The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
SCOTUS to Rule on Major Job Discrimination Case
GoodKingJayIII
They wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered User regular
They wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered User regular
SCOTUS to rule on bias avoidance in major job discrimination case
summary: city of New Haven sees a possible race-based discrepancy (in this case, no blacks passed the test) in their testing for firefighter advancement, and decide to hold off on any promotions for that year. As a result, a group of firefighters sued the city, and now ask the High Court if New Haven's actions violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and Title VII's prohibition on disparate treatment. The city claims that it was acting responsibly in order to avoid discrimination brought about by a test that indicates it was biased against black men.
This is a slippery slope. What the city of New Haven tried to do is in many ways related to what my current employer does. We work hard to measure data and look for just these kinds of biases in employee assessment tests. This case could set a precedent for both public and private businesses, and if these businesses are damned no matter how they act (sued for not enforcing Title VII or sued for enforcing Title VII), then what incentive do they have to act at all?
I think there is merit to both sides in this case, so I don't really have an answer. Someone's going to get screwed over when this decision is handed down, no matter what it turns out to be. I think that in the end, fewer people will get screwed if SCOTUS rules in favor of the city, but that's just my opinion based on the facts as I understand them.
summary: city of New Haven sees a possible race-based discrepancy (in this case, no blacks passed the test) in their testing for firefighter advancement, and decide to hold off on any promotions for that year. As a result, a group of firefighters sued the city, and now ask the High Court if New Haven's actions violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and Title VII's prohibition on disparate treatment. The city claims that it was acting responsibly in order to avoid discrimination brought about by a test that indicates it was biased against black men.
This is a slippery slope. What the city of New Haven tried to do is in many ways related to what my current employer does. We work hard to measure data and look for just these kinds of biases in employee assessment tests. This case could set a precedent for both public and private businesses, and if these businesses are damned no matter how they act (sued for not enforcing Title VII or sued for enforcing Title VII), then what incentive do they have to act at all?
I think there is merit to both sides in this case, so I don't really have an answer. Someone's going to get screwed over when this decision is handed down, no matter what it turns out to be. I think that in the end, fewer people will get screwed if SCOTUS rules in favor of the city, but that's just my opinion based on the facts as I understand them.
Battletag: Threeve#1501; PSN: Threeve703; Steam: 3eeve
GoodKingJayIII on
0
Posts
This is the central question for me as well. While unlikely, it's certainly possible that (by coincidence) none of officers who take an unbiased test will be black. If the city wants to justify not promoting anyone by saying the test was biased, A) why not run another (presumably unbiased) test so that guys who should get promotions are propoerly promoted, and
However, why does the city even know which one of the tests belonged to black/white people? Race shouldn't be anywhere near the test.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Well usually the argument is loaded questions or knowledge (the test usually referred is the SATs I believe) because of the economic disadvantage of minorities.
However, I fail to see how a test like this would be exclusionary unless the qualifications for it were a class that had a "no darkies allowed" sign or something. The fact that it's all the black guys is very suspect though, unless, by some sheer chance of luck, they were all not very qualified to begin with. For instance, a bunch of first year firefighters trying to take a test for captain or lieutenant. But I can't say for certain.
Of course the article doesn't give numbers and throws around flash words like "half of the candidates" other than the 15 positions. So here you could have 19 candidates, and maybe a 1/3 of whom are black, and with a pass rate of half that of the white candidates. Which is 3/6 (for all we know 2 white guys passed and the pass rate for black guys is half that) candidates passed, but they didn't score high enough to qualify for the position. What the article also doesn't clarify is the other minorities (if any) and how many of the white firefights passed and qualified.
I'm highly skeptical, but it does seem awfully suspicious. My guess is that the test was fine, but the person doing the testing is the culprit.
I want to know more about this test. I want the chance to look at it, see how many questions are on it, and who designed it. Test-bias is a pretty common, often unintentional, problem, and it should not be eliminated as a possibility. Also, I can't seem to find if these were multiple choice or written response, as that can be the biggest variable.
*EDIT* nevermind, thanks RedTide!
Hm? Of course it is. "Being cautious" is certainly not a legal excuse when what you mean is "protecting yourself by harming others".
Edit: And I'd say that's some sort of freak accident, but I'd also like to see the test.
PS: ...and the actual number of applicants per race.
This is pretty much the standard first level fire officers test format thats offered here out on the east coast. Two separate days of testing, with the knowledge to answer all questions properly drawn from a well published reading list typically found on the states department of personnel website.
These guys should win their case, the allegations that there are magical race biases here are bullshit.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
That last 40% may be what qualify them for the chief position or whatever. I'll stick by my original assertion that it was the person doing the testing that's to blame.
The Plaintiff has to prove that the test was not discriminatory (somehow) or convince the bench that Griggs was wrongly decided, which would be pretty difficult.
For what its worth I haven't been able to find the companies name yet
Come Overwatch with meeeee
When fighting a fire located in the lounge room of a standard 18 hole country club, where is the nearest fire extinguisher:
edit: on a non going-to-hell-for-this-post note, it does seem like if anything, it would be in the Oral piece, and it would be based on the testing company.
An oral exam?
Ok, now I smell proctor bias.
Thanks, I missed the link the first time.
I very much doubt there's any racial discrimination going on here.
The oral portion is either video or audio recorded and is administered either by an outside firm or a state employee. It should be noted that this was a first level officers test which is only available after an applicant has spent at least a few years on the job. There is no economic disparity at play here since it has to be assumed that all applicants are making X dollars minimum at the time.
Any disparities here either came long before this in life (via a bad public school education) or just from a lack of studying.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Not giving promotions isn't doing harm to others though. Were the firefighters who placed highly somehow entitled to these promotions? Concern over doing the wrong thing (evaluating promotions using a faulty test) is a good reason to do nothing until you can investigate further.
The proctors give the questions to the applicant, and do little else besides restate the scenario for them. They are in no way shape or form responsible for your final grade.
You also have the option to appeal any part of your test, if you feel bias was a factor.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Whether the test had an "are you a darkie" question is pretty much irrelevant.
Well, I thought that's the case. If it isn't, I'm missing something.
You might be going to hell for that, but I'll be right there with you for laughing that hard.
I don't really know the right approach to this situation. If you suspect there may be racial discrimination going on, do you (A) say fuck it and promote based on possible-biased results, or (B) not act on the results until you've investigated further?
(A) scares me because I imagine it's a lot harder to give an excluded minority a fair recompense if the test later proves to have been biased. But (B) is pretty unfair to everyone, especially if the apparent bias turns out to be a false positive. And what if it takes six months or even a year? Someone's getting screwed either way.
I'd like to have more faith in SCOTUS to come up with a ruling that I can say, "yeah, that's the most reasonable interpretation of the law and also it's the most fair" but I have the sinking feeling that "fair" and "lawful" are going to be mutual exclusive in this case. Which sucks.
But then the lesson here is "discrimination sucks" no matter who you are, and we'd be better off if we didn't have to worry about shit like this. It's unfortunate that we even have to consider the possibility that some douchebag was being racist and excluded firefighters from being promoted.
From that link:
My reading of that suggests that if the test was directed or intended to measure an employee's ability to be good at the position, racial disparities are fine.
ok, evaluator bias, then. A human being at some point had to listen to the responses and could easily have been swayed by racial motives.
Not that, as I said just now, that makes much of a difference in this case. The test resulted in disparate results. If Griggs is applied strictly, the defendant wins this case.
Of course, it will likely be settled as a matter of standing or whether canceling the results brings up any issues of strict scrutiny and the court will probably never have to get within ten feet of Griggs in the majority decision.
Ah, that's an interesting point. I'm not aware of any caselaw that expanded on that question.
How about no bias? Or study harder next time?
Also as a side note to how these tests work:
The testing process is usually undergone every few years and is either initiated when an old tests certification is about to expire. Old lists can be extended (say if a given list doesn't net many promotions or if the state doesn't wish to spend the money it requires to generate a new one). The list addresses vacancies on an ongoing basis, so that if you placed 11th on the list that had 10 initial vacancies, you will be promoted if another spot becomes vacant while your list is still certified.
Also I don't even want to get into the type of politics and manipulation that actually does get involved here.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Did they cancel the results of the test pending some sort of investigation into whether there was actual bias, or just out of hand?
I believe out of hand, this suit is in protest to that I think.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I hope to fuck I'm wrong.
This incidence is from 2003, so that seems unlikely.
Right. Based on what we know, there's a strong possibility of testing bias. Rather than go forward with the results and promote people, they canceled promotions outright in order to reevaluate the exam.
I'm just really, really wary about punishing people for being cautious.
The events in question occurred six years ago, so I think you're pretty safely wrong.
edit: BLAST! FOILED AGAIN
It wouldn't be the first time.
Were they canceled in 2003? It doesn't look like the article makes the distinction that it was canceled in 2003 or just recently. Either way, highly suspicious all around.
But how can they promote people based on a potentially biased test, and then say "we're going to investigate this bias." That doesn't make any sense. Either the test is biased and therefore all results are nullified, or the test is not biased and they can go forward with promotions based on the results.
You suspend the promotions, and then do an investigation. This investigation shouldn't take more than 6 months, and could probably have been done in 1.
They shouldn't have promoted anyone until they had done a good faith investigation into whether or not the test was biased. Once that investigation was complete, they should act.
If they are going to make decisions based on the results of the tests alone, then they aren't using the test to determine aptitude, but merely a barrier to achieve a favorable outcome.
edit: I think Itunes said what I meant more clearly.
Ok, I see what you guys are saying. Here's a quote from the article:
So I guess my question is this: do we have any other evidence that suggests promotions were canceled outright, or is it possible that what you describe in your quote is exactly what New Haven intended?