Thank you for mentioning this. This guy probably studied and worked ten times as hard as everyone else, and he was still turned down because he was white.

I was getting ready to say you all are typing in circles over semantics. I knew what you meant.

I found this on MSN:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31609275...s-white_house/

At the end of the article, the author points out that the test results were thrown out to avoid a lawsuit.

It looks like they avoided one lawsuit but walked right into another. Awesome.

"The 19 white and one Hispanic firefighter who sued the city in Ricci v. DeStefano argued that their civil rights were violated under Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. They say that the Civil Service Board failed to certify the exams in a 2-2 vote on the recommendation of then-City Attorney Thomas Ude because no blacks or Hispanics scored high enough to be promoted.

Ude had warned that if the tests were approved, the city could be sued by minority firefighters under the same Title 7, since the scores resulted in a "disparate impact" against non-white firefighters."

These two paragraphs are from the http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news...e=1&cat=&more= article I added to a post above.

Welp, poor dyslexic guy. Life's a party.

And there goes the semantics of reverse discrimination. They weren't turned down because they were white. Organizations, in general, haven't gotten to the point where they discriminate against whites in the manner that nonwhites have been discriminated against for generations. The test results were thrown out because of the poor performance of the nonwhites, which they feared would lead to a questioning of the test and perhaps of organizational practices.

Personally, when the firefighters come to put out a fire at my house, I don't think that a standardized written test or an oral exam or interviews will have measured the skill set I'm going to want them to have.

However, when it comes to promotion to leadership roles and training of other firefighters, I think the tests probably have some merit.

The article I linked above goes over the tests and other tests that can be used.

The white firefighters in the suit claim that every question on the test came from the readily available study guide. If that's true, it's hard to figure out, why the test would be particularly racially or ethnically biased, except as the results shook out, which is the heart of a disparate impact claim.

It is better to be sued by a group of angry whites than to be considered as having practices that discriminate against any kind of minority groups.

I'm sorry if that's how my statement came across, but that's not precisely what I meant (although I could see how you'd take it that way). I know they weren't discriminated against because they were white, but essentially because non of them were minorities.

Hence, the test is not necessarily deemed discriminatory by intent. It isn't like the SAT where people say the items are geared toward a particularly social class and so forth.

The issue becomes what is it about the preparation for the test, recruiting (?) of firefighters who will take the test, etc. that may result in racial disparities in test results. They could always conclude that the Black and Hispanic test takers were just ill prepared for the test or sucky test takers. That's a weighty assumption and claim.

See, and here I disagree with you. They were turned down simply because, although they met the standard laid out for promotion, they failed to be of the racial groups the city was particularly interested in making sure got promoted.

Their race was the main factor in the city's failure to promoted them. It's hard to see it otherwise.

It may not have taken the form of a "no whites need to apply" sign, but it worked out the same for them.

I imagine that most municipalities and public institutions feel that way. But, wouldn't they expect the rejected whites to file a lawsuit? I mean, we're in the post-Hopwood world here. Reverse discrimination lawsuits don't seem to be as popular as they used to be 5-15 years ago, but they still happen.

There are a ton of questions I have about this whole to-do, but it's a moot point at this juncture.

Yet I do.

I think so. Discrimination claims are relatively rare, but interestingly enough, reverse discrimination claims (not lawsuits but claims) may be more common than minority group claims of discrimination. In the literature, one of the explanations for this is white privilege whereas minority groups are more accustomed to not being hired and promoted.

I think the pool of test takers was self-selected. I've never seen an interview with the non-white applicants who took the test addressing what caused them to fair poorly.

I agree with the Supreme Court Decision. I am also surprised it had to get this far! One would think that lower level judges would be able to figure this one out! I think it shows a clear example that reverse discrimination is real and need to also be prevented.

not necessarily. their group wasn't turned down because they're white. they were turned down because there weren't more or any blacks or latinos. those 20 fire fighters would have been promoted had there been a some black or latino fire fighters. which doesn't hinge upon their whiteness.