NationStates

Considering that bias is bias, doesn't matter if it's aimed towards black or white, the whole thing is a bit silly. It's more for lawmakers to cover there ass to avoid doing something that gets them sued by angry minorities.

Araraukar wrote:

The_pantless_hero wrote:There are two babies in the room. Do you save the white baby or black baby first?

I'm sorry, the answer was the white baby.

Let's try again... there is a group of 10 new mothers in one room, 7 of whom are white, 2 blacks and 1 hispanic.

Next room is a room where there are two babies, one black and one white.

Baby room is set on fire. The mothers are allowed to rush in one at a time to rescue 1 baby.

Which baby gets rescued more often?

Given that most of the mothers are white, you would expect white baby to get rescued more often. Now is that a normal expectation or are the white moms expected to be racist towards their own race and rescue the black baby more often?

Would you expect each mother to save her own baby, resulting in 7 white babies saved, 2 black babies and 1 Hispanic.

Wouldn't you question the results if the results were different?

I suspect the others are irrelevant as far as a hypothetical goes, other than the fact that, given numerous instances, the 2nd white baby was predominantly saved, in which race would be a factor, otherwise why only save the white baby?

Barringtonia wrote:

Araraukar wrote:

The_pantless_hero wrote:There are two babies in the room. Do you save the white baby or black baby first?

I'm sorry, the answer was the white baby.

Let's try again... there is a group of 10 new mothers in one room, 7 of whom are white, 2 blacks and 1 hispanic.

Next room is a room where there are two babies, one black and one white.

Baby room is set on fire. The mothers are allowed to rush in one at a time to rescue 1 baby.

Which baby gets rescued more often?

Given that most of the mothers are white, you would expect white baby to get rescued more often. Now is that a normal expectation or are the white moms expected to be racist towards their own race and rescue the black baby more often?

Would you expect each mother to save her own baby, resulting in 7 white babies saved, 2 black babies and 1 Hispanic.

Wouldn't you question the results if the results were different?

I have to go with this guy. If the mothers are allowed to go one at a time, they'll save their own child, every time, now if you said a group of women, well, that's different.

New Limacon wrote:There were the literacy tests for voting in the American South to keep out blacks

Then those damn blacks need to learn to read. What were they going to do on the ballot anyway? Draw a picture of the guy they wanted to vote for?

New Limacon wrote:Harvard's admission process to keep out Jews

Really? How?

New Limacon wrote: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.)

I doubt most of the white answerers from, say, Iowa farmer homes would belong to a rowing club either...

so far, the only thing everyone agrees on is that we don't know if the test was biased.
I heard in one report that SCotUS did look at the test and found that it wasn't (but since it was the reporter talking, I have no source.)

now, with all those that did "pass" (which is different than qualifying) and a limited number of openings... yes, alot of people will be disappointed.

so my unanswerable question is this.

had there been 5 more openings, would they have been filled with non-whites?

New Limacon wrote: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.

The city didn't even design the test, the designing was given to a company that was hired exactly for the reason of drafting up an unbiased test, something they in fact made their living out of. If you can't trust an impartial third side, then who can you trust?

Araraukar wrote:

New Limacon wrote: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.

The city didn't even design the test, the designing was given to a company that was hired exactly for the reason of drafting up an unbiased test, something they in fact made their living out of. If you can't trust an impartial third side, then who can you trust?

Red tape is always reliable, lets go with that.

The_pantless_hero wrote:

Araraukar wrote:I'll up the ante here: I'm not racist, I'm specieist; I don't like the whole human species.

That already have a term for that; it's misanthrope.

Not true. Oxford dictionary says this:

misanthrope (noun, formal) a person who hates and avoids other people

I don't hate people, I don't avoid people, I just don't like the human species, race being irrelevant to me. Human species is a particularly ugly animal, and I'm not even going to touch the subject of its behaviour.

Araraukar wrote:

New Limacon wrote:There were the literacy tests for voting in the American South to keep out blacks

Then those damn blacks need to learn to read. What were they going to do on the ballot anyway? Draw a picture of the guy they wanted to vote for?

This was an instance of the test being intentionally biased. Especially in areas where almost no one has formal education, it's easy to ask the white guy to write his name, and then ask the black one to write out the preamble to the Constitution.

New Limacon wrote:Harvard's admission process to keep out Jews

Really? How?

This is based on a single article I read, so it may not be entirely accurate, but the story is here, for your perusal.
Basically, Harvard has a "personality" section. From the story:

The admissions office at Harvard became much more interested in the details of an applicant’s personal life. Lowell told his admissions officers to elicit information about the “character” of candidates from “persons who know the applicants well,” and so the letter of reference became mandatory. Harvard started asking applicants to provide a photograph. Candidates had to write personal essays, demonstrating their aptitude for leadership, and list their extracurricular activities. “Starting in the fall of 1922,” Karabel writes, “applicants were required to answer questions on ‘Race and Color,’ ‘Religious Preference,’ ‘Maiden Name of Mother,’ ‘Birthplace of Father,’ and ‘What change, if any, has been made since birth in your own name or that of your father? (Explain fully).’ ”

These intangibles make it easier to deny candidates based on race or religion without explicitly saying that.

New Limacon wrote: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.)

I doubt most of the white answerers from, say, Iowa farmer homes would belong to a rowing club either...

No, and I would be unwilling to predict how a person answered the question only knowing their race. But as a whole, more whites are likely to be rowing than blacks are as a whole. In civil rights, we have to look at how entire communities of people are being affected, not just individuals.

Soheran wrote:

Land of greed wrote:I think the court made the right decision,

I do not. If we want to have a society that actually has racial equality, we need to take disparate impact seriously.

As do I, but I also believe you can't quota your way to a free and equal society.

The_pantless_hero wrote:You flip a coin, 5 times. You expect roughly 2 heads and 2 tails. But that could be out of whack. You would have to flip the coin a large number of times to average out to 50% heads, 50% tails.

If I bet heads, I'm pretty sure I get tails five times out of five... is that bad luck or is the universe biased against me?

Barringtonia wrote:Either you're saying black people are inherently unlikely to pass the required grade for promotion or something else is going on.

Which?

Wasn't trying to say that at all. I was trying to say that people who got high enough score to get promoted, should get their promotions. Individuals, based on the knowledge inside their brain, not the colour of the casing it's in.

Araraukar wrote:The city didn't even design the test, the designing was given to a company that was hired exactly for the reason of drafting up an unbiased test, something they in fact made their living out of. If you can't trust an impartial third side, then who can you trust?

There have many complaints against companies like ETS, whose entire line of work is making tests, because of perceived bias. And when you look at things like SAT scores, taking into consideration parental level of education and income, the results do seem odd.
Education
Income

Barringtonia wrote:Would you expect each mother to save her own baby, resulting in 7 white babies saved, 2 black babies and 1 Hispanic.

Read closer, I didn't put in their own babies, nor a hispanic baby at all. I just based the hypothetical test solely on skin colour, like the ones arguing here seem to want to do with the firefighters' test.

New Limacon wrote:This was an instance of the test being intentionally biased. Especially in areas where almost no one has formal education, it's easy to ask the white guy to write his name, and then ask the black one to write out the preamble to the Constitution.

That would be an educational bias, then, not racial. And I thought USA had free grade school system at the very least.

New Limacon wrote:

“Starting in the fall of 1922,” Karabel writes, “applicants were required to answer questions on ‘Race and Color,’ ‘Religious Preference,’ ‘Maiden Name of Mother,’ ‘Birthplace of Father,’ and ‘What change, if any, has been made since birth in your own name or that of your father? (Explain fully).’ ”

Sounds so interesting, that I'll check that one out later just for my own information, but I don't think that would be happening any more, since the first jew whose mom and dad would be disappointed in him or her not getting in, would sue the university...

New Limacon wrote:But as a whole, more whites are likely to be rowing than blacks are as a whole.

Seriously? Even given the numbers of white kids versus black kids? Not percentage of each group, but sheer numbers, like you said.

(For the most part I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just after facts.)

Araraukar wrote:

New Limacon wrote:There were the literacy tests for voting in the American South to keep out blacks

Then those damn blacks need to learn to read. What were they going to do on the ballot anyway? Draw a picture of the guy they wanted to vote for?

...wow. Just wow.

Araraukar wrote:

New Limacon wrote:This was an instance of the test being intentionally biased. Especially in areas where almost no one has formal education, it's easy to ask the white guy to write his name, and then ask the black one to write out the preamble to the Constitution.

That would be an educational bias, then, not racial. And I thought USA had free grade school system at the very least.

....you realize that most of this was in Reconstruction era right? The Voting Rights act made this moot back in 1965

Neo Art wrote:....you realize that most of this was in Reconstruction era right? The Voting Rights act made this moot back in 1965

Lol, no-one said it was history. The example was used in the sense of it being a current practice.

Poliwanacraca wrote:

Araraukar wrote:Then those damn blacks need to learn to read. What were they going to do on the ballot anyway? Draw a picture of the guy they wanted to vote for?

...wow. Just wow.

I was just told it's history. If it was modern day, then my statement would stand.

Araraukar wrote:

Neo Art wrote:....you realize that most of this was in Reconstruction era right? The Voting Rights act made this moot back in 1965

Lol, no-one said it was history. The example was used in the sense of it being a current practice.

Maybe because nobody felt the need to explain something that should have been common knowledge to anyone with a highschool education.

Unless you're a non american...in which case, why assume before, you know, asking?

Neo Art wrote:Maybe because nobody felt the need to explain something that should have been common knowledge to anyone with a highschool education.

Unless you're a non american...in which case, why assume before, you know, asking?

I'm not "American", and since the discussion started with a current event, I didn't think someone would dig up old, out-dated examples. No-one's saying racism wasn't really bad earlier on, just that sometimes it's too often raised as an issue in current events where it isn't an issue, like in the firefighter case.

Neo Art wrote:

The_pantless_hero wrote:Of course not, but the real question is can action be taken on the assumption that it is without proving it a fact? Especially if that action is racially motivated.

It is a question, yes. Of course, the important fact is this though. The relevant legal question is essentially this: can the state, of its own volition, void the results of the test, if it fears unintended racial consequences?

SCOTUS said no. Which means the state must uphold the results of the exam. Which means, and here's where it gets interesting, since it must uphold the results of the exam, those minorities who were denied promotion, will now be able to sue on the grounds that the test was discriminatory, and address THAT issue in court.

The matter of law at issue in this case was never "is the test discriminatory?" it was "can the state void it on fear that it was?" The minorities denied promotion never sued. It was the white test takers who were denied promotion that did.

The test was in 2003.
So my guess is they already promoted people.
Likely just give those suing back pay and pay checks as if they had been promoted, until there is an opening for those promoted ranks.
Then maybe count time in rank as if they were promoted in 2003.
If the results had been reversed and the test had promoted too few whites and the city had thrown out the results I would have supported the minorities suit.

By the way, I'm reading the article about Harvard - very interesting. ^_^

Araraukar wrote:

Neo Art wrote:Maybe because nobody felt the need to explain something that should have been common knowledge to anyone with a highschool education.

Unless you're a non american...in which case, why assume before, you know, asking?

I'm not "American", and since the discussion started with a current event, I didn't think someone would dig up old, out-dated examples. No-one's saying racism wasn't really bad earlier on, just that sometimes it's too often raised as an issue in current events where it isn't an issue, like in the firefighter case.

because racism ended forever in 1965, right?

Neo Art wrote:

Araraukar wrote:I'm not "American", and since the discussion started with a current event, I didn't think someone would dig up old, out-dated examples. No-one's saying racism wasn't really bad earlier on, just that sometimes it's too often raised as an issue in current events where it isn't an issue, like in the firefighter case.

because racism ended forever in 1965, right?

Re-read the bit I bolded from my previous answer. (Though I would delete the 'sometimes' and replace with 'in my opinion'.)