As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

SCOTUS to Rule on Major Job Discrimination Case

1235789

Posts

  • cherv1cherv1 Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    How will this affect the Sotomayor nomination?

    cherv1 on
  • AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    cherv1 wrote: »
    How will this affect the Sotomayor nomination?

    "Another one of your decisions was overturned recently. Are you really sure you're a good nomination given that so many of your decisions seem to require the higher courts to fix?"

    Or some variation.

    Since it's been a while since I followed this issue, is this decision a good or bad decision? The very close split makes it appear it came down to ideological differences as opposed to a clear-cut obvious solution.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • cherv1cherv1 Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Yeah, all the 5-4s are political decisions. Does this case not set the precedent that cities will have to in future give promotions for tests that turn out to have a disparate impact?

    cherv1 on
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Aegis wrote: »
    Since it's been a while since I followed this issue, is this decision a good or bad decision? The very close split makes it appear it came down to ideological differences as opposed to a clear-cut obvious solution.

    In some sense Scalia makes that argument in his concurring opinion. Basically he says that the Court is dodging the real issue, which is the interplay between the equal protection clause and Title VII.

    Clearly he has his own angle on that question, but arguably he's right that it'll have to settled one way or another.

    enc0re on
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Semi-off-topic: do Justices on the majority often write opinions STRICTLY to go "nuh-uh, you're doing it wrong" to the minority opinion? 'Cuz I'm pretty sure that's the only reason Alito wrote something of his own.

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Semi-off-topic: do Justices on the majority often write opinions STRICTLY to go "nuh-uh, you're doing it wrong" to the minority opinion? 'Cuz I'm pretty sure that's the only reason Alito wrote something of his own.

    They do it when they want to make clear that they are voting with the majority but for reasons not exactly in line with the majority opinion, or to make clear some aspect of the case the other justices didn't feel was essential.

    I suppose this opinion basically said the tests were essential or job-related, or at least that there was not evidence to the contrary, so at least it doesn't put employers in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation.

    MrMonroe on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Was anyone really surprised by this decision, or where the justices fell on the decision?

    wwtMask on
    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
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Was anyone really surprised by this decision, or where the justices fell on the decision?

    I was shocked, SHOCKED.
    Not shocked at all.

    tsmvengy on
    steam_sig.png
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    As best I can tell, the decision is like this:

    Conservative majority of 5 says: In order to act on a possible Title VII "disparate impact" violation (that is a violation in which you're saying that the results are racist regardless if anyone was acting with racist intent), you need 1) disparate impact, and 2) either evidence that the test wasn't relevant to the job or evidence that an equally relevant but less discimnatory test existed but wasn't used. However, you can't look at results, determine that they racially unbalanced, and then start monkeying with the formulas to see if there is any way to rescore it to get a few minorities in. That doesn't count as an equally relevant test that wasn't used. That's just instituting a de facto quota, because anytime a certain percentage of blacks didn't pass, you'd have to slide the variables of the scoring formula around until they did. It's only in the case where there was an established, less discriminatory test available ahead of time that was not used that you can say there is evidence of a possible Title VII violation. And guess what? Since we say you didn't have strong basis in evidence, then the action you took to comply with Title VII actually violates Title VII (and by proxy, Equal Protection) because you made decisions based simply on the race of those who passed and failed, and because Title VII says no quotas.

    Alito concurring says: And someday we're going to have to address this issue more broadly, that there is an ill-defined narrow gray area between addressing one group's disparate impact and violating another group's right to equal protection. Also, it's fine to say that racism exists even when you can't prove someone acted maliciously; it's a slippery slope to say racism exists despite proof that someone acted reasonably and in good faith.

    Liberal minority of 4 dissenting: This is a big step backwards for racial progress. Firefighters in particular have been subject to significant racial biases in promotions over the decades, and the officers in New Haven don't represent the racial makeup of their community. The majority decision is trying to sidestep the notion of disparate impact, effectively saying it doesn't exist unless you show disparate treatment. Other municipalities have tweaked the weighting of different sections of the test to avoid discrimination, and a similar tweak here would have made two blacks eligible (Yar's note: the example they gave was a town that increased the significance of the oral portion to achieve more useful and less discriminatory results... but in New Haven's case, it was reducing the significance of that portion that would have reduced the disparate impact. Which, to me, totally validates the point the majority was making.) New Haven was going by the book in addressing a potential liability, their decision to cancel all promotions was racially neutral, and no one had the right to a promotion anyway.

    Alito and others concurring again: Nuh uh, your dissent is wrong.

    Yar on
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    I usually disagree pretty vehemently with Yar on just about most things I think that he has a pretty steady grasp on the two sides to this case.
    Yar wrote: »
    The majority decision is trying to sidestep the notion of disparate impact, effectively saying it doesn't exist unless you show disparate treatment. Other municipalities have tweaked the weighting of different sections of the test to avoid discrimination, and a similar tweak here would have made two blacks eligible (Yar's note: the example they gave was a town that increased the significance of the oral portion to achieve more useful and less discriminatory results... but in New Haven's case, it was reducing the significance of that portion that would have reduced the disparate impact.

    This right here is the crux of my calling bullshit on the initial complaint made with the New Haven city council by the black firefighters. I'm very familiar with the structure of New Jerseys testing cycle for both the firefighter (having gone through the process 1.5 times myself) and captains rank (preparing for my first go at the test and having talked to my coworkers/officer).

    In the case of the entrance exams, on my first go through the main 3 parts to the test were a physical obstacle course, a written test that assessed basic knowledge anyone should know by the ages of 13-16 and a "biodata" section that was part half assed psych test and one half racial profiling.

    Now going through all the steps you were never told what either one was particularly worth just that you had to pass them and you would be graded (but aside from the physical tests, you were never told what a failing score actually was). Now the written and biodata were both administered on the same day a few months prior to the physical portion. The written isn't even worth mentioning, except for the fact that a pretty sharp ten year old who can read at his grade level could probably squeak out a passing grade.

    The Biodata had a few gems though. Most of the questions were based on ethics and feelings and instead of being subtle and including color swatches to help pick out which shade was closest to my own they asked about 3 or 4 times whether I was white/black/hispanic/asian/etc. I loved being scored on that more then anything. Nevermind that I had to take an actual psychiatric evaluation prior to being hired, I genuinely enjoyed being scored on how often I confessed to drinking every week.

    The physical consisted of 3 parts; an obstacle course that was timed and graded based on that time (laughably hard to fail since the cutoff time was something like four and a half/ five minutes and the top tier of guys who practiced was doing 2:20-2:30. You were also only allowed to walk. The other 2 parts were a ladder climb and a short tunnel crawl/maze that were there entirely on a pass/fail basis.

    The way they arranged things and kept some data secret like "What is a passing grade?" basically allowed the state justice department to stop after each step of the test to figure out what minimum needed set to let minorities to advance to the next stage. Or to use the trends that popup on the biodata along racial criteria and game it so that minority groups as a whole fared better. At the end they were also able to figure out which would be the best way to value each individual test when it came to tabulating your final score.

    Disclaimer: Its late and I think I'm rambling and missing my own point a bit so I'll come back tomorrow and try and fill in the blanks people point out. I'll also try to ignore being called a racist and a crybaby lamenting over "the plight of the entitled white man" that'll come from the people who fail to realize that any civil service test is steeped in political fuckmuppetry and that my biggest gripe is that race gets involved at all.

    RedTide on
    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • WeAre138WeAre138 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Man. So much Brew-haha. I have no problem with this SCOTUS holding. You cannot discriminate based on race. Period.

    WeAre138 on
    Dinosaurs can happen at anytime!
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    You know SLATE had a fairly good overview of this case before the verdic came in. I would suggest that people seek it out and read it.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2221250
    I think its very revealing how the entry requirements favour whites over minorietes and how there is barely no bonus for living in New Haven itself.

    For example the department gives bonus points to applicants that have previously been volunteer firemen, something that benefits rural applicants with little on the job benefit.

    At the same time a there is a clear segregation of where firefighters live. The whites living in white suburbs, while minorites living in New Haven itself. (Ricci of the lawsuit for instance lives in a suburb that 95% white) This is not proof of racism, but does tell of conection to the comunity they serve.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    WeAre138 wrote: »
    Man. So much Brew-haha. I have no problem with this SCOTUS holding. You cannot discriminate based on race. Period.

    We also cannot try to account for systemic and unintentional racial bias, apparently. Let's all pretend that race has no bearing at all on anything because the Civil Rights Movement was 60 years ago, even though at least a third of the nation's population was alive when it was still okay to call a black man the n-word to his face. I can't imagine why anyone would think that racial bias would still exist in a society that sloughed off vestiges of blatant racism decades ago (even if racism was alive and well for centuries prior).

    wwtMask on
    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
  • TzarTzar __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    WeAre138 wrote: »
    Man. So much Brew-haha. I have no problem with this SCOTUS holding. You cannot discriminate based on race. Period.

    We also cannot try to account for systemic and unintentional racial bias, apparently. Let's all pretend that race has no bearing at all on anything because the Civil Rights Movement was 60 years ago, even though at least a third of the nation's population was alive when it was still okay to call a black man the n-word to his face. I can't imagine why anyone would think that racial bias would still exist in a society that sloughed off vestiges of blatant racism decades ago (even if racism was alive and well for centuries prior).

    Collective justice is awesome. Nothing better than a guy getting blamed for something because he is identified with a group that a guy who DID do something belongs to. Justice all the way.

    Ahem...justice should be based on identifiable offenses or circumstances, to identifiable individuals. We can clearly identify these individual firefighters as having lost out on promotions they earned because of racial considerations. What we can not and should not do, is try to blame large swaths of people for things done to other large swaths of people, by a third swath of people. These attempts are not objective, and not useful.

    TL;DR -- If green man A is racist, it's not green man B's problem, fault, or legal responsibility.

    Tzar on
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    You know SLATE had a fairly good overview of this case before the verdic came in. I would suggest that people seek it out and read it.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2221250
    I think its very revealing how the entry requirements favour whites over minorietes and how there is barely no bonus for living in New Haven itself.

    Aside from the fact that this was a promotional exam and not an entry one its a bit of a tangent, but five points is not an insignificant gain in any way. Its five points towards a competitive job for basically "just because".

    What gets me however that there is no residency requirement for these city jobs. I'm a firefighter in Elizabeth, New Jersey. I had to be a legal resident of the city from the date I submitted my application till one year after the date I started my job. I wasn't allowed to break residency at any time during that process or I would have been eliminated from the pool of candidates. Every other major city in New Jersey does this, I'm surprised its as lax as it is up there.
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    For example the department gives bonus points to applicants that have previously been volunteer firemen, something that benefits rural applicants with little on the job benefit.

    The article never actually quantifies that advantage it gives nor explicitly says that volunteer firefighter = better score. Just that these applicants have a "leg up" on skills. Also volunteer firefighters are commonplace in many suburban areas where you will still see a lot of the same types of occupancies as a city and go on the same bells etc. Plus a lot of knowledge about fire science and building construction not to mention typical fireground evolutions would be gained from time spent as a volunteer, so even if it was given weight on the test, thats not entirely a bad thing.
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    At the same time a there is a clear segregation of where firefighters live. The whites living in white suburbs, while minorites living in New Haven itself. (Ricci of the lawsuit for instance lives in a suburb that 95% white) This is not proof of racism, but does tell of conection to the comunity they serve.

    Unless a department has a mandate on residency that persists well after your hiring, this isn't exactly a shock. These guys are more then likely making pretty good money even at firefighter rank and most have time for a part-time job as well, why not move someplace thats a little nicer and family friendly anyway? Black, white or hispanic almost everyone on our department heads out for greener pastures once they have the job.

    RedTide on
    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    For example the department gives bonus points to applicants that have previously been volunteer firemen, something that benefits rural applicants with little on the job benefit.
    Are you serious? You can't be serious.

    Having done the job previously doesn't benefit you? These guys still run into burning buildings, save lives, and put out fires, even if it's done in a small town.

    deadonthestreet on
  • streeverstreever Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    interesting article from our local press:
    http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/06/was_he_the_culp.php

    Kimber is a local who seems to have a lot of things "accidentally" happen in his favor.

    streever on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    WeAre138 wrote: »
    Man. So much Brew-haha. I have no problem with this SCOTUS holding. You cannot discriminate based on race. Period.

    Color blindness does not lead to justice when entrenched inequality already exists.

    Hachface on
  • taerictaeric Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2009
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ruling wasn't that the whites were treated poorly in this. The ruling is simply that they can not throw out the results because "not enough blacks" passed. Had they thrown out the results because "it had been shown that the test discriminated against blacks," the ruling would have gone the other way.

    More directly, this is more a smack down on the city than it is a boost for the plaintiffs, as the ruling is simply that the city should not have tossed out the results, not that they owed the people with a passing grade a promotion. Right? I guess I just don't see what the big deal is over this ruling. If you give tests that discriminate, you will still run afoul of the law. You just can't blindly throw out tests because the results look suspicious without having some effort to show that they are suspect.

    taeric on
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Ignoring all the externalities involved hiring and city history, I will say it once more just for posterity: the knowledge required to succeed on promotional tests is in no way easier for anyone of a specific race, creed or gender to obtain. These tests favor the prepared and knowledgeable.

    As to entrenched inequality being a factor, it doesn't ring true to me. It would be one thing if this test was centered around the hiring practices of the NHFD (which past suits were), and the discussion was about suburban white folk competing against the urban predominantly minority population. The testing involved with getting the job covers only basic knowledge that one can acquire in even the worst of school districts, nothing related to the fire service and has a physical component to serve as an equalizer as well.

    But with promotional exams you're talking about people who are on the same career path as each other, making the same money and with the same education opportunities (that pertain to these tests at least) available to them. If White Frank and Black Joe and Hispanic Juan are all making 90k a year and all have the same time to prepare, do we still play favorites based on someones assumed background?

    Edit: And that thing about Kimber does not shock me in the slightest. I've said before that the cities decision was more politics then ethics in this case, despite the stated reasoning.

    RedTide on
    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • streeverstreever Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    I agree Redtide. Our city is afraid of an "obama effect" where the current administration loses it's power to "agents of change". It's a ridiculous fear & not born out in any real study, but regardless, they are still terrifed.

    streever on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    For example the department gives bonus points to applicants that have previously been volunteer firemen, something that benefits rural applicants with little on the job benefit.
    Are you serious? You can't be serious.

    Having done the job previously doesn't benefit you? These guys still run into burning buildings, save lives, and put out fires, even if it's done in a small town.


    Exept: Small town=fewer, smaller, fires. The majority of firefighting is not the huge building fires you see in the movies, it even says in the article that the majority of calls are medical not fire related. The vast majority of volunteer firefighters spend their on the job time(firefighting) putting out grass fires or car fires. In fact I would wager it is possible to serve for a year and not see a "real" fire.

    Being able to operate the equipment before training is an advantage, but not an overwhelming one and not one that should count beyond the training stage.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    RedTide wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    At the same time a there is a clear segregation of where firefighters live. The whites living in white suburbs, while minorites living in New Haven itself. (Ricci of the lawsuit for instance lives in a suburb that 95% white) This is not proof of racism, but does tell of conection to the comunity they serve.

    Unless a department has a mandate on residency that persists well after your hiring, this isn't exactly a shock. These guys are more then likely making pretty good money even at firefighter rank and most have time for a part-time job as well, why not move someplace thats a little nicer and family friendly anyway? Black, white or hispanic almost everyone on our department heads out for greener pastures once they have the job.

    Nothing wrong with moving to greener pastures, but I do think its slightly out of wack that only white firefighters move out of the city(they earn the same ammount of money). It says something about how different races view living in New Haven.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Exept: Small town=fewer, smaller, fires. The majority of firefighting is not the huge building fires you see in the movies, it even says in the article that the majority of calls are medical not fire related. The vast majority of volunteer firefighters spend their on the job time(firefighting) putting out grass fires or car fires. In fact I would wager it is possible to serve for a year and not see a "real" fire.

    Being able to operate the equipment before training is an advantage, but not an overwhelming one and not one that should count beyond the training stage.
    I dunno, I live in a pretty small town and there's a decent sized fire at least once a year. And my dad sure as hell had to fight some fires when he was a volunteer fireman when he was younger. You just can't discount that you can accrue very valuable experience working as a volunteer firefighter.

    deadonthestreet on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Tzar wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    WeAre138 wrote: »
    Man. So much Brew-haha. I have no problem with this SCOTUS holding. You cannot discriminate based on race. Period.

    We also cannot try to account for systemic and unintentional racial bias, apparently. Let's all pretend that race has no bearing at all on anything because the Civil Rights Movement was 60 years ago, even though at least a third of the nation's population was alive when it was still okay to call a black man the n-word to his face. I can't imagine why anyone would think that racial bias would still exist in a society that sloughed off vestiges of blatant racism decades ago (even if racism was alive and well for centuries prior).

    Collective justice is awesome. Nothing better than a guy getting blamed for something because he is identified with a group that a guy who DID do something belongs to. Justice all the way.

    Ahem...justice should be based on identifiable offenses or circumstances, to identifiable individuals. We can clearly identify these individual firefighters as having lost out on promotions they earned because of racial considerations. What we can not and should not do, is try to blame large swaths of people for things done to other large swaths of people, by a third swath of people. These attempts are not objective, and not useful.

    TL;DR -- If green man A is racist, it's not green man B's problem, fault, or legal responsibility.

    The problem here is that you think any effort to account for systemic bias is punishment against the majority. The white firefighters weren't being blamed for anything. If anything, society itself was, and for the entirely reasonable notion that racial bias may have been unconsciously introduced into the process.

    I swear, the way some people talk, white people are the most common and grievously wounded victims of racism. I guess I should thank God that I'm black, since apparently racism is always working out in our favor.
    It's really quite annoying

    wwtMask on
    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
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Tzar wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    WeAre138 wrote: »
    Man. So much Brew-haha. I have no problem with this SCOTUS holding. You cannot discriminate based on race. Period.

    We also cannot try to account for systemic and unintentional racial bias, apparently. Let's all pretend that race has no bearing at all on anything because the Civil Rights Movement was 60 years ago, even though at least a third of the nation's population was alive when it was still okay to call a black man the n-word to his face. I can't imagine why anyone would think that racial bias would still exist in a society that sloughed off vestiges of blatant racism decades ago (even if racism was alive and well for centuries prior).

    Collective justice is awesome. Nothing better than a guy getting blamed for something because he is identified with a group that a guy who DID do something belongs to. Justice all the way.

    Ahem...justice should be based on identifiable offenses or circumstances, to identifiable individuals. We can clearly identify these individual firefighters as having lost out on promotions they earned because of racial considerations. What we can not and should not do, is try to blame large swaths of people for things done to other large swaths of people, by a third swath of people. These attempts are not objective, and not useful.

    TL;DR -- If green man A is racist, it's not green man B's problem, fault, or legal responsibility.

    The problem here is that you think any effort to account for systemic bias is punishment against the majority. The white firefighters weren't being blamed for anything. If anything, society itself was, and for the entirely reasonable notion that racial bias may have been unconsciously introduced into the process.

    I swear, the way some people talk, white people are the most common and grievously wounded victims of racism. I guess I should thank God that I'm black, since apparently racism is always working out in our favor.
    It's really quite annoying

    wwtmask, you should consider yourself lucky. You have no idea how hard us white folk have it!

    Hey Tzar, nobody is blaming the firefighters for not getting the promotions.

    tsmvengy on
    steam_sig.png
  • taerictaeric Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    The problem here is that you think any effort to account for systemic bias is punishment against the majority. The white firefighters weren't being blamed for anything. If anything, society itself was, and for the entirely reasonable notion that racial bias may have been unconsciously introduced into the process.

    I swear, the way some people talk, white people are the most common and grievously wounded victims of racism. I guess I should thank God that I'm black, since apparently racism is always working out in our favor.
    It's really quite annoying

    I'll direct the question at you. How does this have to do with the ruling? They didn't say "poor white folks," they said, "city can not throw out results due to results on fear of racial bias." Either at least make some effort to show bias, or accept the results. At least, that is how I'm reading this:
    All the evidence demonstrates that the City rejected the test results because the higher scoring candidates were white. Without some other justification, this express, race-based decision making is prohibited.

    taeric on
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Tzar wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    WeAre138 wrote: »
    Man. So much Brew-haha. I have no problem with this SCOTUS holding. You cannot discriminate based on race. Period.

    We also cannot try to account for systemic and unintentional racial bias, apparently. Let's all pretend that race has no bearing at all on anything because the Civil Rights Movement was 60 years ago, even though at least a third of the nation's population was alive when it was still okay to call a black man the n-word to his face. I can't imagine why anyone would think that racial bias would still exist in a society that sloughed off vestiges of blatant racism decades ago (even if racism was alive and well for centuries prior).

    Collective justice is awesome. Nothing better than a guy getting blamed for something because he is identified with a group that a guy who DID do something belongs to. Justice all the way.

    Ahem...justice should be based on identifiable offenses or circumstances, to identifiable individuals. We can clearly identify these individual firefighters as having lost out on promotions they earned because of racial considerations. What we can not and should not do, is try to blame large swaths of people for things done to other large swaths of people, by a third swath of people. These attempts are not objective, and not useful.

    TL;DR -- If green man A is racist, it's not green man B's problem, fault, or legal responsibility.

    The problem here is that you think any effort to account for systemic bias is punishment against the majority. The white firefighters weren't being blamed for anything. If anything, society itself was, and for the entirely reasonable notion that racial bias may have been unconsciously introduced into the process.

    I swear, the way some people talk, white people are the most common and grievously wounded victims of racism. I guess I should thank God that I'm black, since apparently racism is always working out in our favor.
    It's really quite annoying

    You can't pretend that throwing out the results and not promoting them did not have a negative effect on them.

    HamHamJ on
    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
    taeric wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    The problem here is that you think any effort to account for systemic bias is punishment against the majority. The white firefighters weren't being blamed for anything. If anything, society itself was, and for the entirely reasonable notion that racial bias may have been unconsciously introduced into the process.

    I swear, the way some people talk, white people are the most common and grievously wounded victims of racism. I guess I should thank God that I'm black, since apparently racism is always working out in our favor.
    It's really quite annoying

    I'll direct the question at you. How does this have to do with the ruling? They didn't say "poor white folks," they said, "city can not throw out results due to results on fear of racial bias." Either at least make some effort to show bias, or accept the results. At least, that is how I'm reading this:
    All the evidence demonstrates that the City rejected the test results because the higher scoring candidates were white. Without some other justification, this express, race-based decision making is prohibited.

    The justification is silly, though. If you can accept that there is unconscious, systemic racial bias (and you should because thinking otherwise is crazy), then how else except through race-based decision making can you remedy the bias? I mean, I wish they'd just come right out and say "It's too bad that racism has imprinted itself on society so much that there's a big achievement gap. You non-whites will just have to suck it up and learn to deal with it, because we're correcting for the racism that our ancestors intentionally embedded into our cultural psyche is such a terrible burden. We can't stand the idea that a tiny number of white people have to work a little harder in order to alleviate a bit of the racial bias."

    wwtMask on
    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
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Tzar wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    WeAre138 wrote: »
    Man. So much Brew-haha. I have no problem with this SCOTUS holding. You cannot discriminate based on race. Period.

    We also cannot try to account for systemic and unintentional racial bias, apparently. Let's all pretend that race has no bearing at all on anything because the Civil Rights Movement was 60 years ago, even though at least a third of the nation's population was alive when it was still okay to call a black man the n-word to his face. I can't imagine why anyone would think that racial bias would still exist in a society that sloughed off vestiges of blatant racism decades ago (even if racism was alive and well for centuries prior).

    Collective justice is awesome. Nothing better than a guy getting blamed for something because he is identified with a group that a guy who DID do something belongs to. Justice all the way.

    Ahem...justice should be based on identifiable offenses or circumstances, to identifiable individuals. We can clearly identify these individual firefighters as having lost out on promotions they earned because of racial considerations. What we can not and should not do, is try to blame large swaths of people for things done to other large swaths of people, by a third swath of people. These attempts are not objective, and not useful.

    TL;DR -- If green man A is racist, it's not green man B's problem, fault, or legal responsibility.

    The problem here is that you think any effort to account for systemic bias is punishment against the majority. The white firefighters weren't being blamed for anything. If anything, society itself was, and for the entirely reasonable notion that racial bias may have been unconsciously introduced into the process.

    I swear, the way some people talk, white people are the most common and grievously wounded victims of racism. I guess I should thank God that I'm black, since apparently racism is always working out in our favor.
    It's really quite annoying

    You can't pretend that throwing out the results and not promoting them did not have a negative effect on them.

    They didn't lose their jobs, and I'm pretty sure they're not prohibited from taking the revised test? If the ones who passed are good enough to pass the first test, they can surely pass the new one. Of course, the city could've avoided this by just promoting the guys in the first place, curving down a bit to pick up a few more minorities, and readministering the revised test in the following examinations.

    wwtMask on
    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
  • GoodKingJayIIIGoodKingJayIII They wanna get my gold on the ceilingRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    I'm a little surprised by this ruling, but in retrospect, it's probably the correct one. Really, you could go either way on this (as shown by the split vote). A lot of EEOC experts seem to think it's not really going to affect anything in the long run.

    GoodKingJayIII on
    Battletag: Threeve#1501; PSN: Threeve703; Steam: 3eeve
  • taerictaeric Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    You can't pretend that throwing out the results and not promoting them did not have a negative effect on them.

    You can, as this was not ruled on.

    taeric on
  • taerictaeric Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    The justification is silly, though. If you can accept that there is unconscious, systemic racial bias (and you should because thinking otherwise is crazy), then how else except through race-based decision making can you remedy the bias? I mean, I wish they'd just come right out and say "It's too bad that racism has imprinted itself on society so much that there's a big achievement gap. You non-whites will just have to suck it up and learn to deal with it, because we're correcting for the racism that our ancestors intentionally embedded into our cultural psyche is such a terrible burden. We can't stand the idea that a tiny number of white people have to work a little harder in order to alleviate a bit of the racial bias."

    In the specifics of this case, 100,000 bucks was spent to create a test that was not racially discriminatory. After the results came in, apparantly zero effort was made to determine if the test was biased, and instead the results were just tossed. There is strong reason to believe that, had the city simply done an investigation, this would not have made it to the supreme court.

    Edit: Just want to make sure you've seen the relevant portion of the ruling:
    We hold only that, under Title VII, before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action.

    taeric on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Exept: Small town=fewer, smaller, fires. The majority of firefighting is not the huge building fires you see in the movies, it even says in the article that the majority of calls are medical not fire related. The vast majority of volunteer firefighters spend their on the job time(firefighting) putting out grass fires or car fires. In fact I would wager it is possible to serve for a year and not see a "real" fire.

    Being able to operate the equipment before training is an advantage, but not an overwhelming one and not one that should count beyond the training stage.
    I dunno, I live in a pretty small town and there's a decent sized fire at least once a year. And my dad sure as hell had to fight some fires when he was a volunteer fireman when he was younger. You just can't discount that you can accrue very valuable experience working as a volunteer firefighter.

    And you shouldnt overestimate it either. especialy as the people applying are not the ones that have been volunteers the longest. Remember applicants for big city departments have to be under a certain age.

    Compare it to someone who knows his way around the city and has a personal knowledge of it and I will weigh differently. Who would you like to be your fireman? The guy that refers to you town as "the Ghetto" and commutes to work from the suburbs? Or the guy who lives here and knows your neighborhood?

    Connection to the community counts.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I swear, the way some people talk, white people are the most common and grievously wounded victims of racism. I guess I should thank God that I'm black, since apparently racism is always working out in our favor.
    It's really quite annoying

    Want my honest opinion on how to improve both scores for entrance and promotional exams for the locals entering civil service jobs? Start at the bottom and fix the subpar schools and social ails that effect these communities. A lifetime of existing in a fucked up situation is whats dragging these people down more then likely, not the test itself.

    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Exept: Small town=fewer, smaller, fires. The majority of firefighting is not the huge building fires you see in the movies, it even says in the article that the majority of calls are medical not fire related. The vast majority of volunteer firefighters spend their on the job time(firefighting) putting out grass fires or car fires. In fact I would wager it is possible to serve for a year and not see a "real" fire.

    Being able to operate the equipment before training is an advantage, but not an overwhelming one and not one that should count beyond the training stage.

    New Jersey has both a firefighter 1 and firefighter 2 standardized test that any firefighter be it volunteer or professional must pass in order to ride on a fire truck. They involve both a test that covers basic fireground operations and knowledge but in order to be certified you must also complete a certain number of live burns as well. Is setting a straw fire in a concrete building the same thing as a real job? No, but its as close as you can get without killing your recruits on an increasing basis.

    Medical calls may also be the bulk of fire department runs (which is an increasing trend in many cities across the US), but there is a reason to not include EMT knowledge on promotional exams. Mainly because your role at medical scenes doesn't change at the company officer levels much at all. EMT/first responder training covers the core knowledge of what you need to know to be competent at these jobs. Hell at most medicals I've ever been to the captain is responsible for nothing more then filling out the sheet before EMS gets there and the firefighters themselves are usually assessing the patient.

    RedTide on
    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    RedTide wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I swear, the way some people talk, white people are the most common and grievously wounded victims of racism. I guess I should thank God that I'm black, since apparently racism is always working out in our favor.
    It's really quite annoying

    Want my honest opinion on how to improve both scores for entrance and promotional exams for the locals entering civil service jobs? Start at the bottom and fix the subpar schools and social ails that effect these communities. A lifetime of existing in a fucked up situation is whats dragging these people down more then likely, not the test itself.

    I don't disagree with that in general, though I think that it's hard to motivate disadvantaged kids to do better when they have no one who looks like them to look up to and aspire to emulate. It's also hard to fix their lot in life when social programs and school funding is always the first thing on the chopping block when it's time to cut the budget down.

    wwtMask on
    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
  • TzarTzar __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    taeric wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    The problem here is that you think any effort to account for systemic bias is punishment against the majority. The white firefighters weren't being blamed for anything. If anything, society itself was, and for the entirely reasonable notion that racial bias may have been unconsciously introduced into the process.

    I swear, the way some people talk, white people are the most common and grievously wounded victims of racism. I guess I should thank God that I'm black, since apparently racism is always working out in our favor.
    It's really quite annoying

    I'll direct the question at you. How does this have to do with the ruling? They didn't say "poor white folks," they said, "city can not throw out results due to results on fear of racial bias." Either at least make some effort to show bias, or accept the results. At least, that is how I'm reading this:
    All the evidence demonstrates that the City rejected the test results because the higher scoring candidates were white. Without some other justification, this express, race-based decision making is prohibited.

    The justification is silly, though. If you can accept that there is unconscious, systemic racial bias (and you should because thinking otherwise is crazy), then how else except through race-based decision making can you remedy the bias? I mean, I wish they'd just come right out and say "It's too bad that racism has imprinted itself on society so much that there's a big achievement gap. You non-whites will just have to suck it up and learn to deal with it, because we're correcting for the racism that our ancestors intentionally embedded into our cultural psyche is such a terrible burden. We can't stand the idea that a tiny number of white people have to work a little harder in order to alleviate a bit of the racial bias."

    How can you possibly have a standard for something like "an unconscious, systemic racial bias"? Do you just flail your arms wildly with quotas and other measures until you feel better? Are we done when all racism is eliminated? Is it fair to white people who were never racist, nor had any family that was racist, to "pay the price" for those who were?

    In a normal proceeding a plaintiff and defendant are identified, and a rational estimate of damages can be carried out. Was a car destroyed? How much is owed? Who is at fault? What other factors are there? In this crazy racial algebra you basically make it white people (racist or not) against black people (victims or not). It's an insane, impossible metric. And even from a pragmatic standpoint, having programs in place that push people towards hiring blacks just gives real racists ammunition to sway people. "Oh he just got that job because of blah blah program".

    And even getting to this point ignores the important question of "Should non-violent, non-coercive racism be a criminal offense?". Yeah, yeah, I know, Grand Wizard of the KKK etc. But should a business owner be vulnerable to criminal suits because he doesn't want to hire a certain kind of person? Should FUBU have to put my pasty-white ass on its sales floor because "I have a right" to work at their store? Or should they be free to choose whoever is best for the job? You tell me.

    Tzar on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Actually thats where the majority of unconcious racism comes into play. When you think Salesperson, in you minds eye you are thinking of a generic person. What is the colour of that generic persons skin? These unconcious judgments are a major obstacle to equality as they channel people to fufill certain expetations. Without people being aware of them.

    Think Nurse, Doctor, Cop, Computer tech and Firefighter. What is your racial fill in? What gender? What religion?

    It should be noted that the more prestigous the job the more likely people are to unconsiously pick White, Male, Protestant. CEO and President?

    Edit to connect to OP: White firefighters benefit from a unconcious societal judgment in their favour. People expect firefighters to be white and male(and probably Irish), people that don't fit that expectation have a longer way to go for acceptence.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Actually thats where the majority of unconcious racism comes into play. When you think Salesperson, in you minds eye you are thinking of a generic person. What is the colour of that generic persons skin? These unconcious judgments are a major obstacle to equality as they channel people to fufill certain expetations. Without people being aware of them.

    Think Nurse, Doctor, Cop, Computer tech and Firefighter. What is your racial fill in? What gender? What religion?

    It should be noted that the more prestigous the job the more likely people are to unconsiously pick White, Male, Protestant. CEO and President?

    For nurse, the Joker's white, right?

    Scalfin on
    [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.
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Actually thats where the majority of unconcious racism comes into play. When you think Salesperson, in you minds eye you are thinking of a generic person. What is the colour of that generic persons skin? These unconcious judgments are a major obstacle to equality as they channel people to fufill certain expetations. Without people being aware of them.

    Think Nurse, Doctor, Cop, Computer tech and Firefighter. What is your racial fill in? What gender? What religion?

    It should be noted that the more prestigous the job the more likely people are to unconsiously pick White, Male, Protestant. CEO and President?

    For nurse, the Joker's white, right?

    Yes and his religion is Eris the godess of chaos.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Sign In or Register to comment.