Thread: Justices Rule for White Firefighters in Bias Case

Originally Posted by Ethereal

Why is that such a far-fetched assessment? Is it really so hard to believe that "progressivism" is actually racism, even if they don't know it themselves?

The biggest thing Orwell warned against in 1984 was the utter distortion of language. That is what these PC thugs have done. They've taken racist ideology and changed its name into "progressivism" or "affirmative action". The Orwellian contortions these people use to justify what is OBVIOIUSLY racism is stunning to me.

Common sense no longer prevails in our society. We cannot bring ourselves to call a spade a spade anymore because it isn't pleasant or civil. PC language is destroying intellectual honesty in this country.

When a white man cannot get promoted simply because black men couldn't do as well on a test as him THAT IS RACIST, anyway you slice it, it is racist.

Yet let us be honest about "utter distortion of language" since government and/or those in power across all of the political spectrum can and have been guilty of that. Let us remember that anti-arbortion is called pro life and most pro lifers are strong supporters of capital punishment and anti-union laws are called right to work laws and child labor laws restrict the right of children to work and the worker paridise the USSR sent workers to gulags for asking for rights and the Democratic Republic of Gremany was neither a republic nor democratic and prostitutes are sex workers.

Originally Posted by celticlord

I am more interested in her explanation of why she sought to dispose of the matter with a perfunctory summary opinion that ignored every issue in the case.

That is her most grievous error in the Ricci case--that she utterly failed to do what appellate judges are supposed to do: interpret the law.

How so?

Why do you believe she failed to interpret the law--what wording specifically in the summary opinion?

Originally Posted by atomsNvoid

Good evening Redress,

Allow me for the sake of argument to stipulate that all that you say above is true, accurate, valid and reasonable. Then allow me to ask several questions based on the position that you have stated.

1) In you opinion is it possible to "create" a race neutral test? Are you aware of any? If so, why didn't the city use those tests?

2) Will there ever come a time in which blacks do as well on some "created" test as other members of the society, so that all members of a society will be able to be tested with one test?

3) As long as the laws exist and are interpreted as you understand them, can you provide a rational for administering tests at all? Since it is only possible to determine whether a test is race neutral after the results are in, why not simply assign the desired results at random and forego the test? This would save everybody alot of effort and alot of money.

4) Can you provide a rational, intellectually sound basis for the assumption that if the results of a test turn out differently than desired by a sub-section of the society then the test must be faulty. In the absense of any data to the contrary how can an intellectually honest party not question if perhaps the testee did not adequately prepare for the exam?

I look forward to your responses.

I dunno if I got any real good answers here.

1) The test the city did use was thought to be race neutral before it was administered as I remember it. Part of the problem that the city faced, as I understand it(note I am not a lawyer), was that results can be used to decide if a test is race neutral. In other words, if a test passes more whites than blacks who are otherwise equally qualified, it suggests that the test is the problem. I am not sure if I exactly agree with that idea, but that is what I understand the city interpreted the law as meaning.

2) You phrase the question poorly. It is equally possible to create a test that blacks do better on than whites. I think this will change, as society becomes more homogeneous. Right now there are large pockets of primarily white areas, primarily black areas, primarily hispanic areas. As such, these areas tend to have distinct cultures and dialects.

3) The goal is race neutral, not quotas. As I remember it from reading the original judgment on this case, there is considerable room within "race neutral" as far how the results actually happen. In this case, only one minority passed(a hispanic interestingly enough, who was part of the lawsuit on the side of the "white" firefighters...in other words, it was white and latino firefighters who won this case), which was wildly unrepresentative of the makeup of those taking the test.

4) Your assumption is that a whole group of people of one ethnicity chose not to prepare properly for an exam, while another ethnicity prepared properly. This seems more unlikely than that the test may have been flawed. In the absence of more evidence, I find the likelihood that blacks simply do not prepare as much for a test as whites unlikely, especially since I know of no complaints as to the black firefighters being less skilled. In either case, we are making assumptions and guesses.

Note that this does not directly impact on the reason for the city throwing out the tests(they threw them out due to fear of a possible lawsuit by minority firefighters), nor actually on the ruling of SCOTUS.

Originally Posted by Redress

That is actually the goal as I understand it. What the law tries to prevent, and that caused all this, is that due to cultural differences, blacks do better on some types of tests, less well on others. The idea is to create race neutral tests. The city was worried that the results where an indication that the test was not race neutral.

WTF? This doesn't make any sense and seems racist in itself.

There is not a single test that a black man cannot perform as well as a white man if he studied equally and knows his ****.

Originally Posted by Redress

I dunno if I got any real good answers here.

1) The test the city did use was thought to be race neutral before it was administered as I remember it. Part of the problem that the city faced, as I understand it(note I am not a lawyer), was that results can be used to decide if a test is race neutral. In other words, if a test passes more whites than blacks who are otherwise equally qualified, it suggests that the test is the problem. I am not sure if I exactly agree with that idea, but that is what I understand the city interpreted the law as meaning.

This is utter nonsense. Just because by chance the white folks happened to outperform the black folks in this test, somehow the test is racist? Give me a friggin' break. Its a test, I don't understand how being tested on your proficiency and knowledge in the job you plan on recieiving a promotion in can be viewed as racist. Period. Its impossible.

2) You phrase the question poorly. It is equally possible to create a test that blacks do better on than whites. I think this will change, as society becomes more homogeneous. Right now there are large pockets of primarily white areas, primarily black areas, primarily hispanic areas. As such, these areas tend to have distinct cultures and dialects.

This isn't about culture and dialect. Every one of the individuals taking this test should have been well versed in the cultural knowledge necessary to perform well on this test: Firefighting.

4) Your assumption is that a whole group of people of one ethnicity chose not to prepare properly for an exam, while another ethnicity prepared properly. This seems more unlikely than that the test may have been flawed. In the absence of more evidence, I find the likelihood that blacks simply do not prepare as much for a test as whites unlikely, especially since I know of no complaints as to the black firefighters being less skilled. In either case, we are making assumptions and guesses.

....as well as painting all those who took the test as "whites" "blacks" "hispanics" instead of realizing that real people are behind the test, and taking the test. In this case those who happened to be black, happened to not perform well. I'd be willing to bet there were whites who failed the test as well.

Note that this does not directly impact on the reason for the city throwing out the tests(they threw them out due to fear of a possible lawsuit by minority firefighters), nor actually on the ruling of SCOTUS.

Yeah, with the NAACP and folks like Al Shartpon around, who can blame them?

Originally Posted by Redress

Until we fix that problem(probably with education), there will always be issues with race like this.

Yep. Fixing the problem requires people stepping up and being PARENTS as opposed to sperm donators and incubation tanks.

Originally Posted by Caine

WTF? This doesn't make any sense and seems racist in itself.

There is not a single test that a black man cannot perform as well as a white man if he studied equally and knows his ****.

Yes, things like history, geography, and the Appalachian Mountains are important. But that’s why we have sections that test this knowledge. The texts in reading comprehension should either be truly random across cultures, class, religions, and backgrounds, or they should be community specific.

In New York, for example, this would mean test texts that focus on things like reggeaton, Chris Brown, the Yankees, what’s the hottest show on BET, the cooking of popular Puerto Rican meals, what happens in Prospect Park at night, and the elements of MySpace. In other words, if what we’re trying to do is test reading comprehsion, we can’t also be confusing our students about subjects they might never have encountered before. Right off the bat, reading the long, strange name of some random mountain range tells our students, “No, you don’t know about this.” And, “Yes, this test was not made with you in mind.”

I say that these tests are racist because anyone who has administered a standardized test knows that the subject matter tends to be very educated-middle-class. And anything educated-middle-class focused is going to necessarily be biased toward whites. It’s simply how it is.

Standardized Tests: Inadvertently Or Not, They Are Racist Teacher, Revised