• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FDNY ordered to hire minorities

Then I think it is important when a judge's decision could be viewed as being based upon emotion that said decision be articulated.

We have little to no reason to believe that this case is not based on some emotion or some socio-political agenda.

As I still refuse to believe a test can somehow be racist.

and your way of 'thinking' is easy to do

simply choose to ignore the facts
 
Statistics are a starting point. However, I do note the Judge does claim long standing discrimination:

Declining to impose racial quotas, Judge Garaufis nonetheless ruled that a systemic effort was required. “It is the court’s view that nearly 40 years of discrimination will not be cured by a few simple tweaks to the city’s policies and practices,” he wrote.

(snip)

Judge Garaufis did not, however, lay blame entirely at Mr. Bloomberg’s feet.

“That this discrimination has been allowed to persist in New York City for so long,” he wrote, “is a shameful blight on the records of the six mayors of this city who failed to take responsibility for doing what was necessary to end it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/nyregion/monitor-must-oversee-ny-fire-dept-hiring-judge-rules.html

Yet where is the judge's proof of discrimination?

In statistics?
 
and your way of 'thinking' is easy to do

simply choose to ignore the facts

What facts?

Statistics with no supplemental information? Sorry, that leads one to make an assumption of what the cause of the statistical difference is.

And somehow, the assumption is always racism on behalf of X.
 
Unless of course the tests are graded arbitrarily

And some sort of evidence would be provided for this?

Something more than a paranoid delusional assumption that such a thing is occurring right?

Cause, we don't act like paranoid delusional people in an effort to claim racism right?
 
And some sort of evidence would be provided for this?

Holy **** are you being purposely dense? I posted the actual ruling:

The City has failed to demonstrate a sufficient relationship between the tasks of a firefighter and the abilities it intended to test on Exams 7029 and 2043. It has failed to take measures to ensure the reliability of those examinations; it has failed to take steps to ensure that that the reading level of the examinations was appropriate; it has failed to test for various recognized important abilities of a firefighter; it has failed to test for abilities needed upon entry into the Academy, rather than abilities to be learned on the job; it has failed to retain
testing professionals to devise the examination questions; and it has failed to demonstrate that the examinations it administered actually tested the abilities it intended to test. Compounding these
failings, the City has imposed arbitrary pass/fail scores, unrelated to the qualifications for the job of entry-level firefighter, and has constructed eligibility lists based on distinctions in test scores
that are unrelated to corresponding differences in the qualifications of firefighter candidates. Following the Second Circuit’s holding in Guardians, the court concludes that the City
improperly relied upon these poorly constructed examinations in the face of a disparate impact upon minority candidates.
 
What facts?

Statistics with no supplemental information? Sorry, that leads one to make an assumption of what the cause of the statistical difference is.

And somehow, the assumption is always racism on behalf of X.

there are circumstances when one must use a preponderance of the evidence or a clear and convincing evidenciary standard to make a finding. we charge respected members of the court, recognized for their sober objectivity, to make such decisions. we call them judges. pity i need to explain that to a member of law enforcement

some might find it racist when individuals inveigh against the court's ruling only when the court finds these racial cases against the race of the individual who refuses to accept the court's considered finding as valid
 
Last edited:
Holy **** are you being purposely dense? I posted the actual ruling:

Any explanation of what was arbitrary about them?

Or can they just *say* it was Arbitrary and we are all supposed to believe it at face value?

This isn't moving us any more furthur than if you were to have called it arbitrary.

What about them was arbitrary?

What comprised of the Pass/Fail Scores?
 
it has failed to test for various recognized important abilities of a firefighter; it has failed to test for abilities needed upon entry into the Academy,

It's funny. I remember a few years ago when the fire dept did just that and were sued. You had to be able to carry so much weight down a ladder. When women were not able to meet this standard, there was a lawsuit.
 
there are circumstances when one must use a preponderance of the evidence or a clear and convincing evidenciary standard to make a finding. we charge respected members of the court, recognized for their sober objectivity, to make such decisions. we call them judges. pity i need to explain that to a member of law enforcement

Yeah.... about that.....

Judges, elected by people... (who rarely ever do enough research as to who the **** they are electing)...

Or appointed by........................................................................................................

Wait for it..............



Politicians.
 
Yet where is the judge's proof of discrimination?

In statistics?


I suspect it was presented in court. Which is a point I keep making. In court, both sides present evidence. This was not the first case, and in each case evidence is presented. This is how it is done, right?
 
I suspect it was presented in court. Which is a point I keep making. In court, both sides present evidence. This was not the first case, and in each case evidence is presented. This is how it is done, right?

Yes. But what the basis for the evidence was.... and whether it was an opinion garnered from an attempt to fill in the blanks of what statistics can't prove... or whether it was in the form of emails from administrators saying, "DON'T HIRE DEM DERE KNEEEGROWS OR DEM MEX-E-CANS!" are two different things.
 
the FDNY not representing NYC's demographics, is not in itself evidence of institutionalized racism at the FDNY.

however, some folks simply want to find racism...so they will see it wherever they can.
 
the FDNY not representing NYC's demographics, is not in itself evidence of institutionalized racism at the FDNY.

however, some folks simply want to find racism...so they will see it wherever they can.

Of course....

People make their livelihood off of looking for racism.
 
I suspect it was presented in court. Which is a point I keep making. In court, both sides present evidence. This was not the first case, and in each case evidence is presented.

The outcome of previous cases is inadmissible, as it has no bearing on the facts of the present case.
 
the FDNY not representing NYC's demographics, is not in itself evidence of institutionalized racism at the FDNY.

.

A quota type system alone cannot be used, however it is can be a factor when considering "underrepresented minority groups".
 
Did you read this post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...y-ordered-hire-minorities.html#post1060274304

This is the important part:



Reading is our friend.

Yes - I'm aware of all that was written . . . I'm not being crass on purpose.

No one's explaining just what about this test must be 'rewritten' so it's 'more passable'

If minorities are passing it (yes - they're passing it and qualifying) then maybe the ones with this lawsuit shoudl go to them and say 'wow man - how did you pass it?' and try to figure out what they're not understanding.

:shrug:

So: what they're REALLY juding this by is the % of minorities in the populous to the % of minorities in the FDNY. . . as is evident by the text of the ruling opinion given.

Don't you see my point: it's ridiculous to suggest that the wording of questions is 'racist' as the original article suggests is the issue . . . in fact: reading carefully the ruling - that's not even the argument being picked apart by the judiciary itself. The test questions are not 'comprehensible only to whites'

Now - reading said court opinion . . . Go to page 18 and 19. . . read all that.
What they incorporated into their decision making process was this disparity calculation - based on a what if scenario. *If* they failed *but* were able to still take the PPT and other components of the qualification-process *then* maybe more of them would have passed and qualified.

But you know what: they didn't - that's not how it was done. . . they had set up that you have to pass the written test first - achieve the proper percentile score - BEFORE you can do anything else. . . to me: I don't see what's wrong with that at all.

If I were one of the passing minorities on the force I'd be so embarassed and offended that *I* was able to pass but *they* weren't so - it's just not good enough for them? What pricks!

And you know: being a female college student I get it all the time: the under-achievers in my classes always try to alter the way things are done and argue in favor of wrong answers to try to squeeze out an extra point or two from a test. . . it's obnoxious.

Taking a test = study for that mother ****er . . .

I GUARANTEE YOU that if they applied theirselves MORE then more of them would have passed: **** - they're not STUPID are they? They figured out how to wage a lawsuit for Christ's sake . . . they're just lazy and using a race-card to get away with it.

It's so offensive.
 
Last edited:
First, if there is significant evidence of violating the equal rights act then the judge ruled properly.

Second, to all those who insisted that there is no quota system being used anywhere in the US (in other threads on similar topics), I respectfully say, "Bite me, bitches, I told you so!"

There IS a quota system still in place and it IS being enforced. So there. :)
 
Last edited:
First, if there is significant evidence of violating the equal rights act then the judge ruled properly.

Second, to all those who insisted that there is no quota system being used anywhere in the US (in other threads on similar topics), I respectfully say, "Bite me, bitches, I told you so!"

There IS a quota system still in place and it IS being enforced. So there. :)

The only thing argued that could have been changed in the court's opinion was the order in which elements of the 'pass fail' system were presented.

Currently it's: Pass the written exam with an 84% FIRST - if you pass then proceed to the PPT, and so on.
Their suggestion: 'Don't do the written exam FIRST' . . . or 'lower the passing grade'

Why isn't the response from others more along the lines of 'apply yourself more so you can pass the test' - is this really racist to suggest? The ones who DID take it DID pass it and DID go on to qualify and ARE part of this so called 'racist' system of firefighters, now - they deserve recognition for their success. They've proven it's obtainable and passible. THEY, have no doubt, put in extra study time and learned what they didn't already know.

Bravo for their success.

This whole lawsuit and ruling diminishes their success which is such a tragic shame: the only time being better than the rest turns out to be a bad thing in life.

I just don't see it being the *fault* of the FDNY whether or not they come prepared to pass the written test.
 
Last edited:
The real problem here is that this ruling does nothing to stop racism. They are forcing the issue of race to be considered in the hiring process. The better way to do this would be to eliminate race as a factor in the hiring process.
 
The real problem here is that this ruling does nothing to stop racism. They are forcing the issue of race to be considered in the hiring process. The better way to do this would be to eliminate race as a factor in the hiring process.

As most efforts to 'create an equal playing field by requiring race BECOME a determining factor' often do.
 
The real problem here is that this ruling does nothing to stop racism. They are forcing the issue of race to be considered in the hiring process. The better way to do this would be to eliminate race as a factor in the hiring process.

Agreed. But the question is how. It isn't like they or anyone would openly say we don't want a minority, or do anything too overt. They would just find away not to hire a minority. This is done rather often yet today. In private conversations I have been told by some who hire that the law be damned, no minority will work for them. So, without that admission, and as qualifications are really more subjective than most want to admit, how do you go about it?
 
Yes. But what the basis for the evidence was.... and whether it was an opinion garnered from an attempt to fill in the blanks of what statistics can't prove... or whether it was in the form of emails from administrators saying, "DON'T HIRE DEM DERE KNEEEGROWS OR DEM MEX-E-CANS!" are two different things.

Not really. There is a lot inbetween. It is rare, very rare, and any two candidates, let alone with a lot of candidates, where you always have a clear cut winner. It often boils down to something much more subjective. So, not only is there room for error, but also room for someone to always see the white male as the better choice. Maybe on purpose, but maybe not. Just the view is clouded by a prejudice they didn't know they held.
 
Agreed. But the question is how. It isn't like they or anyone would openly say we don't want a minority, or do anything too overt. They would just find away not to hire a minority. This is done rather often yet today. In private conversations I have been told by some who hire that the law be damned, no minority will work for them. So, without that admission, and as qualifications are really more subjective than most want to admit, how do you go about it?

Yeah: there's a huge host of other activities that would scream 'racist' and so on - but passing a test isn't one of them unless the whites were given the answers ahead of time.

You know - this approach to this issue I'm just not seeing.
 
Back
Top Bottom