But it does. Because the whiteness of the successful test takers is what prevented them from being black or Hispanic. [ETA: it's true that had others been among them, the issue wouldn't have shaken out like it did, but the fact that they didn't get promoted because they were white and not some other race remains.]

I'm not saying that the intent of the city was racial discrimination, but the effect of the decision had a disparate impact on whites.

I don't know that I go around fretting about reverse discrimination a lot, but most programs that involved the advancement of one group will frequently involved at least active disinterest in the success of other groups. It's hard to do this in a way that doesn't have an effect on one group or another.

There could also be the fact that rejected whites may have the means and wherewithal to hire an attorney or find a private attorney willing to represent them pro bono, where a rejected minority may not be able to find the same and may rely on non-profits, which is just another version of white privilege.

On the other hand, I think a lower percentage of highly qualified minorities, especially those of an affluent background, are rejected from certain things. It's said that affirmative action benefits well-to-do minorities most of all; this clearly doesn't stand in the firefighter case, but it's an interesting angle.

Is the glass half empty or half full? Ohhhhh...the conundrums of life.

White people and especially white males need not fret about reverse discrimination. For every organization that gives a damn about equal opportunity based on race and gender, there are 10 that don't. Long live the status quo. Pip pip hooray!

lets say 25 people pass. 20 are white. 5 are nonwhite.

lets say 20 people pass. 20 are white. 0 are nonwhite.

tests are kept for the 1st case. tests are thrown out for the second. the tests are thrown out not because of the first number, but because of the second number. if the tests were thrown out because of they were white, both cases would result in the same outcome.

IMO.

These are all good points you're making.

It's difficult to know what stands in the firefighter case. I don't think we know very much about it. Much of what I'm typing has to do with the history of discrimination in this country and only a shmidget of what I know about the case. UGA said the firefighters were self-selecting. That makes sense, but I wonder if it's that straight forward. Hiring and promotions usually aren't because people often get a *nudge* from those who want them in those positions.

Thanks everyone for the explanation! :)

After reading through the article above, I am left wondering how much time / effort did the Black candidates put in to be successful. The article mentioned that other professions have standardized exams that everyone must pass, so why is this exam / case different?

I've taken one professional exam in my life(http://www.ascp.org/FunctionalNaviga...ification.aspx) and my class at my particular school consited of 8 people: 2 Iranians, 1 Indian (from India), 1 African and 4 Black Americans. 6 of us passed and two didn't. The two who did not pass were Black Americans. So no one can say that the exam was biased based on race.

I knew I had to study, I did and I passed on my first try.

wait, when i say first and second, i mean the # of white firefighters = first number, and # of nonwhite firefighters = second number.

The racialized comparison doesn't work as well when the pool of test takers are all immigrants and/or racial and ethnic minorities.

I think that people need to remember the implications of assuming "oh...the minorities just didn't prepare well enough" whenever there's a disparity in outcome. Probability statistics aside, it is not uncommon for organizations concerned with equal opportunity to look at the distribution of test results.

Well, as far as I understand it, all that the decision did today was say that it wasn't acceptable to, out of fear of a disparate outcome lawsuit, take an action that had a disparate outcome on a different racial group.

It's pretty unique to a goofy set of conditions.

How many employers are going to advance one seemingly racially and ethnically objective system of advancement based on one test and then feel free to throw out the results of that system when it doesn't yield the racial or ethnic results that they were really looking for?

I suspect that the city in the original case would do the whole thing differently today.

I understand the point you're trying to make, I think, but the deal is that promotions were supposed to be based on achieving certain scores, not on the racial composition of the people achieving those scores.

It was after the fact that the city basically said, those of you who passed aren't non-white enough so we're canceling the promotions. It's not a theoretically pool, it was a group of specific people who faced this action because they were almost exclusively white.

In theory, as far as my opinion is concerned, if the city wanted to say we're only promoting based on results that yield at least this percentage of non-white qualifiers, maybe that'd be the way to go, since all applicants would have a vested interest in their own success and the success of whatever racial and ethnic groups the city wanted to advance.

That's a pretty good nutshell based on my quick look at the opinion.

Something I haven't been able to find yet (I haven't looked very hard) is how it was certain or positive people were white or not. I thought that disclosing that information was optional, not required. I guess that every test taker could share that information, but that it was self disclosed if it was.

How did they know for certain if the test takers were white or not?

That's why I agree with the decision.

I completely understand why there was a lawsuit. However, I don't agree with many people's commentaries on the situation itself.

That's my understanding as well, based on my very quick reding of summaries of the opinion. This has been pretty big news in CT, so I'm going to try to read the opinion a bit further.

This has been a pretty big story in CT, and New Haven has had its share of problems over the years, so there will probably be quite a bit of talk about it locally.

There's probably also going to be a whole bunch out there as well about the fact that they're overruling Sotomayor (she was in the majority in the court of appeals decision).

I was making the assumption that the men were predominantly working-class; I would go on to imagine that the amount of minority firefighters from affluent backgrounds is almost nil. Thus, the New Haven firefighters may not have benefited from the type of AA that benefits well-to-do minorities.

But it's probably not the best thing to pre-judge or assume anything these days.