test was flawed.

Lee Ward:

I don't know if they analyzed the test or not -- but the result showed that in all likelihood the system was flawed in some way, and the test invalid.

I read somewhere that one argument was that the white firefighters had greater access to study materials.

In which case 'flawed test' would refer to the testing procedure, and not necessarily the test document itself.

To believe that the test procedure was valid and that none of the black firefighters were capable and able to pass the test while 25% of the white firefighters passed the test, you'd have to believe that black people are inherently inferior.

Ooops, did I just point out more right wing racism? My bad...

And note that Sotomayor's decision did not affirm that the test was valid or invalid, only that the test results indicated a flaw that met the Title VII definition of 'disparate treatment'.

jeanniemac:

I was one of two whites who passed a Learner's Permit test, while eighteen blacks did not pass the test. I had studied the manual for a week. Those who failed told the black supervisor that, "I know how to drive, I don't need to study no manual.", " I studied while I waited on line.", "I don't have time to study manuals."
A Learner's Permit test is all about the motor vehicle rules and laws. Those who don't know them are dangerous drivers. Should those who did not pass the test have been given Permits?
Should I have been denied a Permit, because other people did not study the manual?

JLawson:

Lee -

"you'd have to believe that black people are inherently inferior."

You have no problems with that, do you? They're so inferior that they can't pass a test that 75% of hispanics and whites failed so it's too HARD for them. So you've got to dumb down the test to 'protect' them, right? Legitimizing their 'inferior' status...

Lee - your racism is showing, and it ain't pretty, or terribly subtle.

John nails it. "Guess Martin Luther King would be vilified by today's Democrats given his dream of being judged by one's character instead of color."

He'd at least be sidelined as being too stupid to understand the complexities and nuances of how important skin color is when judging a person's qualifications.

Lee Ward:

I didn't say it was too hard for them, or that it had to be dumbed down. Just that the testing process was somehow biased in favor of whites.

The test results speak to that.

JLawson:

Yeah, it was a hard test.

BIAS!!!!OMG!!!!

Lee Ward:

You're saying blacks failed because it was a hard test?

lol... thanks for making my point. Some people just see black people as inferior -- as in not good enough to pass the test, in this instance.

Mycroft:

Lee, did you read the 93 page decision yourself?

I read a good portion of it and certain facts came to light.

1. The company that prepared the test OVERSAMPLED blacks in finding out the requirements to build the test. Not sampled -OVERSAMPLED.

2. Each oral exam was given by a 3 firefighter board (drawn from firefigthers around the country and none from local companies). The 3 man board for EACH exam was 1 white, 1 black, and 1 hispanic.

3. The test was judged to be fair by the city and by the Supreme court, amongst others.

4. ALL of the questions were drawn from the materials that were available as study guides. ALL OF THEM.

5. One of the guys who PASSED is reading impaired and paid his neighbor to record all the study information on tape for him.

6. In one of the other parts, it was determined that the city tossed the test partly as a consequence of the threat of a lawsuit by a black preacher local to the area and a friend of the mayor or some such. Not because the test was actually biased.

The final determination was 9-0 that Sotomayor's decision was wrong. Even the 4 justices that agreed with the results, disagreed with her method of arriving at it.

Bottom line is that they ruled 9-0 that Sotomayor *IS* a racist.

Lee Ward:

And you apparently didn't read the minority opinion that stated the majority opinion was so flawed that it would not stand.

The Justice department will no doubt get involved in this issue.

And no, there was not a 9-0 decision that Sotomayor was a racist -- that's just more bullshit from the right wing dumbosphere.

JLawson:

Lee -

Ah, hell. You're such a racist you don't even see it. It's like water to a fish, or air to a bird. Blacks can't pass a hard test, but a hispanic can - so it's biased and evidence of racism.

And look at what Mycroft posted re the dyslexic guy. The only thing that test was biased against seems to be crappy preparation.

And THAT is colorblind.

Lee Ward:

hey Mycroft!

Conservative Meme: All Nine Justices Disagreed With Sotomayor By TPM - Brian Beutler - June 29, 2009, 12:13PM

Within an hour of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Ricci case, the Federalist Society hosted a conference call for reporters with a number of conservative legal experts--speed readers presumably--each of whom hit upon a couple themes we're already seeing Sonia Sotomayor's opponents trumpet.

Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity suggested that the ruling "gives the Senate Judiciary Committee a lot to ask about" and that it brings to light her past statements on this issue.

He was joined by Gail Heriot, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law in the insistence that each of the nine Justices had rejected Sotomayor's reasoning in her Second Circuit decision, a frame the Judicial Confirmation Network is also using. This, of course, despite the fact that four of the justices think the second circuit decided the case correctly.

It took thirty seconds to fact-check MyCroft's claim, source it, and show that it's just more right wing bullshit.

Lee Ward:

"Blacks can't pass a hard test, but a hispanic can - so it's biased and evidence of racism."

How many times are you going to ignore me saying the test process was biased, not "too hard"?

Lee Ward:

More of the right wing hate mob at work from TPM

Mycroft:

?It took thirty seconds to fact-check MyCroft's claim, source it, and show that it's just more right wing bullshit.

And you had to go to a liberal think tank to find someone that disagrees. The fact of the matter is that the 4 justices that agreed with the decision said that she got there the wrong way.

Go read the decision yourself. I did, right after I heard the "meme", I decided to read for myself. You know what? It isn't just a talking point, it is right there in the 93 pages for those that are not blind Lee.

But asking you to read the actual descision, by the court, is too much to ask for, isn't it, Lee?

J.R.:

you'd have to believe that black people are inherently inferior.

No you don't, that's just your biased interpretation that sees everyone who disagrees with you as racist.

All the results show is that those who took the test and failed are inferior to those who took it and passed. You're the only taking the results and characterizing entire races out of them.

Lee Ward:

The 93 page decision that Mycroft claims to have read (but clearly didn't understand) affirms that the test was flawed - See beginning at the end of page 54 and in the first paragraph of page 55.

Tim:

"I read somewhere that one argument was that the white firefighters had greater access to study materials."

Really? Was the material kept in the "Whites Only" section of the public library? Maybe the higher-ups at the Fire Dept hid the study material from the black firefighters? How in the hell can people who work at the same place, at the same rank, for the same amount of money, not have equal access to study materials? That's the dumbest assertion I've seen yet on this issue.

JLawson:

How could it be 'biased', Lee? What do YOU think could be done to 'bias' the test?

They're given the material they need to study to pass it. It's darn near open source. So the fireman's given everything he needs - at that point, it's up to him. How motivated is he to study, and do well?

Poor test prep is colorblind.

J.R.:

lee, i think you mean end of pg. 55 and beginning of pg. 56, the first and second pages of the dissent.

SCSIwuzzy:

Lee, my example was how the opposite end, promoting/passing because of race based quotas has not worked out well for Philadelphia. Once the word got out, and with multiple examples, the public complained enough to have the quota system changed so that every applicant had to meet a minimum standard. Now, someone who barely passed the test may still go ahead of someone that scored solidly, because of the color of their skins, but nobody who failed is getting in because they needed 3 more of quota X and took the best of the failures to do so. Wow, that was a run on sentence.

Go ahead and evaluate the test, and fix it. But don't promote people that don't pass. Not for a job like this.

Lee Ward:

Correct, J.R. thanks - end of 55 (emphasis mine):

"The court today holds that New Haven has not demonstrated "a strong basis in evidence" for its plea. In so holding, the court pretends "[t]he City rejected the test results solely because the highest scoring candidates were white." That pretension, essential to the court's disposition, ignores substantial evidence of multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used. The Court similarly fails to acknowledge the better tests used in other cities, which have yielded less racially skewed outcomes"

So, by your standard and the standard of the right wing dumbosphere, 'the 93 page decision" upholds my view that the test was flawed.

Of course arguing such points is useless, because the "93 page decision" has both the majority and minority decision - opposing viewpoints - so claiming the 93 page decision upholds that Sotomayer is racist is nothing more than right wing bullshit.

What I said.

Lee Ward:

"Go ahead and evaluate the test, and fix it. But don't promote people that don't pass. Not for a job like this."

Not suggesting that should happen, and I don't think you'll find any evidence of me supporting quotas or the promotionof people who don't pass.

What I'm saying is -- if the test is biased - don't use it.

That's what the law says.

And Sotomayor upheld the law.

The conservative Supreme Court majority "legislated from the bench" and rewrote the law.

I thought that you guys were always arguing that activists judges were a bad thing? Apparently its not so bad when its a conservative court majority doing the legislating, is it?

SCSIwuzzy:
How many times are you going to ignore me saying the test process was biased, not "too hard"?

So, 0 % of one group passed, 9% of another, 25% of the last...

What you have is a premise (0 of 27 passed because there was a bias), not proof of the premise.

What else do we know about the 27 black folks that failed, and what do they have in common with the 51 whites and 20 Hispanics who failed? What set them all apart from the people who passed?

Lee Ward:

"What you have is a premise (0 of 27 passed because there was a bias), not proof of the premise."

What "I" have is page 55 of the same infamous 93 page decision that the right wing is using....

That pretension, essential to the court's disposition, ignores substantial evidence of multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used. The Court similarly fails to acknowledge the better tests used in other cities, which have yielded less racially skewed outcomes"

"Substantial evidence of multiple flaws" which the conservative SCOTUS majority is ignoring in their rush to legislate from the bench.

Lee Ward:

Sotomayor did the right thing. She followed the letter of the law. The SCOTUS majority is legislating from the bench.

J.R.:

Can someone link to the substantial evidence of the flaws in the test? Of all the information I've read, nothing lists the so-called flaws of the tests other than the less than desirable results according to our pc liberal elites.

and come on lee, you could be the only one that thinks the 5 justices were legislating from the bench. it's quite a stretch which upon reflection isn't that hard for you.

Lee Ward:

The "93 page decision" has cites, and the argument and evidence is in the supporting documents.

Lee Ward:
ke_future:

lee, you do understand what a dissent is don't you? it's the part of a decision that the losers write. all of the justices thought that sotomeyer handled the case wrong. a majority of the justices thought that the city was at fault, and a minority of the justices thought that the case should have been remanded for additional consideration.

Jay Tea:

More importantly, ke_future, the key quote Mr. Ward hangs his whole argument on is this:

That pretension, essential to the Court's disposition, ignores substantial evidence of multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used.

Not actual flaws. EVIDENCE of flaws. Nobody can seem to find these actual flaws. They seem to be like black holes -- they can't actually be detected, just inferred by their effects.

Could someone even offer an example of a potentially racist question? One that two firefighters, of pretty much identical experience and skill, would answer differently? A question where the race of the answerer would make a substantial difference?

J.

Allen:

Lee, if everyone that took the test had, access to the study materials, and each test paper had the same questions, then it means that some people studied for the test, and others didn't.

Calling the test unfair, no one has said that, have they? Therefore, IMO, since the town is 60% black, the black firefighters just figured a percentage of them would be promoted, using the race card if they wasn't.

Since SCOTUS has ruled the way they did, does that mean title V11 or V111 or 1X is flawed? Sure sounds like that to me. What happened is the most qualified passed the test.

And the circuit court ruled on the points of law about what the city did. She was one of the several judges making that decision, and yet the GOP shrills are blaming her for the whole decision. What idiots.

But it's time a ruling like this came from the highest court. The best qualified get promoted, or hired, etc, and hopefully race is not taken into account for that.

Lee, talk about racism, what about the Black Entertainment Channel. They have 0 whites, 0 Asians, and 0 Hispanics working there. NOW is that fair?

SCSIwuzzy:
Not actual flaws. EVIDENCE of flaws. Nobody can seem to find these actual flaws. They seem to be like black holes -- they can't actually be detected, just inferred by their effects.
Jay, as I said, a premise, but not proof to back the premise into fact.

Allen,
As Lee has said, Fair is not the same thing as Equal.


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.