Page 11 of 12

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:13 pm
by The Cat-Tribe
Grays Harbor wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Um. That last bit was quite necessary because of the utter lie that was in the statement to which I responded. The allegation WAS that the test didn't acurrately measure skills and knowledge required to assume leadership positions in fighting fires.


1.) you have no clue as to what my ideology may be. its a web forum.

2.) and my only "ideological reaction" is that those most qualified get the positions, regardless of racial makeup. I could give a crap about what their ethnic background is, when it comes to fighting fires we need those most capable to lead to be in those positions.


1) I've read more than a few of your posts. Unless you are consistently roleplaying, some of your opinions and paradigms become evident.

2) You are AVOIDING THE MAIN POINT I MADE. Your assumption that the City or minority firefighters were concerned about race and not qualifications is FALSE. The dispute was whether the tests actually measured objective qualifications or whether they were racially biased. Even the conservative SCOTUS majority recognized that it was not unreasonable to think the tests were biased.

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:16 pm
by The Cat-Tribe
Land of greed wrote:I think the court made the right decision, it was silly to consider a test non discriminatory then throw it out because enough people of one color didn't pass.


I also think the Court may have made the right decision, but it is evident from your post that you neither understand what the Court decided or why the City did what it did.

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:22 pm
by Gun Manufacturers
Maurepas wrote:I thought the court made the right decision, the reason for throwing the original promotions out in the first place was entirely based on race, and was therefore discriminatory, and wrong...

On the other hand though, I agreed with one of the opposing Justices who said that it was absurd for firefighters to be tested with pen and paper, to me, the only test the firefighters need to pass is the one where they run in a building and get the person out...

However, that is for New Haven to fix, not the courts, the fact is that the actions were discriminatory, Race should have never entered the equation, and shouldnt be asked at all, on anything...


The test was for captain and lieutenant promotions. They need to know a little more about that job than how to run into a building and pull someone out. They need to be able to evaluate each situation, and formulate the appropriate responses, to ensure that they protect their fellow firefighters, innocent civilians, firefighting equipment, and personal property.

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:24 pm
by Maurepas
Gun Manufacturers wrote:
Maurepas wrote:I thought the court made the right decision, the reason for throwing the original promotions out in the first place was entirely based on race, and was therefore discriminatory, and wrong...

On the other hand though, I agreed with one of the opposing Justices who said that it was absurd for firefighters to be tested with pen and paper, to me, the only test the firefighters need to pass is the one where they run in a building and get the person out...

However, that is for New Haven to fix, not the courts, the fact is that the actions were discriminatory, Race should have never entered the equation, and shouldnt be asked at all, on anything...


The test was for captain and lieutenant promotions. They need to know a little more about that job than how to run into a building and pull someone out. They need to be able to evaluate each situation, and formulate the appropriate responses, to ensure that they protect their fellow firefighters, innocent civilians, firefighting equipment, and personal property.

Like I said, Id still feel like a field test would be more appropriate, actually put them in charge of a squad or whatever and have them lead it to pull the person out and put out the fire, handle the situation, etc....

I dont see how a pen and paper test could possibly evaluate that accurately...

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:29 pm
by Ryadn
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Land of greed wrote:I think the court made the right decision, it was silly to consider a test non discriminatory then throw it out because enough people of one color didn't pass.


I also think the Court may have made the right decision, but it is evident from your post that you neither understand what the Court decided or why the City did what it did.


After a great amount of internal debate, I think I agree. I can understand the Court going either way, for different reasons. While it's obvious an inequality exists somewhere, it may not exist in the test itself. I have no way of knowing, of course--I haven't seen the test, and I'm not an expert in such things. But it's entirely plausible that the bias at work exists in the program itself, the opportunities and learning experiences extended to individuals of different groups, or society at large. Those don't make the test invalid. They do, however, highlight the very real fact of discrimination and inequality in today's society.

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:47 pm
by Gun Manufacturers
Maurepas wrote:
Gun Manufacturers wrote:
Maurepas wrote:I thought the court made the right decision, the reason for throwing the original promotions out in the first place was entirely based on race, and was therefore discriminatory, and wrong...

On the other hand though, I agreed with one of the opposing Justices who said that it was absurd for firefighters to be tested with pen and paper, to me, the only test the firefighters need to pass is the one where they run in a building and get the person out...

However, that is for New Haven to fix, not the courts, the fact is that the actions were discriminatory, Race should have never entered the equation, and shouldnt be asked at all, on anything...


The test was for captain and lieutenant promotions. They need to know a little more about that job than how to run into a building and pull someone out. They need to be able to evaluate each situation, and formulate the appropriate responses, to ensure that they protect their fellow firefighters, innocent civilians, firefighting equipment, and personal property.

Like I said, Id still feel like a field test would be more appropriate, actually put them in charge of a squad or whatever and have them lead it to pull the person out and put out the fire, handle the situation, etc....

I dont see how a pen and paper test could possibly evaluate that accurately...


They do have to show they have the knowledge to handle situations, and setting up a practical test isn't always possible. For example, a written test can show they know the proper way to neutralize a oil/fuel/chemical spill, without a risk to the environment. A written test can also show that prospective candidates know how the step by step procedures to deal with a large scale disaster, without having to expend the resources to set up field test.

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:45 pm
by DMistan
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Um. That last bit was quite necessary because of the utter lie that was in the statement to which I responded. The allegation WAS that the test didn't acurratelymeasure skills and knowledge required to assume leadership positions in fighting fires.


TCT, that's 180 degrees from the truth.

http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/uplo ... ciusdc.pdf

Defendants argue that “the decision not to certify [the
test] results was mandated by anti-discrimination federal, state
and local laws.” Def. Mem. in Support of Mot. for Summary
Judgment [Doc. # 52] at 4. Alternatively, they argue that they
had a good faith belief that Title VII mandated non-certification
of the examinations, and they cannot be liable under Title VII
for attempting to comply with that very statute. Defendants
additionally argue that plaintiffs lack standing to bring their
Equal Protection claim, or, if they do have standing, the claim
lacks merit because all firefighters were treated the same,
regardless of race, as no one was promoted as a result of the
contested exams.


The Defendants argued that the test may have had a racial bias, and that would render them liable under Title VII.

That's EXACTLY what they argued.

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:52 pm
by You-Gi-Owe
DMistan wrote:The Defendants argued that the test may have had a racial bias, and that would render them liable under Title VII.

That's EXACTLY what they argued.

And yet they hired an outside firm to make an unbiased test. They must have believed the test to have been unbiased prior to the examination. In this way, they followed the spirit of Title 7. Therefore, in spite of the results, by throwing out the exams because of race, then they ARE breaking Title 7.

It's actually a really beautiful "Catch-22".

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:05 pm
by The Cat-Tribe
DMistan wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Um. That last bit was quite necessary because of the utter lie that was in the statement to which I responded. The allegation WAS that the test didn't acurratelymeasure skills and knowledge required to assume leadership positions in fighting fires.


TCT, that's 180 degrees from the truth.

http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/uplo ... ciusdc.pdf

Defendants argue that “the decision not to certify [the
test] results was mandated by anti-discrimination federal, state
and local laws.” Def. Mem. in Support of Mot. for Summary
Judgment [Doc. # 52] at 4. Alternatively, they argue that they
had a good faith belief that Title VII mandated non-certification
of the examinations, and they cannot be liable under Title VII
for attempting to comply with that very statute. Defendants
additionally argue that plaintiffs lack standing to bring their
Equal Protection claim, or, if they do have standing, the claim
lacks merit because all firefighters were treated the same,
regardless of race, as no one was promoted as a result of the
contested exams.


The Defendants argued that the test may have had a racial bias, and that would render them liable under Title VII.

That's EXACTLY what they argued.


Utter bullshit. Your attempt to take what I said out of context and take what the City said out of context, oversimplify both, and make them seem contradictory fails. Read what I posted (emphasis added). Where did I lie or err?

The Cat-Tribe wrote:OK.

First, let me admit I haven't read this entire thread, just skimmed parts of it. I may get back to specific posts later.

Second, I now that almost none of you have or will read the actual SCOTUS decision, especially as it and the dissent combine to over 90 pages. Nonetheless, here a link to the pdf: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/ ... 7-1428.pdf

Third, I have read the opinion and most of the back-and-forth on this thread is based on ignorance, ideology, and irrelevancies. The case was actually very complicated and the difference between the majority opinion and dissent was rather narrow. Both agreed that the whole problem could have been avoided if the City had used a better selection process. Both agreed this was different than either an affirmative action or a racial set-aside case. Both agreed that the actions taken by the City in not certifying the test results was subjectively in good faith, but nonetheless had a racial impact. Both agreed that the actions taken by the City could nonetheless have been justified by sufficient concern by the City that the tests were biased and they could have been liable for discrimination if they had just certified the tests. The majority held that the City needed to have "strong evidence" it would have been liable and, although the City had prima facie evidence that the test was biased, lacked such strong evidence. The dissent would have held that the City's actions were justified by "good cause" to believe it would be subject to disparate impact liability.

The facts of the case are complicated. There was a great deal of expert opinion that the test was not just facially biased, but fundamentally flawed.

I find the majority and the dissent both to be quite reasonable (with the exception of Justice Scalia and Alito's concurrences) and think the case may well have been correctly decided.


The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:
Free Soviets wrote:and therefore you want to make sure that any tests given to determine qualification actually measures qualifications. which means when a test comes up with a suspicious outcome that you know will open you up to lawsuits, it just makes sense to not use those results, right?


How so? The allegation was that the test may have had a racial bias, not that it didn't measure the skills and knowledge required to assume leadership positions in fighting fires.


Actually, there was a great deal of evidence provided to the City before its decision that questioned whether they tests actually measured relevant skills and knowledge.

Your ideological reaction ignores inconvenient facts.


The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Um. That last bit was quite necessary because of the utter lie that was in the statement to which I responded. The allegation WAS that the test didn't acurrately measure skills and knowledge required to assume leadership positions in fighting fires.


1.) you have no clue as to what my ideology may be. its a web forum.

2.) and my only "ideological reaction" is that those most qualified get the positions, regardless of racial makeup. I could give a crap about what their ethnic background is, when it comes to fighting fires we need those most capable to lead to be in those positions.


1) I've read more than a few of your posts. Unless you are consistently roleplaying, some of your opinions and paradigms become evident.

2) You are AVOIDING THE MAIN POINT I MADE. Your assumption that the City or minority firefighters were concerned about race and not qualifications is FALSE. The dispute was whether the tests actually measured objective qualifications or whether they were racially biased. Even the conservative SCOTUS majority recognized that it was not unreasonable to think the tests were biased.

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:16 pm
by Land of greed
Gun Manufacturers wrote:I dont see how a pen and paper test could possibly evaluate that accurately...


They do have to show they have the knowledge to handle situations, and setting up a practical test isn't always possible. For example, a written test can show they know the proper way to neutralize a oil/fuel/chemical spill, without a risk to the environment. A written test can also show that prospective candidates know how the step by step procedures to deal with a large scale disaster, without having to expend the resources to set up field test.[/quote]
Well for the ranks being tested for it is entirely impossible to conduct a field test.
A Lieutenant is in charge would lead an entire station.
So to conduct a practical they would need to deploy 60 some odd fire fighters in a simulated 4 alarm fire. I don't know if the town in question has the facilities to simulate a 4 alarm fire safely. Never mind conducting it over 100 times for each testy. I guess a good way to stop promotions as it would take years to conduct a promotion exam.
never mind the captain will manage several fire stations and
Also a LT's job involves scheduling training and insuring it is being properly taken care of properly for his team.
the Captain will be balancing budget Items for the station, or stations he may be placed in charge of.

The paper test is valid because that is part of the job at those ranks is administrative.

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:29 pm
by DMistan
DMistan wrote:
TCT, that's 180 degrees from the truth.

http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/uplo ... ciusdc.pdf

Defendants argue that “the decision not to certify [the
test] results was mandated by anti-discrimination federal, state
and local laws.” Def. Mem. in Support of Mot. for Summary
Judgment [Doc. # 52] at 4. Alternatively, they argue that they
had a good faith belief that Title VII mandated non-certification
of the examinations, and they cannot be liable under Title VII
for attempting to comply with that very statute. Defendants
additionally argue that plaintiffs lack standing to bring their
Equal Protection claim, or, if they do have standing, the claim
lacks merit because all firefighters were treated the same,
regardless of race, as no one was promoted as a result of the
contested exams.


The Defendants argued that the test may have had a racial bias, and that would render them liable under Title VII.

That's EXACTLY what they argued.


In response, TCT wrote
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Utter bullshit. Your attempt to take what I said out of context and take what the City said out of context, oversimplify both, and make them seem contradictory fails. Read what I posted (emphasis added). Where did I lie or err?


I shall address each post, and use relevant material from the ruling of the District Court

Let's begin with
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Um. That last bit [near flame] was quite necessary because of the utter lie that was in the statement to which I responded. The allegation WAS that the test didn't acurrately measure skills and knowledge required to assume leadership positions in fighting fires.


Utterly false. Already demonstrated as such in the preceding post and quote. The defendants claimed that the test had a disparate impact.

Let's move on

The Cat-Tribe wrote:2) You are AVOIDING THE MAIN POINT I MADE. Your assumption that the City or minority firefighters were concerned about race and not qualifications is FALSE. The dispute was whether the tests actually measured objective qualifications or whether they were racially biased. Even the conservative SCOTUS majority recognized that it was not unreasonable to think the tests were biased.

False dichotomy. A test may indeed test competence but also be biased.
Example: None of these firefighters would pass a test written in Chinese, but that does not mean the test written in Chinese does not test for competency. A Language barrier does bias the results. The Chinese Language version is technically valid, but no one is going to pass it.

The CSB held five hearings between January and March 2004 on
the issue of whether to certify the test results. The issue
appears to have been raised by New Haven’s Corporation Counsel,
Thomas Ude. At the initial hearing on January 22, 2004, Mr. Ude
characterized the exam results as “a very significant disparate
impact . . . that caused us to think this was something we should
bring to you, the Civil Service Board, to evaluate and to be part
of and to ultimately make a decision about the process.” Pl. Ex.
Vol. IV(A) at 32. While it is disputed whether Mr. Ude already
had made up his mind to advise the CSB against certifying the
results, his comments “emphasize[d] . . . that the case law does
not require that the City find that the test is indefensible in
order to take action that it believes is appropriate to remedy .
. . disparate impact from examination.”
Id. at 34-35. He
advised that “federal law does not require that you [the CSB]
make a finding that this test . . . was not job-related, which is
another way of saying it wasn’t fair. A test can be job-related
and have a disparate impact on an ethnic group and still be
rejected because there are less discriminatory alternatives for
the selection process.”


The Cat-Tribe wrote:Second, I now that almost none of you have or will read the actual SCOTUS decision, especially as it and the dissent combine to over 90 pages. Nonetheless, here a link to the pdf: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/ ... 7-1428.pdf

Third, I have read the opinion and most of the back-and-forth on this thread is based on ignorance, ideology, and irrelevancies.

Now, believe it or not TCT, on this I agree with you.

Where you are wrong is in saying the defense challenged the tests on the grounds that it did not test "qualifications." The defense never did such a thing. The defense claimed "disparate impact." So, in the most literal sense, you sir are incorrect.
Your support for this position relies on mutual exclusion between testing for competence and bias in the test results. That's to say that a test can not test competence if the results exhibit a bias.
I think this is a stretch at best.

I offer the following:

Where two or more selection procedures are available
which serve the user’s legitimate interest in efficient
and trustworthy workmanship, and which are
substantially equally valid for a given purpose, the
user should use the procedure which has been
demonstrated to have the lesser adverse impact.

Accordingly, whenever a validity study is called for by
these guidelines, the user should include, as a part of
the validity study, an investigation of suitable
alternative selection procedures and suitable
alternative methods of using the selection procedure
which have as little adverse impact as possible, to
determine the appropriateness of using

29 C.F.R. § 1607.3(B).

A test may indeed test competency and proficiency, but that test may only be effective for a subset of the labour market.
That the test was designed to test competency (proficiency) was not in dispute. The defense relied solely on the obvious disparate impact, not the validity of the test.

BTW, for your enjoyment
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opin ... _0701.html

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:36 pm
by DMistan
You-Gi-Owe wrote:
DMistan wrote:The Defendants argued that the test may have had a racial bias, and that would render them liable under Title VII.

That's EXACTLY what they argued.

And yet they hired an outside firm to make an unbiased test. They must have believed the test to have been unbiased prior to the examination. In this way, they followed the spirit of Title 7. Therefore, in spite of the results, by throwing out the exams because of race, then they ARE breaking Title 7.

It's actually a really beautiful "Catch-22".


In the City's defense, if they had not, they would also be dragged into court. They were damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:40 pm
by Greed and Death
DMistan wrote:
You-Gi-Owe wrote:
DMistan wrote:The Defendants argued that the test may have had a racial bias, and that would render them liable under Title VII.

That's EXACTLY what they argued.

And yet they hired an outside firm to make an unbiased test. They must have believed the test to have been unbiased prior to the examination. In this way, they followed the spirit of Title 7. Therefore, in spite of the results, by throwing out the exams because of race, then they ARE breaking Title 7.

It's actually a really beautiful "Catch-22".


In the City's defense, if they had not, they would also be dragged into court. They were damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I don't think that a law suit had been filed. It was just the city being overly scared of being dragged into court.
As the math people pointed out with randomized test takers you could expect those results 10% of the time for any group weather that be redheads, or left handed people. The fear was over exaggerated.

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:51 am
by Itinerate Tree Dweller
Barringtonia wrote:
Ferrous Oxide wrote: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.


No it isn't. The test is designed to identify the best candidates for promotion, those firefighters who best understand the knowledge required for the positions being offered. The city tried to make it an issue of diversity when the majority of the people who scored high enough to earn the promotions just happened to be white.

If the test were about diversity, the tests would focus on ethnicity, background and economic factors, all of which are irrelevant when it comes to fighting fires.

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:54 am
by Cybach
So. Exactly how can a test even be racially biased? A test about putting out fires and ordering people around to put out fires? I just can´t for the love of me see, what kind of questions in such a test might exist that could cause a positive score disparity between separate races. Putting out a fire is putting out a fire, whether in the US or Uzbekistan.

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:59 am
by Allanea
Pope Joan wrote:This just goes to show that our current Court does not deem itself bound by any of its own precedents.

Why, such arbitrary and capricious action can only be described as...judicial activism!


No, judicial activism is when the rulings are not based on the constitution.

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:02 am
by Itinerate Tree Dweller
Araraukar wrote:
UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:If the test only contained facts, and no black people passed it because blacks, as a whole, tend to have shittier schools and less educational opportunities, how does that point to racism in the test? Doesn't it instead point to racism in society? A math test, for example, can't be racist. That makes no fucking sense.


Which brings us back to educational bias, which does exist, often to the detriment of non-white people. But it's not inherently racial.



Even if their educational backgrounds were different, you don't address that type of disparity when selecting a person for a position that might put them into a situation where lives are at stake. For such a position you always pick the best candidate for the job.

Want to address education disparities? Change the schools.

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:34 pm
by The Cat-Tribe
DMistan wrote:*snip*


Your attempt to create a pissing-contest over a side-point would be less annoying if you addressed substance and what I have said as a whole, rather than mistate my position and then attack it with snippets from the District Court opinion.

DMistan wrote:Where you are wrong is in saying the defense challenged the tests on the grounds that it did not test "qualifications." The defense never did such a thing. The defense claimed "disparate impact." So, in the most literal sense, you sir are incorrect.
Your support for this position relies on mutual exclusion between testing for competence and bias in the test results. That's to say that a test can not test competence if the results exhibit a bias.
I think this is a stretch at best.


DMistan wrote:*snip*
A test may indeed test competency and proficiency, but that test may only be effective for a subset of the labour market.
That the test was designed to test competency (proficiency) was not in dispute. The defense relied solely on the obvious disparate impact, not the validity of the test.



1. You are confusing "the defense" with those that complained about the tests in the first place.

2. You seem to think concern about bias in the tests and concerns that they were inaccurate are mutually exclusive. They aren't.

3. If you want to be nit-picky, you are wrong in saying the defense claimed "disparte impact." Actually, the defense claimed they had sufficient cause to believe they would be liable under Title VII if they used the test results. Moreover, e ven the SCOTUS majority admits there was a prima facie case of disparate impact.

4. I never said bias and competence are necessarily mutual exclusive in all cases, but they generally are. If a test is truly biased (not just creates a prima facie case of disparate impact, but actually discriminates), then it doesn't fairly look at qualifications because ..... IT'S BIASED.

5. As I have pointed out several times, and you keep ignoring, there was ample evidence presented first to the City and then to the courts that the tests involved here were fundamentally flawed and didn't accurately measure qualifications. To say the sole issue was the racial make-up of those that passed the test is a LIE.

6. Your arguments come dangerously close to the racist conceit that minorities are simply less qualified and therefore don't do as well on objective tests. I'm sure that is not what you mean to say.


DMistan wrote:BTW, for your enjoyment
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opin ... _0701.html


WTF relevance is the opinion of some journalist who clearly doesn't understand the relevant issue anyway? Especially given that I already have said I think the majority probably got the case right, just that it wasn't an easy call.

Have you read the SCOTUS opinion yet? Have you read about all the evidence presented about flaws in the design of the test? If not, shut up. If you have, why are you disagreeing with me that this was an issue?

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:45 pm
by Hayteria
Land of greed wrote:I think the court made the right decision, it was silly to consider a test non discriminatory then throw it out because enough people of one color didn't pass.

This. So long as the criteria are relevant to being a firefighter, the test is a good test. If some are to argue that the test is inherently biased in favour of whites, then it's up to them to prove it.

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:55 pm
by United Dependencies
I do not generally don't approve of racial quotas. However in some cases they can be necessary such as law enforcement where different races can be used to gain useful information from those who would be uncomfortable with a white officer. I'm sure there are also other jobs in which diversity is useful.

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:55 pm
by DMistan
The Cat-Tribe wrote:2. You seem to think concern about bias in the tests and concerns that they were inaccurate are mutually exclusive. They aren't.


That's not what I said. This is what I said.
DMistan wrote:Where you [The Cat Tribe] are wrong is in saying the defense challenged the tests on the grounds that it did not test "qualifications." The defense never did such a thing. The defense claimed "disparate impact." So, in the most literal sense, you sir are incorrect.
Your support for this position relies on mutual exclusion between testing for competence and bias in the test results. That's to say that a test can not test competence if the results exhibit a bias.
I think this is a stretch at best.

I offer the following:

Where two or more selection procedures are available
which serve the user’s legitimate interest in efficient
and trustworthy workmanship, and which are
substantially equally valid for a given purpose, the
user should use the procedure which has been
demonstrated to have the lesser adverse impact.


DMistan wrote:Defendants argue that “the decision not to certify [the
test] results was mandated by anti-discrimination federal, state
and local laws.” Def. Mem. in Support of Mot. for Summary
Judgment [Doc. # 52] at 4. Alternatively, they argue that they
had a good faith belief that Title VII mandated non-certification
of the examinations, and they cannot be liable under Title VII
for attempting to comply with that very statute. Defendants
additionally argue that plaintiffs lack standing to bring their
Equal Protection claim, or, if they do have standing, the claim
lacks merit because all firefighters were treated the same,
regardless of race, as no one was promoted as a result of the
contested exams.




The Cat-Tribe wrote:3. If you want to be nit-picky, you are wrong in saying the defense claimed "disparte impact." Actually, the defense claimed they had sufficient cause to believe they would be liable under Title VII if they used the test results.

I said this in my first post. Must I repeat things?
DMistan wrote:The Defendants argued that the test may have had a racial bias, and that would render them liable under Title VII.

That's EXACTLY what they argued.


The Cat-Tribe wrote:4. I never said bias and competence are necessarily mutual exclusive in all cases, but they generally are. If a test is truly biased (not just creates a prima facie case of disparate impact, but actually discriminates), then it doesn't fairly look at qualifications because ..... IT'S BIASED.

Substantiate please. Please substantiate that "bias and competence are [not] necessarily mutual exclusive in all cases, but they generally are"
Because I think that "bias" depends upon, among other things, to whom the test was given and for what.

DMistan wrote:Where you are wrong is in saying the defense challenged the tests on the grounds that it did not test "qualifications." The defense never did such a thing. The defense claimed "disparate impact." So, in the most literal sense, you sir are incorrect.
Your support for this position relies on mutual exclusion between testing for competence and bias in the test results. That's to say that a test can not test competence if the results exhibit a bias.
I think this is a stretch at best.


The Cat-Tribe wrote:5. As I have pointed out several times, and you keep ignoring, there was ample evidence presented first to the City and then to the courts that the tests involved here were fundamentally flawed and didn't accurately measure qualifications. To say the sole issue was the racial make-up of those that passed the test is a LIE.

No, you just fucking LIED. That is such a miserable loathsome LIE. It is exactly because who did and did not pass that we're even talking about "disparate impact." If Irish-Americans had passed and Italian-Americans had failed, we would not be having this debate.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:6. Your arguments come dangerously close to the racist conceit that minorities are simply less qualified and therefore don't do as well on objective tests. I'm sure that is not what you mean to say.


Don't you dare threaten me with accusations of racism. Is that what you do? Is that how you win arguments? Slander and threaten people who disagree with you? I am tired of you yelling "foul racist" at anyone who disagrees with you.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:
DMistan wrote:BTW, for your enjoyment
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opin ... _0701.html


WTF relevance is the opinion of some journalist who clearly doesn't understand the relevant issue anyway? Especially given that I already have said I think the majority probably got the case right, just that it wasn't an easy call.


Cynthia Tucker is just "Some Journalist?" She happens to be one of my FAVORITE OP-ED COLUMNISTS. She is FAMOUS. Fox News did one of their famous ambush interviews on her and she pWned them! Your attempt to slander Cynthia Tucker's character reveals your ignorance.

Will you call her, too, a racist?

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Have you read the SCOTUS opinion yet? Have you read about all the evidence presented about flaws in the design of the test? If not, shut up. If you have, why are you disagreeing with me that this was an issue?


We are arguing because your posts are cantankerous, your posts have no facts in them, and your posts reveal an understanding of even less.

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:06 pm
by Xsyne
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?

You mean the company that refused to show how they developed the test and present any evidence whatsoever that it measured one's ability to be a firefighter despite being required to do so? That company?

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:07 pm
by The Cat-Tribe
DMistan wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:5. As I have pointed out several times, and you keep ignoring, there was ample evidence presented first to the City and then to the courts that the tests involved here were fundamentally flawed and didn't accurately measure qualifications. To say the sole issue was the racial make-up of those that passed the test is a LIE.

No, you just fucking LIED. That is such a miserable loathsome LIE. It is exactly because who did and did not pass that we're even talking about "disparate impact." If Irish-Americans had passed and Italian-Americans had failed, we would not be having this debate.


*sigh*

I tire of this nonsense. I never said that the racial impact of the test was irrelevant. It WAS the main issue. It WAS NOT the ONLY issue considered by the City or the Courts, however. But a very real issue -- raised by the City and numerous experts -- was that the tests were flawed.

The first prong of the disparate impact analysis was the racial impact of the tests. After that, the law required inquiry into the validity and job relatedness of the tests. Guess what? That second step doesn't turn on the racial impact!!!!

Go have a stiff drink and calm down. You're losing it.

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:13 pm
by DMistan
The Cat-Tribe wrote:I tire of this nonsense. I never said that the racial impact of the test was irrelevant. It WAS the main issue.


How's that pWnage taste?

Re: SCOTUS rules for white firefighters in reverse bias case

PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:18 pm
by Vetalia
Well, obviously those minority firefighters were capable enough to become full-time firefighters to begin with, so I'd be hard pressed to believe their inability to pass that test reflected anything more than their simply being unqualified for the positions relative to the other members of their squad. Perhaps with more work and more effort they'll be able to earn those positions like any of the others who didn't perform well enough to receive a promotion. I swear, people make it seem like firefighting is something you can just waltz in to and become a full-time member of the force...it requires real skills, knowledge, and physical strength to get in to a high-risk position like that.

Maybe they really just weren't as good as the people who were promoted, and just maybe the ones who were promoted earned their positions because they were the best members of the force...that seems a lot more plausible than discrimination or the blatantly racist idea that minorities inherently perform worse on objective tests and therefore need to be promoted via quotas regardless of the actual circumstances.