SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

[The_pantless_hero]

I seriously doubt ANYONE working as a firefighter is "lazy". Or stupid.

Then why is a particular race not being promoted?

Perhaps, and I am going out on a limb here, all the people, who happen to have been black, didn't do as well on the damn test.

[Soheran]

If you can give just ONE point for the test being racially biased

Perhaps part of the problem here is that you are missing the sense of "racial bias" relevant to disparate impact cases.

Nobody is saying that the test makers or the test administrators are secret racists who inserted questions designed to promote whites over blacks. But the test might have included elements not related to performance as a firefighter that, due to the socioeconomic disadvantages from which minorities suffer because of discrimination, unfairly excluded blacks from the high-scoring pool.

We can't know this for sure from the results, no. But we can become suspicious, because it's not at all clear that there's any independent reason why blacks would have poorer performance as firefighters than whites... and the results of one, possibly imperfect test are hardly compelling enough to alter that conclusion.

[Neo Art]

It's your job to prove that the test IS biased, not ours to prove that it's not. I thought you were a lawyer.

I am a lawyer, and as such I'm capable of understanding that the actual question related to THIS CASE was whether the city of New Haven was legally entitled to scrap the test based on suspicion of bias.

The question of whether or not the test was ACTUALLY biased was never raised in court, because that wasn't the question in front of it. It was purely whether the government had the constitutional authority to do what it did, based on suspicion.

Being a lawyer means I understand nuanced little things like that.

[Neo Art]

I seriously doubt ANYONE working as a firefighter is "lazy". Or stupid.

Then why is a particular race not being promoted?

Perhaps, and I am going out on a limb here, all the people, who happen to have been black, didn't do as well on the damn test.

Yes, again, we know that. The question is...why didn't that? And, as related to this case, the question is, given the history of the department, is the rationale of "black people didn't do as well on the test" sufficient reason to invalidate the test?

[Barringtonia]

The last was supposed to be irony...

Sure, my point remains the same.

Anyway, it ISN'T a case of "one race" not being promoted, or of "black people innately worse at firefighting".

Are you sure?

It's THIS GROUP of black people scoring worse on a test than SOME of their white comrades. And because of that, those INDIVIDUALS who scored well were being denied what they earned. I can't accept that that is fair, when there is no other evidence that the test was biased.

Not when there's a starkly disparate and historic and ongoing basis.

Again, the issue is not discrimination against whites per se, it's about an anomaly against one race, black people, white people are doing absolutely fine as far as I can see.

[Ferrous Oxide]

It's your job to prove that the test IS biased, not ours to prove that it's not. I thought you were a lawyer.

I am a lawyer, and as such I'm capable of understanding that the actual question related to THIS CASE was whether the city of New Haven was legally entitled to scrap the test based on suspicion of bias.

The question of whether or not the test was ACTUALLY biased was never raised in court, because that wasn't the question in front of it. It was purely whether the government had the constitutional authority to do what it did, based on suspicion.

Being a lawyer means I understand nuanced little things like that.

I think we're kinda over the bit about the test being thrown out. Now we're discussing whether or not it actually is biased.

[Dododecapod]

If you can give just ONE point for the test being racially biased

Perhaps part of the problem here is that you are missing the sense of "racial bias" relevant to disparate impact cases.

Nobody is saying that the test makers or the test administrators are secret racists who inserted questions designed to promote whites over blacks. But the test might have included elements not related to performance as a firefighter that, due to the socioeconomic disadvantages from which minorities suffer because of discrimination, unfairly excluded blacks from the high-scoring pool.

We can't know this for sure from the results, no. But we can become suspicious, because it's not at all clear that there's any independent reason why blacks would have poorer performance as firefighters than whites... and the results of one, possibly imperfect test are hardly compelling enough to alter that conclusion.

You're right. It DOES bring up the POSSIBILITY that the test was biased. And I certainly wouldn't have objected if, with that suspicion in mind, the city had moved to a different test or system - next time.

But to cancel a system, and drop those who did well back to square one, requires more than just a suspicion.

[Neo Art]

I think we're kinda over the bit about the test being thrown out. Now we're discussing whether or not it actually is biased.

If you're not capable of discussing the ACTUAL case that is the ACTUAL topic of this thread, once again, that's your problem, not mine.

As to your question, the only answer one could possibly give is "don't know, haven't seen it, and it hasn't been argued in court". Now that the test stands, I highly suspect it WILL be (ironic, considering that was the very thing the city of New Haven was trying to avoid in the first place, and their efforts to save themselves from one lawsuit meant they ended up having to litigate a whole different one, lost, and as a result and will probably get sued on the very matter they were trying to avoid).

[Free Soviets]

let's say that you give the top scorers on a test the promotions, and then it turns out that the test actually was discriminatory in clearly discernible ways. what then? take away their ill-gotten promotions? tell those that were excluded unfairly 'better luck next time'? doesn't that seem even worse than just not promoting people based on the suspect test in the first place?

Then you scrap the promotions, fix the test, and run it again.

so you give people promotions and then take them away through no fault of their own? that smells like yet another lawsuit waiting to happen, no?

[Barringtonia]

I think we're kinda over the bit about the test being thrown out. Now we're discussing whether or not it actually is biased.

Personally, and this is my opinion not a legal comment on the case, the test is simply a focal point of a larger issue. One side is arguing that one test cannot indicate a bias and that it's unfair to deny someone a position, someone who passed the test to the required standard, based on those results.

The other side is arguing that sure, the test is the focal point, but it must be taken in the context of a starkly disparate and historical/ongoing basis.

It's not about discriminating against white people who pass the test sufficiently, though there's an inherently negative result given the position, it's about the fact that a particular race disproportionately fails to achieve a certain status, that is, possibly, the discrimination.

[Dododecapod]

The last was supposed to be irony...

Sure, my point remains the same.

Anyway, it ISN'T a case of "one race" not being promoted, or of "black people innately worse at firefighting".

Are you sure?

It's THIS GROUP of black people scoring worse on a test than SOME of their white comrades. And because of that, those INDIVIDUALS who scored well were being denied what they earned. I can't accept that that is fair, when there is no other evidence that the test was biased.

Not when there's a starkly disparate and historic and ongoing basis.

Again, the issue is not discrimination against whites per se, it's about an anomaly against one race, black people, white people are doing absolutely fine as far as I can see.

I don't give a flying fuck about "white people", if you'll pardon my cussing. I give a damn about people who do well on the requirements, do the right thing, seek the reward, then see their achievement cast to the ground because somebody else didn't do well enough. Individuals, not racial groups.

[Neo Art]

I don't give a flying fuck about "white people", if you'll pardon my cussing. I give a damn about people who do well on the requirements, do the right thing, seek the reward, then see their achievement cast to the ground because somebody else didn't do well enough. Individuals, not racial groups.

Then if those people well and truly deserved it, and were not given a "leg up" by a test biased in their favor, they should have no problems demonstrating that on a test demonstrably shown to be unbiased, should they?

[Ifreann]

What happens if a new test is developed, under lots of watchful eyes, the test is administered again and the same results occur? Does the city have to continue redoing the test until the results show equal representation of all races?

No. If every attempt has been made to eliminate racism and there's no change, then there's no problem.

Sure, you say that now.

Feel free to ask me again if the situation comes up.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes the questions being asked are purely related to job qualifications, and not in any way biased, either conciously or subconciously. Sadly, the history of this nation, and THIS VERY DEPARTMENT suggests something radically different.

It's your job to prove that the test IS biased, not ours to prove that it's not. I thought you were a lawyer.

Exhibit A: No blacks passed the test. Well this warrants investigation. I guess it would be stupid to give people promotions when the test may be biased, so how about holding off paying people extra and giving them more responsibilities when someone else should be in the job?

let's say that you give the top scorers on a test the promotions, and then it turns out that the test actually was discriminatory in clearly discernible ways. what then? take away their ill-gotten promotions? tell those that were excluded unfairly 'better luck next time'? doesn't that seem even worse than just not promoting people based on the suspect test in the first place?

Then you scrap the promotions, fix the test, and run it again.

so you give people promotions and then take them away through no fault of their own? that smells like yet another lawsuit waiting to happen, no?

Or don't give hem the promotions in the first place. Then you don't have to take them away.

It's your job to prove that the test IS biased, not ours to prove that it's not. I thought you were a lawyer.

I am a lawyer, and as such I'm capable of understanding that the actual question related to THIS CASE was whether the city of New Haven was legally entitled to scrap the test based on suspicion of bias.

The question of whether or not the test was ACTUALLY biased was never raised in court, because that wasn't the question in front of it. It was purely whether the government had the constitutional authority to do what it did, based on suspicion.

Being a lawyer means I understand nuanced little things like that.

I think we're kinda over the bit about the test being thrown out. Now we're discussing whether or not it actually is biased.

Feel free to present the test if you have it. Might be interesting.

[Barringtonia]

I don't give a flying fuck about "white people", if you'll pardon my cussing. I give a damn about people who do well on the requirements, do the right thing, seek the reward, then see their achievement cast to the ground because somebody else didn't do well enough. Individuals, not racial groups.

Ah, regardless of history, given that's unfair on current applicants, I see your point on this issue - would it be fair to give them that promotion yet also redress the balance in terms of the historical context, as in provide 21 positions as opposed to 17 positions?

It then raises questions on taxpayer allocation, life sure ain't simple.

[Dododecapod]

I don't give a flying fuck about "white people", if you'll pardon my cussing. I give a damn about people who do well on the requirements, do the right thing, seek the reward, then see their achievement cast to the ground because somebody else didn't do well enough. Individuals, not racial groups.

Then if those people well and truly deserved it, and were not given a "leg up" by a test biased in their favor, they should have no problems demonstrating that on a test demonstrably shown to be unbiased, should they?

Sure. But why should they lose out and have to prove themselves again on a suspicion?

[Ferrous Oxide]

Exhibit A: No blacks passed the test.

Wrong.

[Poliwanacraca]

The best qualified people will always score the highest on the material that is placed in front of them.

That's a silly statement. If the material placed in front of them was "What are the lyrics to 'Oops, I Did It Again'?" there is no reason to believe the highest scorers would be the most qualified firefighters. Now, obviously, I presume this test was not nearly that dumb, but if the questions are not a good measure of firefighting ability (and only firefighting ability), it is entirely possible for the best qualified people NOT to get the highest scores.

[New Limacon]

It's possible, you'd be surprised how ethnicity can affect supposedly neutral tests - especially if the test also included a personality as well as aptitude element (which a lot of tests by HR departments can do). I'm arguing that somewhere along the line bias could (not was) have been introduced that discriminates disproportionately against black people. I'm not saying it's likely, but based on the statistics this cannot be ruled out without at least cursory investigation. That way at least you can rule it out and the city would have had better grounds to stand on. Alternatively they may find that, somehow, it is biased and thus could adjust said test to remove the bias.

Right, tests are used plenty of times to preclude people of a certain race in a sneakier way than flat out segregation. There were the literacy tests for voting in the American South to keep out blacks, Harvard's admission process to keep out Jews, etc. Even the SATs, while not intentionally racist, were criticized several years ago for questions like the "oarsman-regatta" analogy. (The complaint being the type of people who would be in a rowing club would not be the type of people living in Harlem.)

Of course, I don't know how this test might have been discriminatory, because no news story felt the need to describe it any more than "60% written, 40% oral." Maybe someone explained earlier in this thread.

[Baudette]

Let's look at another situation and draw parallels...

The NFL combine measures speed, strength, and physical attributes. If 100 college athletes, of all races, are tested and have their speed and strength measured, and then a disproportionate amount of one race is drafted, is the combine process inherently biased? If one race is disproportionately NOT drafed, is that a sign of bias? The combine is a measuring stick that evaluates a player's potential and gives employers an idea of what type of success can be expected, if drafted [hired]. If one race is shown to have an advantage in a draft class, should the results be thrown out because it doesn't represent equal opportunity? Of course not!

Is the fact that I can go to the combine as a defensive back with a large group of other white athletes, do my best, not be the worst performer there, but still not be drafted show overt racism? Or, is the result expected because I wasn't the most qualified? Just because a large number of players trying out were of the same race does not, and should not, mean that some of them must be drafted to give them representation.

Maybe the combine process is indicative of racism, and those that can't run and jump as well should be up in arms because they weren't able to measure up to what was required. And those others, because they were better, should be held back.

[Araraukar]

If the Blacks didnt get in because they had shit scores, I feel no sympathy for them. Better luck next time.

Same, especially if it was an outsider that did the testing, so personal opinion can't weigh either. Plus I doubt the test had a "What is your race?" question...

Additionally, just passing the test and scoring high enough to become a lieutenant are not necessarily the same thing. You can pass a test and yet fail to get better than B-.

The whole racial shit in the States annoys me to no ends in any case - if everyone has the same chances (all know what the test is about, all have same amount of time to prepare), then race shouldn't have any effect on the results.

And I think the court did the right decision in ruling against the city. It's not the whites' and hispanics' fault the blacks didn't do well.

[The_pantless_hero]

Yes, again, we know that. The question is...why didn't that? And, as related to this case, the question is, given the history of the department, is the rationale of "black people didn't do as well on the test" sufficient reason to invalidate the test?

That answer is no. Various cases have ruled racial quotas unconstitutional. The continued implication here is that there should be X number of black people who were promoted, otherwise the whole thing is invalid. That is neither a valid nor constitutional argument. As it stood, race was used as a deciding factor in the final decision. Regardless of what race it is aimed at, that is racism.


Have I said I hate this forum before? I hate this forum.

[The_pantless_hero]

Exhibit A: No blacks passed the test.

Circular reasoning. It was biased because no blacks passed. But why was it biased? Because no blacks passed. Uh no, sorry. That is a valid point to start an investigation, not a valid one to make a decision.

[Dododecapod]

I don't give a flying fuck about "white people", if you'll pardon my cussing. I give a damn about people who do well on the requirements, do the right thing, seek the reward, then see their achievement cast to the ground because somebody else didn't do well enough. Individuals, not racial groups.

Ah, regardless of history, given that's unfair on current applicants, I see your point on this issue - would it be fair to give them that promotion yet also redress the balance in terms of the historical context, as in provide 21 positions as opposed to 17 positions?

It then raises questions on taxpayer allocation, life sure ain't simple.

No, it isn't. And for all we know, there might only be 17 positions available in the system.

As a historian myself, I have both sympathy and empathy with those trying to redress the balance between those who have traditionally been advantaged and those traditionally disadvantaged. I simply cannot accept such actions when they inflict harm on individuals without a very good reason.

[New Limacon]

It's a fucking FIREFIGHTING TEST. How the hell do you make a racially biased firefighting test?

I am becoming more curious what the actual test was like.

"Q1. Which of the following should be used to put out fires?
a) Water
b) Gasoline
c) More fire
d) David Duke"

That might explain the results, actually.

But I don't think we should necessarily assume the city designed a firefighting test to be racist. Just in the type of questions they asked and how they asked them could discriminate against a group of people, without the city consciously trying to design it that way. The fact there is a history of racism in the department makes it more suspect, but being unintentionally discriminatory is possible too, and just as bad for the people being discriminated against.

[Barringtonia]

No, it isn't. And for all we know, there might only be 17 positions available in the system.

As a historian myself, I have both sympathy and empathy with those trying to redress the balance between those who have traditionally been advantaged and those traditionally disadvantaged. I simply cannot accept such actions when they inflict harm on individuals without a very good reason.

I think this lies at the crux of any ideological position, where do individual rights supersede society rights. It's why the law is so fascinating.