Supreme Court backs New Haven Firefighters

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

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.

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.

[UGAalum94]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

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

[VandalSquirrel]

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?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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

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).

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

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.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

ehh, I guess....The test I took is a general, national test. It just so happened that the students in my class were either immigrants or racial minorities. The Med Tech school down the street has mostly White students taking the same exact test. I see your point here, but I really don't agree.

I think in the era of the Obamas (Barack and Michelle) it may become harder to argue for a racial difference.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I think in the era of the Obamas (Barack and Michelle) it may become harder to argue for a racial difference.

Absolutely nothing's changed. LOL.

White people, in general, essentially voted for Obama based on a cost and benefit analysis and because they decided to choose gender over race.

Stop listening to disillusioned people who think social phenomena are a matter of 1+1=2. LOL.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

White people, in general, essentially voted for Obama based on a cost and benefit analysis and because they decided to choose gender over race.

Granted, you put the "in general" caveat in there, but I think this is an unfounded generalization. I'll agree that some white people (and probably some black people, too) voted for Obama based on a cost v. benefit analysis. But to accuse white people of choosing gender over race is as offensive as me accusing black people of choosing race over gender. There isn't always a race- or gender-related motivation.

/end rant

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

...accusing black people of choosing race over gender

Obama is both Black and a man.

A more proper generalization would be that Blacks, in general, voted for Obama based on both a cost and benefits analysis and based on race (which intersected with gender for him).

I agree. Thanks.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Absolutely nothing's changed. LOL.

I agree.

White people, in general, essentially voted for Obama based on a cost and benefit analysis and because they decided to choose gender over race.

Stop listening to disillusioned people who think social phenomena are a matter of 1+1=2. LOL.

True, but I think "people" are going to point to the Obamas and say, "See, they made it". Is it right? No. Is it fair? No.

The issue that I have with this particular case is that how did it *happen* that the Black firemen did not do as well as the Whites / Hispanic? Because given an equal playing field, i.e., all firemen had access to the study guide, they were all aware of the nature of the exam, they were all given the same exam under the same conditions, then where is the discrepancy that caused the outcome with the exam itself?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

True, but I think "people" are going to point to the Obamas and say, "See, they made it". Is it right? No. Is it fair? No.

We don't really care what confused people will say, do we?

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

The issue that I have with this particular case is that how did it *happen* that the Black firemen did not do as well as the Whites / Hispanic? Because given an equal playing field, i.e., all firemen had access to the study guide, they were all aware of the nature of the exam, they were all given the same exam under the same conditions, then where is the discrepancy that caused the outcome with the exam itself?

We wouldn't know all of this.

The court ruled that they can't throw out the results becase of a fear of a lawsuit. I definitely agree.