SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

[Ferrous Oxide]

It makes sense to me. If there's only a limited number of promotion spots, then they should go to the people who get the highest passing marks. Just passing doesn't cut it.

[Eofaerwic]

But Hispanics are up for promotion and they're a minority? So where is the bias? Especially considering Hispanics often come from poorer surroundings than Africa-Americans.

The test may have biases which affect one ethnicity disproportionately over another. I'm not saying this is the case, but it's a possibility that can't be dismissed, in the same way that this is, effectively, due to random variation cannot be dismissed either. Both possibilities should be looked at before making a decision. Which as far as I can tell, is not what the city did.

[Tiesabre]

I think it should be taken into account to is how racism plays nowadays.

As a black person I can tell you it isn't in your face. White people know to call a black person a 'fucking nigger' tends to be a death warrant or at least condemnation by your peers. Same goes for Latinos, Native Americans and other non-white races.

So the racism is hidden, harder to spot and less obvious to even those being treated unfairly. A bank denies a black businessman a loan, but if you look at their records they only accent 1 in 20 black applicants whereas they accept 10 in 20 white applicants. When spotted the bank will claim it never noticed and doesn't believe in such practices, whereas they were well aware.

Haven't you ever wondered why when a black person or other minority gets power, they surround themselves with their race. Because if they don't, the white man sure isn't.

[Ferrous Oxide]

Haven't you ever wondered why when a black person or other minority gets power, they surround themselves with their race. Because if they don't, the white man sure isn't.

Yes, we were going to discuss that at the next annual "White Men Control the World and Hold a "Brother" Back" conference.

[Eofaerwic]

So the racism is hidden, harder to spot and less obvious to even those being treated unfairly. A bank denies a black businessman a loan, but if you look at their records they only accent 1 in 20 black applicants whereas they accept 10 in 20 white applicants. When spotted the bank will claim it never noticed and doesn't believe in such practices, whereas they were well aware.

Not to say that racism isn't involved, but you can't just look at numbers either - were the black and white applicants equal in credit history/viability for example. Looking at numbers and saying 'this inequality is due to racism' is overly simplistic and counter-productive. It makes it too easy for people to turn around and go "no, it's due to these perfectly legitimate reasons" without them every addressing the actual issue underlying the problem. Superficially if these inequalities aren't due to actual racism (some may be, some may not) then solving then blaming racism for everything won't solve the problem - it merely fosters resentment and acts as a smokescreen to more fundamental causes of inequality in society.

A multi-pronged assault is needed, dealing with the inequalities at the root cause AS WELL as any discrimination in place. And for that a more complex view is need for what's causing the unequal figures rather than a simplistic cry of Discrimination!.

Haven't you ever wondered why when a black person or other minority gets power, they surround themselves with their race. Because if they don't, the white man sure isn't.

I'd always actually imagined it was due to basic psychology of the fact we feel more comfortable with those from the same background/ingroup as us. Said ingroup can be based on race, ethnicity, sexuality or socio-economic status - whatever it is chances are people in power will be surrounding themselves with people similar to them on at least one if not more of these vectors.

In truth it's not very useful though since it limits the variety of opinions/points of view they'll be receiving and the best will take account of this and go out their way to choose advisors from drastically different backgrounds to their own.

[The_pantless_hero]

But Hispanics are up for promotion and they're a minority? So where is the bias? Especially considering Hispanics often come from poorer surroundings than Africa-Americans.

The test may have biases which affect one ethnicity disproportionately over another. I'm not saying this is the case, but it's a possibility that can't be dismissed, in the same way that this is, effectively, due to random variation cannot be dismissed either. Both possibilities should be looked at before making a decision. Which as far as I can tell, is not what the city did.

So your argument is a written test somehow was only discriminatory towards black people?

[The_pantless_hero]

Haven't you ever wondered why when a black person or other minority gets power, they surround themselves with their race. Because if they don't, the white man sure isn't.

I figured it was because they were racist and voluntarily segregationist like everyone else

[Eofaerwic]

But Hispanics are up for promotion and they're a minority? So where is the bias? Especially considering Hispanics often come from poorer surroundings than Africa-Americans.

The test may have biases which affect one ethnicity disproportionately over another. I'm not saying this is the case, but it's a possibility that can't be dismissed, in the same way that this is, effectively, due to random variation cannot be dismissed either. Both possibilities should be looked at before making a decision. Which as far as I can tell, is not what the city did.

So your argument is a written test somehow was only discriminatory towards black people?

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.

[Grays Harbor]

If asked why a particular group does poorly on a test, why is "racism" always the first answer? Is it a truism based on perpetuated stereotypes?

Unless you believe that people of different 'races' have brains that work in fundamentally different ways, there is no other clear answer for why different 'races' should produce disparate results.

The racism may very well be unintentional. It may be a result of differing culture, SEC, education, language, etc. It may be institutionalized. To say the test was racially biased was not to accuse the test makers or administrators of intentional racism--it's simply stating that there is an inequality at work somewhere, because if there wasn't, the results would not be so disparate.

Now, if you DO believe that people of different 'races' have different brains, there's no real argument anyone can make, because you are obviously not interested in science, facts, or rationality.

I just got up and the coffee isn't ready yet, so I may be misreading your assertation, but are you arguing that the Eugenics studies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were indeed correct?? Because, if you are, you are about a century out of date and really need to get new reference materiel.

[Grays Harbor]

If I were a poor Moldovian immigrant with no schooling or education. Would I be lobbed into the "white crowd," or would I be considered a disadvantaged minority which is eligible to minority benefits due to the extremely poor circumstances I emigrated and grew up from? Considering my strong Eastern European accent would make me the victim of a lot of racism, direct and institutional, from Western European descended Americans?

More than likely, yes, you would be included in with the "white crowd" as you put it, at least in the US.

[Barringtonia]

I think the issue is that where diversity is the goal, and a particular race is not forming part of that diversity, then one needs to question the criteria by which they're omitted, especially where they're applying. I suspect this goes back to literacy tests for voting.

I'm not sure the test matters so much other than it's causing a lack of diversity.

SCOTUS seems to be arguing, seemingly against the precedent of the 2nd Court of Appeals as well as creating a new interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that discrimination is happening against white people based on their race, that they're losing the opportunity specifically because they're white.

For me that doesn't hold up because it's looking at it the wrong way around and, as Pope Joan pointed out, it's judicial activism of the sort decried where it's the other way around.

[Ferrous Oxide]

SCOTUS seems to be arguing, seemingly against the precedent of the 2nd Court of Appeals as well as creating a new interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that discrimination is happening against white people based on their race, that they're losing the opportunity specifically because they're white.

White people are getting the high scored needed for promotion. Black people are not. Whites are being overlooked in favour of blacks.

How exactly is that not "losing the opportunity specifically because they're white"?

[Barringtonia]

White people are getting the high scored needed for promotion. Black people are not. Whites are being overlooked in favour of blacks.

How exactly is that not "losing the opportunity specifically because they're white"?

...because the issue is not that those who attain the score are white, it's that those who don't are predominantly black. This is about increasing diversity.

[Grays Harbor]

But Hispanics are up for promotion and they're a minority? So where is the bias? Especially considering Hispanics often come from poorer surroundings than Africa-Americans.

The test may have biases which affect one ethnicity disproportionately over another. I'm not saying this is the case, but it's a possibility that can't be dismissed, in the same way that this is, effectively, due to random variation cannot be dismissed either. Both possibilities should be looked at before making a decision. Which as far as I can tell, is not what the city did.

How can you argue a racial bias when the test was admitted to being on firefighting technique? Are black firefighters taught different then white or hispanic? Was there any bias even claimed before the test went to court? No. The primary reason the tests were tossed was because the City did not get the results they desired, instead got results based upon competency, and felt that there was a possibility that the black minority might file a lawsuit. It was pre-emptive dismissal of the test, and a case of retesting until they got the results they wanted, not results based on ability.

It is an unfortunate reality, at last here in the south, that some members of the NAACP and other groups, not all but some, will use "racism" as a legal tactic. By claiming racial bias it immediatly puts their opponent on the defensive, forcing them to prove a negative, that whatever is in dispute is not racially biased or motivated, as opposed to the claimant having to prove that it is racially biased. It gives them the moral high ground from the start because proving something is not what is claimed is more difficult than proving something is. The media down here is all too ready to play along as well, because controversy sells papers.

[The_pantless_hero]

If I were a poor Moldovian immigrant with no schooling or education. Would I be lobbed into the "white crowd," or would I be considered a disadvantaged minority which is eligible to minority benefits due to the extremely poor circumstances I emigrated and grew up from? Considering my strong Eastern European accent would make me the victim of a lot of racism, direct and institutional, from Western European descended Americans?

More than likely, yes, you would be included in with the "white crowd" as you put it, at least in the US.

This. Minority protection and racial lines in the US are solely based on color.

[Sitspot]

It seems impossible to judge this without a lot more information than we can currently access.
What was the ethnic composition of the total test group - not just those who passed?
What was the criteria for being allowed to sit the test?
How was it decided which of those who passed should be promoted?
How rigorously was the test screened for racial bias prior to being given?
What examples are there of test questions displaying racial bias?
Having said all this, I do wonder how it is remotely possible to design a test that is the sole criteria for promotion to fire captain. I can see how a knowledge of regulations etc is necessary and can be tested. But ability to lead, command respect, make good decisions under pressure, etc etc. are equally important and considerably more significant than whether one candidate scored 80% and another 90%
I would need a lot of convincing that a candidate's score in this test should be the sole criteria for whether he/she should be promoted.

[Land of greed]

It seems impossible to judge this without a lot more information than we can currently access.
What was the ethnic composition of the total test group - not just those who passed?
What was the criteria for being allowed to sit the test?
How was it decided which of those who passed should be promoted?
How rigorously was the test screened for racial bias prior to being given?
What examples are there of test questions displaying racial bias?
Having said all this, I do wonder how it is remotely possible to design a test that is the sole criteria for promotion to fire captain. I can see how a knowledge of regulations etc is necessary and can be tested. But ability to lead, command respect, make good decisions under pressure, etc etc. are equally important and considerably more significant than whether one candidate scored 80% and another 90%
I would need a lot of convincing that a candidate's score in this test should be the sole criteria for whether he/she should be promoted.

Only half the test was written, the other half was oral. I also think you needed recommendation of a supervisor.

[Purtovich]

Just checking to make sure I've got the sequence of events correct:

Test administered.
Few blacks passed.
Test was thrown out.
SCOTUS rules that this is reverse discrimination.

If this sequence of events is correct, then I'd have to agree with SCOTUS. Statistically, this is bound to happen, if only rarely. Someone else did a chi-square test and concluded that there was probably between a 5-10% chance of that happening purely by chance. I'm not a statistician and admittedly I may be missing something here, but from the SCOTUS point of view, being able to throw out test results on such a nonsignificant margin is probably overkill.

The nature of the test should probably be scrutinized. Without the weight of statistical evidence and without even a plausible mechanism, I'd be hesitant to call racism.

[Barringtonia]

If this sequence of events is correct, then I'd have to agree with SCOTUS. Statistically, this is bound to happen, if only rarely.

Sure, except...

But Ginsburg said the court should have assessed "the starkly disparate results" of the exams against the backdrop of historical and ongoing inequality in the New Haven fire department. As of 2003, she said, only one of the city's 21 fire captains was African-American.

Until this decision, Ginsburg said, the civil rights law's prohibitions on intentional discrimination and disparate impact were complementary, both aimed at ending workplace discrimination.

[Eofaerwic]

I think the issue is that where diversity is the goal, and a particular race is not forming part of that diversity, then one needs to question the criteria by which they're omitted, especially where they're applying. I suspect this goes back to literacy tests for voting.

I'm not sure the test matters so much other than it's causing a lack of diversity.

Yes, but surely the question must be - is the test causing lack of diversity or is the racial distribution of aptitude in this particular cohort causing a lack of diversity? I think to say that every year (or however often they do the promotion tests) you have to have an appropriate distribution in your diversities is counter-productive and discriminatory because then you putting racial considerations above ability. Of course if the problem is the test itself then clearly measures need to be taken against it - but first you have to determine if that's the case, and you can't do that by simply looking at the numbers from one sample. In other words, I'd personally want more information about the test/promotion procedures before I could make a call.

SCOTUS seems to be arguing, seemingly against the precedent of the 2nd Court of Appeals as well as creating a new interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that discrimination is happening against white people based on their race, that they're losing the opportunity specifically because they're white.

For me that doesn't hold up because it's looking at it the wrong way around and, as Pope Joan pointed out, it's judicial activism of the sort decried where it's the other way around.

[/quote]

I'll admit i'm not happy with how they handled it - I think they were looking at the issue wrong. As mentioned above, for me the case shouldn't have been are white's being discriminated against so much as was the city correct or not to throw out a test after the fact because it didn't get the result they wanted - thus moving the issue onto the validity, or lack thereof, of the test. But I'm sure a lawyer would say that's not an appropriate question for a court of law and I'm approaching this issue too much from the view of a social scientist

[The_pantless_hero]

SCOTUS seems to be arguing, seemingly against the precedent of the 2nd Court of Appeals as well as creating a new interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that discrimination is happening against white people based on their race, that they're losing the opportunity specifically because they're white.

As much as I hate to say it, I agree wit the neocon court. The test may qualify as disparate impact but that doesn't negate the fact that the promotion was thrown out on racial grounds without evidence that the test was discriminatory. Affirmative action can't reach reverse racism and still be ok.

[Barringtonia]

But I'm sure a lawyer would say that's not an appropriate question for a court of law and I'm approaching this issue too much from the view of a social scientist

Yes, that I'm not a lawyer leaves anything I write open to question, even to myself. I've refined my position over posts, and I think the Ginsberg quote is relevant, that there's an historic backdrop of inequality.

[Greed and Death]

SCOTUS seems to be arguing, seemingly against the precedent of the 2nd Court of Appeals as well as creating a new interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that discrimination is happening against white people based on their race, that they're losing the opportunity specifically because they're white.

As much as I hate to say it, I agree wit the neocon court. The test may qualify as disparate impact but that doesn't negate the fact that the promotion was thrown out on racial grounds without evidence that the test was discriminatory. Affirmative action can't reach reverse racism and still be ok.

It is like the court said you can't prevent Disparate impact by taking disparate action against another group. This issue has been growing for the last few decades, as what is or is not racism in the work place becomes harder to pick out.

I mean what if the same criteria were applied to the NBA draft ? Sorry NBA your draft results are thrown out not enough white and Hispanic basketball players.

[Ferrous Oxide]

White people are getting the high scored needed for promotion. Black people are not. Whites are being overlooked in favour of blacks.

How exactly is that not "losing the opportunity specifically because they're white"?

...because the issue is not that those who attain the score are white, it's that those who don't are predominantly black. This is about increasing diversity.

So the issue here is either 'It's not our fault you're dumb" or "It's not our fault you're lazy". If you want a good score, then go get it. "Whitey's keeping up down" has never been a valid excuse for any tests I've taken.

[Barringtonia]

So the issue here is either 'It's not our fault you're dumb" or "It's not our fault you're lazy". If you want a good score, then go get it. "Whitey's keeping up down" has never been a valid excuse for any tests I've taken.

Again, I don't think it's specifically about 'whitey', 'whitey' simply happens to be the predominant race, it's more about who's omitted than who's included.

I mean what if the same criteria were applied to the NBA draft ? Sorry NBA your draft results are thrown out not enough white and Hispanic basketball players.

You know, I couldn't explain the difference there, not being a lawyer and not being acquainted with the either the pertaining law nor the case specifics, I couldn't comment.

I do see how this is an issue though having read Article VII, the proof that any hiring practice is discriminatory based on historic results, tough one.