Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

SCOTUS to Rule on Major Job Discrimination Case

1234568

Posts

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    You know someone should really tell tzar about basic statistics. Blacks make up 12.5% of americans, wich means on average(nationaly) they should make up 12.5% of best qualified applicants.

    This is obviously untrue. It is obviously true that blacks are disproportionately economically disadvantaged; not because of racism in the present as much as because of past historical forces (racism among them).

    Then why do black high school graduates have a lower employment rate then white dropouts (they used this as the premise of a question during one of the democratic primary debates).

    I would need to see the actual study and numbers. It is entirely possible that if you live in the suburbs and drop out, you can still easily find some kind of job. But if you live in a city, even having a high school education might not be enough to get a job because there's not enough jobs for the existing population in the first place.

    That's the problem with statistics. It's easy enough to show correlation, but actually figuring out what's causing what is an entirely different matter.

    And I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist. But things like poor schools, where people live, and cycles of poverty are, imho, a much more significant cause of racial inequality than conscious or unconscious racism.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    You know someone should really tell tzar about basic statistics. Blacks make up 12.5% of americans, wich means on average(nationaly) they should make up 12.5% of best qualified applicants.

    This is obviously untrue. It is obviously true that blacks are disproportionately economically disadvantaged; not because of racism in the present as much as because of past historical forces (racism among them).

    Then why do black high school graduates have a lower employment rate then white dropouts (they used this as the premise of a question during one of the democratic primary debates).

    And note I did not mention what type of job they where applying for. Socio-economic status is an explanation for inequality not an excuse. It justifies taking steps to fix the problem, like throwing out a test to see blacks promoted in numbers they need.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    You know someone should really tell tzar about basic statistics. Blacks make up 12.5% of americans, wich means on average(nationaly) they should make up 12.5% of best qualified applicants.

    This is obviously untrue. It is obviously true that blacks are disproportionately economically disadvantaged; not because of racism in the present as much as because of past historical forces (racism among them).

    Then why do black high school graduates have a lower employment rate then white dropouts (they used this as the premise of a question during one of the democratic primary debates).

    And note I did not mention what type of job they where applying for. Socio-economic status is an explanation for inequality not an excuse. It justifies taking steps to fix the problem, like throwing out a test to see blacks promoted in numbers they need.

    A quota (which is exactly what throwing out any test that doesn't promote enough of the "right" kind of race amounts to) means promoting less qualified candidates simply because of their race.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Which returns us to the whole "it's hard to correct for, so let's do nothing" idea. Yes, I understand that quotas are a distasteful to some, so in the last 15 years we've been moving towards a system that emulates quotas as closely as possible without actually being quotas, and even that is being eroded slowly. So we're in a situation where we recognize the problem (lower minority hiring), the root of the problem (disadvantages borne from institutional racism and poverty), and a solution (quotas or near quotas) that isn't optimal but does mostly work in mitigating the impact of the problem at the expense of a small number of people.

    You are against quotas (or something like quotas) and want them abolished because you think they're unfair. Fair enough, but the problem still exists. What, then, do you propose as a solution to implement in the place of quotas? And no, doing nothing isn't a valid option.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Which returns us to the whole "it's hard to correct for, so let's do nothing" idea. Yes, I understand that quotas are a distasteful to some, so in the last 15 years we've been moving towards a system that emulates quotas as closely as possible without actually being quotas, and even that is being eroded slowly. So we're in a situation where we recognize the problem (lower minority hiring), the root of the problem (disadvantages borne from institutional racism and poverty), and a solution (quotas or near quotas) that isn't optimal but does mostly work in mitigating the impact of the problem at the expense of a small number of people.

    You are against quotas (or something like quotas) and want them abolished because you think they're unfair. Fair enough, but the problem still exists. What, then, do you propose as a solution to implement in the place of quotas? And no, doing nothing isn't a valid option.

    1) Fix the public school system.

    2) Fix the social welfare system.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    You know someone should really tell tzar about basic statistics. Blacks make up 12.5% of americans, wich means on average(nationaly) they should make up 12.5% of best qualified applicants.

    This is obviously untrue. It is obviously true that blacks are disproportionately economically disadvantaged; not because of racism in the present as much as because of past historical forces (racism among them).

    Then why do black high school graduates have a lower employment rate then white dropouts (they used this as the premise of a question during one of the democratic primary debates).

    And note I did not mention what type of job they where applying for. Socio-economic status is an explanation for inequality not an excuse. It justifies taking steps to fix the problem, like throwing out a test to see blacks promoted in numbers they need.

    A quota (which is exactly what throwing out any test that doesn't promote enough of the "right" kind of race amounts to) means promoting less qualified candidates simply because of their race.

    Actually the people benefitting because of their races are less qualified white candidates. If the playing field was level they would have lost to black candidates, but because of racism the black qualifications got devalued. Devaluing others does not make you better.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Which returns us to the whole "it's hard to correct for, so let's do nothing" idea. Yes, I understand that quotas are a distasteful to some, so in the last 15 years we've been moving towards a system that emulates quotas as closely as possible without actually being quotas, and even that is being eroded slowly. So we're in a situation where we recognize the problem (lower minority hiring), the root of the problem (disadvantages borne from institutional racism and poverty), and a solution (quotas or near quotas) that isn't optimal but does mostly work in mitigating the impact of the problem at the expense of a small number of people.

    You are against quotas (or something like quotas) and want them abolished because you think they're unfair. Fair enough, but the problem still exists. What, then, do you propose as a solution to implement in the place of quotas? And no, doing nothing isn't a valid option.

    1) Fix the public school system.

    2) Fix the social welfare system.

    Okay, maybe I should've been more clear: what is something concrete that can be done right now that can address the problem. Your solutions are basically like saying "end hunger" and "increase opportunities" to solve poverty. They are two big and complicated problems that won't be solved any time in the near future (I mean, we've been wrestling with welfare and public education for decades.). In the meantime, what are we going to do about the problem? Again, doing nothing isn't a valid option.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    You know someone should really tell tzar about basic statistics. Blacks make up 12.5% of americans, wich means on average(nationaly) they should make up 12.5% of best qualified applicants.

    This is obviously untrue. It is obviously true that blacks are disproportionately economically disadvantaged; not because of racism in the present as much as because of past historical forces (racism among them).

    Then why do black high school graduates have a lower employment rate then white dropouts (they used this as the premise of a question during one of the democratic primary debates).

    And note I did not mention what type of job they where applying for. Socio-economic status is an explanation for inequality not an excuse. It justifies taking steps to fix the problem, like throwing out a test to see blacks promoted in numbers they need.

    A quota (which is exactly what throwing out any test that doesn't promote enough of the "right" kind of race amounts to) means promoting less qualified candidates simply because of their race.

    The depends on the quota. If it's at the exact proportion that a group represents, then that is the case. It's my percepton that most quotas are set at the level of statistical improbability, so that they're more a way for the government to say "we know you're discriminating, so you might as well give us the cash now."

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    You know someone should really tell tzar about basic statistics. Blacks make up 12.5% of americans, wich means on average(nationaly) they should make up 12.5% of best qualified applicants.

    This is obviously untrue. It is obviously true that blacks are disproportionately economically disadvantaged; not because of racism in the present as much as because of past historical forces (racism among them).

    Then why do black high school graduates have a lower employment rate then white dropouts (they used this as the premise of a question during one of the democratic primary debates).

    And note I did not mention what type of job they where applying for. Socio-economic status is an explanation for inequality not an excuse. It justifies taking steps to fix the problem, like throwing out a test to see blacks promoted in numbers they need.

    A quota (which is exactly what throwing out any test that doesn't promote enough of the "right" kind of race amounts to) means promoting less qualified candidates simply because of their race.

    Actually the people benefitting because of their races are less qualified white candidates. If the playing field was level they would have lost to black candidates, but because of racism the black qualifications got devalued. Devaluing others does not make you better.

    That's not at all what is going on in this case. The test was designed to not be biased, everyone seemed to agree before hand that it wasn't biased, and there is basically no evidence that it was biased. The Slate article provided a pretty good explanation for why the white firefighters got the highest scores:

    Their families have a tradition of firefighting and they are all firefighting nerds. And while you can argue about whether knowing fire codes backwards and forwards is more important than leadership skills or whatever other metric you want to suggest, the fact is that it is not an invalid way to decide who is more qualified, and thus the people who got the higher scores were more qualified.

    Therefore, if you forced a quota on the promotions, you would be definition be forced to promote less qualified people, because all the most qualified people, in other words those who scored highest on the test that was supposed to measure qualificaiton, were white.
    wwtMask wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Which returns us to the whole "it's hard to correct for, so let's do nothing" idea. Yes, I understand that quotas are a distasteful to some, so in the last 15 years we've been moving towards a system that emulates quotas as closely as possible without actually being quotas, and even that is being eroded slowly. So we're in a situation where we recognize the problem (lower minority hiring), the root of the problem (disadvantages borne from institutional racism and poverty), and a solution (quotas or near quotas) that isn't optimal but does mostly work in mitigating the impact of the problem at the expense of a small number of people.

    You are against quotas (or something like quotas) and want them abolished because you think they're unfair. Fair enough, but the problem still exists. What, then, do you propose as a solution to implement in the place of quotas? And no, doing nothing isn't a valid option.

    1) Fix the public school system.

    2) Fix the social welfare system.

    Okay, maybe I should've been more clear: what is something concrete that can be done right now that can address the problem. Your solutions are basically like saying "end hunger" and "increase opportunities" to solve poverty. They are two big and complicated problems that won't be solved any time in the near future (I mean, we've been wrestling with welfare and public education for decades.). In the meantime, what are we going to do about the problem? Again, doing nothing isn't a valid option.

    And how are quotas going to fix the problem? They aren't going to magically make more jobs (so in the end you end with just as many undereducated poor people except now more of them will be white) or even create a pool of candidates that can actually better their socio-economic status (if someone has been going to sub-standard schools their whole life, they are not remotely prepared to perform most highly paid jobs, or go to medical school or law school, or whatever and trying to use quotas to force them in there is not going to benefit anyone).

    So instead of wasting time and political capital on a "solution" which addresses only the symptoms and not the disease, you should be forcing through school voucher programs, increasing school funding, and various other such measures which can actually benefit people right now.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Okay, so in the meantime, while we wait for all of that stuff to start taking effect (assuming we can ever get it enacted without conservatives gutting it), what do we do to mitigate the affects of lingering racial bias? You're right, quotas (or "quotas") aren't a perfect solution, but they're a better solution to the problem in the short term than doing nothing. Your solutions will take time and do absolutely nothing to provide relief to any minority that isn't school age. Oh, and your solution also ignores a lot of other factors that have as much to do with achievement as education. So I ask again, what is your solution for the problem that can be implemented now? One that addresses the problem for all minorities, not just school children.

    You're also arguing that people from lower class areas aren't qualified enough to do well in elite fields or educational arenas, when it's been pretty clearly shown that, when given a chance, minorities actually can do well despite where they come from.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Okay, so in the meantime, while we wait for all of that stuff to start taking effect (assuming we can ever get it enacted without conservatives gutting it), what do we do to mitigate the affects of lingering racial bias? You're right, quotas (or "quotas") aren't a perfect solution, but they're a better solution to the problem in the short term than doing nothing. Your solutions will take time and do absolutely nothing to provide relief to any minority that isn't school age. Oh, and your solution also ignores a lot of other factors that have as much to do with achievement as education. So I ask again, what is your solution for the problem that can be implemented now? One that addresses the problem for all minorities, not just school children.

    Except that quotas won't really have immediate effects either, at least not on a scale that matters. In certain unique circumstances they might be effective, for example if the issue is that you have an "old boy" network in the leadership positions and by breaking that up by forcing through certain people to leadership positions you can ensure a more fair approach in the future. But that won't do anything to solve the larger problem of more poor blacks than whites.
    You're also arguing that people from lower class areas aren't qualified enough to do well in elite fields or educational arenas, when it's been pretty clearly shown that, when given a chance, minorities actually can do well despite where they come from.

    If you finish high school without good literacy or a firm grasp of higher level math (which is entirely possible in poor schools, for both blacks and whites) then you are not prepared to go to a real college. Obviously you can remedy this, but only a small fraction of people have the ability to do so. And for that matter, we know that early childhood development has a huge impact on your future.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    You know someone should really tell tzar about basic statistics. Blacks make up 12.5% of americans, wich means on average(nationaly) they should make up 12.5% of best qualified applicants.

    This is obviously untrue. It is obviously true that blacks are disproportionately economically disadvantaged; not because of racism in the present as much as because of past historical forces (racism among them).

    Then why do black high school graduates have a lower employment rate then white dropouts (they used this as the premise of a question during one of the democratic primary debates).

    And note I did not mention what type of job they where applying for. Socio-economic status is an explanation for inequality not an excuse. It justifies taking steps to fix the problem, like throwing out a test to see blacks promoted in numbers they need.

    A quota (which is exactly what throwing out any test that doesn't promote enough of the "right" kind of race amounts to) means promoting less qualified candidates simply because of their race.

    Actually the people benefitting because of their races are less qualified white candidates. If the playing field was level they would have lost to black candidates, but because of racism the black qualifications got devalued. Devaluing others does not make you better.

    That's not at all what is going on in this case. The test was designed to not be biased, everyone seemed to agree before hand that it wasn't biased, and there is basically no evidence that it was biased. The Slate article provided a pretty good explanation for why the white firefighters got the highest scores:

    Their families have a tradition of firefighting and they are all firefighting nerds. And while you can argue about whether knowing fire codes backwards and forwards is more important than leadership skills or whatever other metric you want to suggest, the fact is that it is not an invalid way to decide who is more qualified, and thus the people who got the higher scores were more qualified.

    Therefore, if you forced a quota on the promotions, you would be definition be forced to promote less qualified people, because all the most qualified people, in other words those who scored highest on the test that was supposed to measure qualificaiton, were white.

    Unless they invited a lot of black people to the judging, it would have been very easy to let stuff through without noticing. One example of an easy mistake is from an early immigration exam, where you had to fill in the missing element from pictures. Besides the pictures involving lawn bowling and other unimaginably WASPY activities, there was a picture of a pig. Ends up you had to fill in the curly tail, as it had never occurred to anyone to check that pigs from other countries have curly tails. And then there's the IQ test that asks you what an Rhode Island Red is.

    And really, when you have no people from the majority demographic in your area passing, it's pretty good evidence that something's up, unless you assert that black people are naturally less studious or something.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ethicalseanethicalsean Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    What do you mean by "higher level math"? I know community colleges (at least) offer refresher courses as far back as basic algebra.

    Well, generally, at my school we offer two paths (depending on ability and level functioning) where everyone takes Algebra, and then Geometry. The higher performing students will then take higher level maths such as Algebra II, Pre-Calculus, Calculus, Statistics, Trigonometry, etc. Even then, an inner city school may be almost entirely Special Education or functionally below other districts, and although their students may take Algebra or Geometry, the curriculum is on a much lower level (even for non-special education kids). For instance, I've had students that come from other districts in the area that are "on-level" and by the end of the year they're testing into a resource class.

    Lower performing students in my district will go through "MMA" (Math Models w/ Applications) which is more of a "real world" math class. They balance checkbooks, deal with credit cards, and review basic math that they will encounter in the real world. They deal with fewer abstracts.

  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Unless they invited a lot of black people to the judging, it would have been very easy to let stuff through without noticing. One example of an easy mistake is from an early immigration exam, where you had to fill in the missing element from pictures. Besides the pictures involving lawn bowling and other unimaginably WASPY activities, there was a picture of a pig. Ends up you had to fill in the curly tail, as it had never occurred to anyone to check that pigs from other countries have curly tails. And then there's the IQ test that asks you what an Rhode Island Red is.
    "Some tests are biased so this test must be biased"
    That's not a very strong argument.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Okay, so in the meantime, while we wait for all of that stuff to start taking effect (assuming we can ever get it enacted without conservatives gutting it), what do we do to mitigate the affects of lingering racial bias? You're right, quotas (or "quotas") aren't a perfect solution, but they're a better solution to the problem in the short term than doing nothing. Your solutions will take time and do absolutely nothing to provide relief to any minority that isn't school age. Oh, and your solution also ignores a lot of other factors that have as much to do with achievement as education. So I ask again, what is your solution for the problem that can be implemented now? One that addresses the problem for all minorities, not just school children.

    Except that quotas won't really have immediate effects either, at least not on a scale that matters. In certain unique circumstances they might be effective, for example if the issue is that you have an "old boy" network in the leadership positions and by breaking that up by forcing through certain people to leadership positions you can ensure a more fair approach in the future. But that won't do anything to solve the larger problem of more poor blacks than whites.

    Uh, what? Of course the quotas had an immediate effect when they were first implemented. And since it was the law of the land, it worked on the only scale that matters: nationwide. I'm also trying to see where I said that we should do quotas only, to the exclusion of education reform and increasing the scope of social programs. Why can't you do both at the same time and, as they say, burn the candle at both ends?
    You're also arguing that people from lower class areas aren't qualified enough to do well in elite fields or educational arenas, when it's been pretty clearly shown that, when given a chance, minorities actually can do well despite where they come from.

    If you finish high school without good literacy or a firm grasp of higher level math (which is entirely possible in poor schools, for both blacks and whites) then you are not prepared to go to a real college. Obviously you can remedy this, but only a small fraction of people have the ability to do so. And for that matter, we know that early childhood development has a huge impact on your future.

    Your original statement read like a blanket judgment of people from poor neighborhoods. The problem of people being unprepared for college isn't exclusive to poor neighborhoods, if the assessments of public education in America are any indication.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Unless they invited a lot of black people to the judging, it would have been very easy to let stuff through without noticing. One example of an easy mistake is from an early immigration exam, where you had to fill in the missing element from pictures. Besides the pictures involving lawn bowling and other unimaginably WASPY activities, there was a picture of a pig. Ends up you had to fill in the curly tail, as it had never occurred to anyone to check that pigs from other countries have curly tails. And then there's the IQ test that asks you what an Rhode Island Red is.
    "Some tests are biased so this test must be biased"
    That's not a very strong argument.

    Read it again. I'm saying that some tests show evidence of inadvertent bias, so inadvertent bias must be possible. Do you really think anybody was trying to single out a group with that pig question?

    In the case of a newer test, using a word order more common in white communities could give white applicants a slight edge on a timed test.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Okay, so in the meantime, while we wait for all of that stuff to start taking effect (assuming we can ever get it enacted without conservatives gutting it), what do we do to mitigate the affects of lingering racial bias? You're right, quotas (or "quotas") aren't a perfect solution, but they're a better solution to the problem in the short term than doing nothing. Your solutions will take time and do absolutely nothing to provide relief to any minority that isn't school age. Oh, and your solution also ignores a lot of other factors that have as much to do with achievement as education. So I ask again, what is your solution for the problem that can be implemented now? One that addresses the problem for all minorities, not just school children.

    Except that quotas won't really have immediate effects either, at least not on a scale that matters. In certain unique circumstances they might be effective, for example if the issue is that you have an "old boy" network in the leadership positions and by breaking that up by forcing through certain people to leadership positions you can ensure a more fair approach in the future. But that won't do anything to solve the larger problem of more poor blacks than whites.

    Uh, what? Of course the quotas had an immediate effect when they were first implemented. And since it was the law of the land, it worked on the only scale that matters: nationwide. I'm also trying to see where I said that we should do quotas only, to the exclusion of education reform and increasing the scope of social programs. Why can't you do both at the same time and, as they say, burn the candle at both ends?

    Because bringing back quotas would start a political shit storm you can't even imagine. It would probably be enough to turn around the decline of the GOP almost immediately. You would never get anything else done because you would need every bit of political capital to get it through. Not to mention the costs of enforcement, which would mean less money for other things.

    Government doesn't not have infinite resources.

    But seriously, let's talk about some concrete examples here. Let's look at an inner city community. Where exactly to you plan on finding jobs to give these people? Because I feel pretty confident in saying that the major problem is not that businesses are refusing to hire them but that the jobs just don't exist.

    Or look at it from the other side. Go into Silicon Valley and institute a hiring quota way above what the ratio is at the moment. Do you really think that you will find thousands of unemployed black programmers with the necessary qualifications just lying around?
    You're also arguing that people from lower class areas aren't qualified enough to do well in elite fields or educational arenas, when it's been pretty clearly shown that, when given a chance, minorities actually can do well despite where they come from.

    If you finish high school without good literacy or a firm grasp of higher level math (which is entirely possible in poor schools, for both blacks and whites) then you are not prepared to go to a real college. Obviously you can remedy this, but only a small fraction of people have the ability to do so. And for that matter, we know that early childhood development has a huge impact on your future.

    Your original statement read like a blanket judgment of people from poor neighborhoods. The problem of people being unprepared for college isn't exclusive to poor neighborhoods, if the assessments of public education in America are any indication.


    But it is far, far worse.
    Scalfin wrote: »
    And really, when you have no people from the majority demographic in your area passing, it's pretty good evidence that something's up, unless you assert that black people are naturally less studious or something.

    They passed, but enough white firefighters scored higher (probably by only a couple of points in most cases) that all the open spots got filled before the list got down to any black firefighters. The reason for this is simple and not really nefarious: they come from families with firefighting traditions and have grown up planning to be a firefighter their whole lives, and are thus more obsessive about it and more knowledgeable of firefighting minutia.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    You know someone should really tell tzar about basic statistics. Blacks make up 12.5% of americans, wich means on average(nationaly) they should make up 12.5% of best qualified applicants.

    This is obviously untrue. It is obviously true that blacks are disproportionately economically disadvantaged; not because of racism in the present as much as because of past historical forces (racism among them).

    Then why do black high school graduates have a lower employment rate then white dropouts (they used this as the premise of a question during one of the democratic primary debates).

    And note I did not mention what type of job they where applying for. Socio-economic status is an explanation for inequality not an excuse. It justifies taking steps to fix the problem, like throwing out a test to see blacks promoted in numbers they need.

    A quota (which is exactly what throwing out any test that doesn't promote enough of the "right" kind of race amounts to) means promoting less qualified candidates simply because of their race.

    Actually the people benefitting because of their races are less qualified white candidates. If the playing field was level they would have lost to black candidates, but because of racism the black qualifications got devalued. Devaluing others does not make you better.

    That's not at all what is going on in this case. The test was designed to not be biased, everyone seemed to agree before hand that it wasn't biased, and there is basically no evidence that it was biased. The Slate article provided a pretty good explanation for why the white firefighters got the highest scores:

    Their families have a tradition of firefighting and they are all firefighting nerds. And while you can argue about whether knowing fire codes backwards and forwards is more important than leadership skills or whatever other metric you want to suggest, the fact is that it is not an invalid way to decide who is more qualified, and thus the people who got the higher scores were more qualified.

    Therefore, if you forced a quota on the promotions, you would be definition be forced to promote less qualified people, because all the most qualified people, in other words those who scored highest on the test that was supposed to measure qualificaiton, were white.

    Firstly I think you went of from racism in general into the specifics of Ricci, wich is kinda missing the point.

    Because secondly: If half of the test takers where black, they should have made up half of those that pass an unbiased test. If they failed to pass the test in sufficent(statisical) numbers, something must have happend that skewered the results.

    Thirdly: there are lots of possible reasons for the test to have been skewered in its result. Ranging from bad questions, to cultural differences in firefighting and to just being one of those things(fliping tails 20 times in a row). In any case something obviously happened, that benefited the majority white aplicants, cementing their hold over the department.

    The city wanted to find out what had happened, firefighters(black/white) wanted the test (throw out/certified). City went with the solution of throwing the test out and trying to order a new test. Lawsuits happen.

    Note that ALL test takers would have been offered the chance to take a new test. Not fair to the winners, but....

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    And really, when you have no people from the majority demographic in your area passing, it's pretty good evidence that something's up, unless you assert that black people are naturally less studious or something.

    They passed, but enough white firefighters scored higher (probably by only a couple of points in most cases) that all the open spots got filled before the list got down to any black firefighters. The reason for this is simple and not really nefarious: they come from families with firefighting traditions and have grown up planning to be a firefighter their whole lives, and are thus more obsessive about it and more knowledgeable of firefighting minutia.

    Well, why is it that there aren't longstanding families of black firefighters? Oh, that's right - they weren't allowed to be, by those families of white firefighters you so laud.

    Funny how that works.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • Premier kakosPremier kakos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    You know, the funny thing about AAVE (didn't even knew that was a term) is that I, as a southern black guy, was raised around people who used it and can quite easily slip into it myself, so reading the wiki article is sorta weird. A lot of the stuff it's explaining is just shit that's normal for me to say around other black people. That whole Remote Phase verb thing never really occurred to me until I read the explanation and realized that I'd been doing that most of my life.

    Welcome to language. If you learn a language in a non-formal setting, you don't learn the technical aspects of it. The only reason I know about AAVE is that I took a class on Creole Languages and we studied it for a couple of weeks and there's actually a lot of very interesting stuff about it. It's definitely not a dialect and definitely falls into the classification of a Creole language, because it has it's own hybrid grammar and is a whole lot more than just "dat is used instead of that".

    SuperKawaiiWillSig.jpg
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    And really, when you have no people from the majority demographic in your area passing, it's pretty good evidence that something's up, unless you assert that black people are naturally less studious or something.

    They passed, but enough white firefighters scored higher (probably by only a couple of points in most cases) that all the open spots got filled before the list got down to any black firefighters. The reason for this is simple and not really nefarious: they come from families with firefighting traditions and have grown up planning to be a firefighter their whole lives, and are thus more obsessive about it and more knowledgeable of firefighting minutia.

    Well, why is it that there aren't longstanding families of black firefighters? Oh, that's right - they weren't allowed to be, by those families of white firefighters you so laud.

    Funny how that works.

    So your solution is to punish the son for the sins of the father?
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Note that ALL test takers would have been offered the chance to take a new test. Not fair to the winners, but....

    So was the city going to reimburse everyone for the time and/or money they wasted on the first test?

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Considering nobody was paided to take the first test and studying was on your own time.

    No

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • AresProphetAresProphet don't call it a fight when you know it's a warRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    taeric wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    You know someone should really tell tzar about basic statistics. Blacks make up 12.5% of americans, wich means on average(nationaly) they should make up 12.5% of best qualified applicants. If a shopping chain is hiring less then that, then they are hiring less qualified white applicants to fill the gap.

    Since businesses can shift the cost of their shitty practices over onto society, its up to society to stop it. and just for the record Tzar; YOU may not belive in society, society belives in you.

    Something just feels off about trying to use statistics in that way. I mean, you could use that to say that your little fire squadron can decide to hire no minorities and not change the national average at all due to sheer qualities of scale. Now, if it just happens that you have no minorities in the area you service, that isn't necessarily that bad..... I think we'd all still question it.

    Your premise is unquestionably valid, I think we can all agree.

    Trouble is, we've demonstrated earleir in this thread that about 35% of residents of New Haven, CT are black. Which is about 3 times the national average.

    The results reek of bias, from a statistical standpoint. From a purely mathematical perspective the results should be thrown out. It is highly unlikely that a nonbiased test would achieve a result like that based on pure chance. (This makes me think about interesting possibilities regarding a statistical test based on the results of other firefighter exams nationwide, weighted to local demographics, but you could probably write a fucking doctorate thesis in either statistics or polisci without getting to the bottom of that. The research on that would be staggering).

    But I'm not sure that applies to the legal perspective, the more I think about it. I've got some conflicting opinions on the role of science (particularly statistics) in government and law and this is one case where I'm not sure anyone could do the right thing. Consider two possibilities:

    (1) the tests really were biased, however indirectly or subtly

    or

    (2) the test was fair to everyone

    Then consider possible outcomes:

    (A) throw out the results

    or

    (B) accept the results

    (1A) would be a fair outcome. (1B) would be unfair. (2A) would be unfair. (2B) would be fair.

    You could statistically weight those possibilities (and I'm pretty sure they come out of the favor of throwing out the results, by a slim margin) and make a decision based on that, but is that really a tenable approach to the law? Can a judge just run the numbers and make a conclusion based on a z-score?

    Maybe this is the optimist in me, but I like to think there's more to the highest levels of our judiciary system than simple plug-and-chug.

    the first bit of advice that you gave me that I liked
    was they're too strong, too strong
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    And really, when you have no people from the majority demographic in your area passing, it's pretty good evidence that something's up, unless you assert that black people are naturally less studious or something.

    They passed, but enough white firefighters scored higher (probably by only a couple of points in most cases) that all the open spots got filled before the list got down to any black firefighters. The reason for this is simple and not really nefarious: they come from families with firefighting traditions and have grown up planning to be a firefighter their whole lives, and are thus more obsessive about it and more knowledgeable of firefighting minutia.

    Well, why is it that there aren't longstanding families of black firefighters? Oh, that's right - they weren't allowed to be, by those families of white firefighters you so laud.

    Funny how that works.

    So your solution is to punish the son for the sins of the father?

    So the son should be allowed to continue to benefit from the actions of the father that placed his competition at a disadvantage?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • cherv1cherv1 Registered User
    edited July 2009
    And white people having less privilege isn't making them suffer, it's making it fairer. Funny how white privilege never seems to be mentioned by people supporting a "meritocracy".

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Okay, so in the meantime, while we wait for all of that stuff to start taking effect (assuming we can ever get it enacted without conservatives gutting it), what do we do to mitigate the affects of lingering racial bias? You're right, quotas (or "quotas") aren't a perfect solution, but they're a better solution to the problem in the short term than doing nothing. Your solutions will take time and do absolutely nothing to provide relief to any minority that isn't school age. Oh, and your solution also ignores a lot of other factors that have as much to do with achievement as education. So I ask again, what is your solution for the problem that can be implemented now? One that addresses the problem for all minorities, not just school children.

    Except that quotas won't really have immediate effects either, at least not on a scale that matters. In certain unique circumstances they might be effective, for example if the issue is that you have an "old boy" network in the leadership positions and by breaking that up by forcing through certain people to leadership positions you can ensure a more fair approach in the future. But that won't do anything to solve the larger problem of more poor blacks than whites.

    Uh, what? Of course the quotas had an immediate effect when they were first implemented. And since it was the law of the land, it worked on the only scale that matters: nationwide. I'm also trying to see where I said that we should do quotas only, to the exclusion of education reform and increasing the scope of social programs. Why can't you do both at the same time and, as they say, burn the candle at both ends?

    Because bringing back quotas would start a political shit storm you can't even imagine. It would probably be enough to turn around the decline of the GOP almost immediately. You would never get anything else done because you would need every bit of political capital to get it through. Not to mention the costs of enforcement, which would mean less money for other things.

    Government doesn't not have infinite resources.

    The current system as implemented is basically a quota system in everything but name. Institutions are bending over backwards trying to recreate the effects of a quota system through complex formulas and rules. I don't actually want quotas back if the current system, however complicated and jury-rigged, works the same and will shut up anti-AA people.
    But seriously, let's talk about some concrete examples here. Let's look at an inner city community. Where exactly to you plan on finding jobs to give these people? Because I feel pretty confident in saying that the major problem is not that businesses are refusing to hire them but that the jobs just don't exist.

    You know, we did have quotas before, and I don't recall any of these concerns actually being a problem. I do remember, though, a lot of belly-aching about being forced to hire minorities.
    Or look at it from the other side. Go into Silicon Valley and institute a hiring quota way above what the ratio is at the moment. Do you really think that you will find thousands of unemployed black programmers with the necessary qualifications just lying around?

    Yes, I can guarantee you that you can. I don't know why you think there is a dearth of educated black people in this country. It's pretty disappointing and insulting, quite frankly, how much you've been implying this and using it to bolster your argument.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • taerictaeric Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2009
    taeric wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    You know someone should really tell tzar about basic statistics. Blacks make up 12.5% of americans, wich means on average(nationaly) they should make up 12.5% of best qualified applicants. If a shopping chain is hiring less then that, then they are hiring less qualified white applicants to fill the gap.

    Since businesses can shift the cost of their shitty practices over onto society, its up to society to stop it. and just for the record Tzar; YOU may not belive in society, society belives in you.

    Something just feels off about trying to use statistics in that way. I mean, you could use that to say that your little fire squadron can decide to hire no minorities and not change the national average at all due to sheer qualities of scale. Now, if it just happens that you have no minorities in the area you service, that isn't necessarily that bad..... I think we'd all still question it.

    Your premise is unquestionably valid, I think we can all agree.

    That was pretty much why I used the example I did. Trying to throw national statistics at a case is rather..... not productive.


    As for the rest. I'm amused this thread is back to arguing pro/con quota. I'm also amused because it is obvious so few people here have read the ruling. If you had, you would know exactly what the pass/fail rates were, and that many of the things people are saying the city should have done, they either tried to do, or was completely ruled out in the process of designing a "fair" test.

    Can a test be unintentionally biased? Of course it can. Was this one? The only evidence to support that it was is that the results came up that way. There exists evidence that it wasn't, as it was designed specifically to not be. So, basically the ruling is that because steps were taken that EVERYONE agreed on to keep the test from being biased (including the tossing out of many questions on the test, giving everyone credit for them), there needs to be more evidence before the city can take an action that is motivated by race. (Actually, the logic is that because they took those steps to make sure they would not be liable for disparate-impact, they can not use fear of liability in such a suit to make a racially motivated decision.)

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    And really, when you have no people from the majority demographic in your area passing, it's pretty good evidence that something's up, unless you assert that black people are naturally less studious or something.
    They passed, but enough white firefighters scored higher (probably by only a couple of points in most cases) that all the open spots got filled before the list got down to any black firefighters. The reason for this is simple and not really nefarious: they come from families with firefighting traditions and have grown up planning to be a firefighter their whole lives, and are thus more obsessive about it and more knowledgeable of firefighting minutia.
    Well, why is it that there aren't longstanding families of black firefighters? Oh, that's right - they weren't allowed to be, by those families of white firefighters you so laud.

    Funny how that works.
    So your solution is to punish the son for the sins of the father?
    And your solution is to punish the black sons for the sins of the white fathers.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Considering nobody was paided to take the first test and studying was on your own time.

    No

    Everyone invested time and money into preparing for the test. They went into it in good faith. And then because the race ratio didn't turn out like the city wanted all that just gets thrown out? Everyone agreed that the test was fair before hand, including the black half of the union.

    And you bloody well know that if no whites had passed it, it would not have been thrown out in a million years.
    taeric wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    You know someone should really tell tzar about basic statistics. Blacks make up 12.5% of americans, wich means on average(nationaly) they should make up 12.5% of best qualified applicants. If a shopping chain is hiring less then that, then they are hiring less qualified white applicants to fill the gap.

    Since businesses can shift the cost of their shitty practices over onto society, its up to society to stop it. and just for the record Tzar; YOU may not belive in society, society belives in you.

    Something just feels off about trying to use statistics in that way. I mean, you could use that to say that your little fire squadron can decide to hire no minorities and not change the national average at all due to sheer qualities of scale. Now, if it just happens that you have no minorities in the area you service, that isn't necessarily that bad..... I think we'd all still question it.

    Your premise is unquestionably valid, I think we can all agree.

    Trouble is, we've demonstrated earleir in this thread that about 35% of residents of New Haven, CT are black. Which is about 3 times the national average.

    The results reek of bias, from a statistical standpoint. From a purely mathematical perspective the results should be thrown out. It is highly unlikely that a nonbiased test would achieve a result like that based on pure chance.

    You are discounting the possibility that the white and black candidates were not equally qualified to begin with. And thus it was "biased" toward determining the most qualified candidates, and those were white (and one Hispanic), but it was not "biased" toward whites over blacks because of race.

    Obviously various types of second order racism may be causing this, ie they were less qualified because they came from poorer neighborhoods with worse schools and come from poorer neighborhoods because of racism in the past. But racism is not the direct cause, and thus trying to attack the problem as though it was is counter-productive.
    wwtMask wrote: »
    You know, we did have quotas before, and I don't recall any of these concerns actually being a problem. I do remember, though, a lot of belly-aching about being forced to hire minorities.

    Because overt racism was the actual problem back then, and thus attacking it directly via quotas actually worked.
    Or look at it from the other side. Go into Silicon Valley and institute a hiring quota way above what the ratio is at the moment. Do you really think that you will find thousands of unemployed black programmers with the necessary qualifications just lying around?

    Yes, I can guarantee you that you can. I don't know why you think there is a dearth of educated black people in this country. It's pretty disappointing and insulting, quite frankly, how much you've been implying this and using it to bolster your argument.

    A larger percentage of black people are poor compared to whites. Poor people are under-educated (statistically speaking). Thus, a larger percentage of blacks are under-educated. And being under-educated, they don't even have the qualifications for many jobs.

    The way to solve this problem is to work on the part were the poor do not get proper educations.
    Thanatos wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    And really, when you have no people from the majority demographic in your area passing, it's pretty good evidence that something's up, unless you assert that black people are naturally less studious or something.
    They passed, but enough white firefighters scored higher (probably by only a couple of points in most cases) that all the open spots got filled before the list got down to any black firefighters. The reason for this is simple and not really nefarious: they come from families with firefighting traditions and have grown up planning to be a firefighter their whole lives, and are thus more obsessive about it and more knowledgeable of firefighting minutia.
    Well, why is it that there aren't longstanding families of black firefighters? Oh, that's right - they weren't allowed to be, by those families of white firefighters you so laud.

    Funny how that works.
    So your solution is to punish the son for the sins of the father?
    And your solution is to punish the black sons for the sins of the white fathers.

    My solution would be to fix it for next time. The easiest and cheapest solution would be the one presented in the Slate article: take everyone who gets above a certain score and just randomly select however many people you need. A more expensive solution would be to have the department offer a free preparation class for the test, so that everyone gets the same amount of resources going into it.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    So, instead of forestalling promotions pending an investigation, they just threw out the results?

  • taerictaeric Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    My solution would be to fix it for next time. The easiest and cheapest solution would be the one presented in the Slate article: take everyone who gets above a certain score and just randomly select however many people you need. A more expensive solution would be to have the department offer a free preparation class for the test, so that everyone gets the same amount of resources going into it.

    That first solution is exactly what they did. Unfortunately, their cutoff did not include any black participants. Had they "banded" the results, I believe 2 (or 4, I can't recall from the ruling) would have been included. Doing this banding after the fact would have been a violation as well, as you can not change interpretation after the fact to get desired results based on racial numbers. (I believe had they stated the tests would have been banded at the outset, things would have been ok. I believe the firefighters union was against that, as they wanted the "most qualified" to have the job.)


    And are we really having some sort of skewed debate over white priviledge in America? Worse, are we really saying that quotas would apply here? I think there are several things to consider in this case. First and foremost, this was not an entry level position where quotas make sense. If you want to seed change in anything, the best place (sometimes only place) is in the beginning. Trying to force it at the end is akin to throwing baking soda on top of some dough because you forgot it when mixing. Not exactly going to give a good result. The second is that all of this ignores the specifics of this case.

  • taerictaeric Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2009
    So, I had a thought I figured I would run by everyone here to see how you feel it addresses the concerns.

    First, the individual firefighters that were eligible for promotion are not really the ones that were disparately impacted by the results being thrown out. That would be the firestation itself, with possibly the citizens that it covers, as well. Specifically, they were having this test because they need people in higher positions. Perhaps the current higher officers are over worked, I don't know. So, we have two real problems that have arisen. First, that the precinct needs officers, and second that it appears the precinct is not doing a good enough job making sure minority members are well mentored enough to seek promotion.

    Courses of action: If the test really was a good indicator of who was eligible for promotion, go ahead and promote the minimum needed at the current time to the positions. Use the money that is not allocated to the promotions and possibly raise more funds to start an outreach to make sure minorities have access to the information needed. In fact, go out of your way to reach out to minority firefighter associations for help in getting everyone trained such that this sort of problem does not happen. Expect results at the very next promotion, or resort to more drastic measures. (More drastic could be as simple as forcing paired mentors between high performers and minorities.)

    This makes sure that you do not put even more strain than you currently have on the firestation, and it should work to begin correcting inequalities in the workforce without resorting to forced quotas, which many will argue puts those less qualified in to positions. (An easy argument to make, I would think.)

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Considering nobody was paided to take the first test and studying was on your own time.

    No

    Everyone invested time and money into preparing for the test. They went into it in good faith. And then because the race ratio didn't turn out like the city wanted all that just gets thrown out? Everyone Belived that the test was fair before hand, including the black half of the union.

    And you bloody well know that if no whites had passed it, it would not have been thrown out in a million years.

    Seeing as studying is in itself is no guarantee of a passing grade. No matter how hard you study there is no guarantee for an A.

    A biased test is not a good indicator of who is the best. In fact it could argue that it was just the oposite, giving passing grades to whites that where not qualified. An act that could harm public safety.

    People retain knowledge, something once read can not be unread. People that studied would not lose their study material, they could still study for the second test and retain their knowledge from the first test. Don't people study and take trial exams for the SATs all the time?

    As for the red part the firefighters would have had a better case in court if it had happened. Easier to prove negative discrimination than to disprove positive.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    If you ask me the city did one thing wrong; when the test results where in they should have hire a 4th party( the 3rd party made the test), to indepently go over the test. Finding out where the test went wrong and where the bias was. The test itself had been poorly vetted with only a battalion chief from Atlanta going over it.

    Until the 4th party made its findings they should have suspended all promotions.

    What happend was that White firefighters wanted the test certified without vetting, while the black firefighters wanted the test thrown out. Neither side pushed for a independet vetting. If they had done so this case would have been solved long ago.

    As it is we don't even know if there is something wrong with the test itself. we have only the result to judge by.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    taeric wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    My solution would be to fix it for next time. The easiest and cheapest solution would be the one presented in the Slate article: take everyone who gets above a certain score and just randomly select however many people you need. A more expensive solution would be to have the department offer a free preparation class for the test, so that everyone gets the same amount of resources going into it.

    That first solution is exactly what they did.

    Not according to what I've read. They had like 13 spots open which went to the top 13 scores on the test. What I am saying is that you take everyone who got like a 90 or more (which from what I understand included plenty of black candidates) and then lottery it.
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    A biased test is not a good indicator of who is the best.

    There is no evidence that the test was biased.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    A biased test is not a good indicator of who is the best.

    There is no evidence that the test was biased.

    Except whites passed the test at twice the rate of blacks and no nonwhite made the top 30. Statisticly this would not have happend in a non-biased test between equaly quailified test subjects.

    AND BEFORE YOU SPEAK: There is no evidence that Blacks are less quailified then Whites, or less determined to succede, or less willing to study.

    Ricci is the case every one mentions, with all the things he did to pass the test. Nobody mentions what the other 19 did to pass, or what the black firefighters did to pass. Cherrypicking Ricci himself is not an good argument.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    A biased test is not a good indicator of who is the best.

    There is no evidence that the test was biased.

    Except whites passed the test at twice the rate of blacks and no nonwhite made the top 30. Statisticly this would not have happend in a non-biased test between equaly quailified test subjects.

    AND BEFORE YOU SPEAK: There is no evidence that Blacks are less quailified then Whites, or less determined to succede, or less willing to study.

    Ricci is the case every one mentions, with all the things he did to pass the test. Nobody mentions what the other 19 did to pass, or what the black firefighters did to pass. Cherrypicking Ricci himself is not an good argument.
    As one Hispanic quoted anonymously by the New Haven Independent put it, the test favored "fire buffs"—guys who read fire-suppression manuals on their downtime and paid test-manual writers to come to New Haven to speak.

    So it would seem that there is in fact evidence that the white firefighters went to greater lengths to prepare for the test.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    So blacks can't be "Fire Buffs"?

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
Sign In or Register to comment.