Oddly enough, Tzar pretty well argued against this ruling. He said that no one has a right to a job. Oh hey, isn't that what Ginsburg said in her dissent?
Oddly enough, Tzar pretty well argued against this ruling. He said that no one has a right to a job. Oh hey, isn't that what Ginsburg said in her dissent?
To be fair to Tzar, his position is a bit more complicated than that. The reason the city chose not to certify the test was because they feared doing so would provoke a Title VII suit. Such a suit with restrict an employer's hiring choices, and I believe that is where Tzar thinks the injustice exists.
RedTide:
there was no physical portion to the test, something which a lot of firefighter--even white firefighters--were unhappy about here.
I know, I was comparing a proposed change in the promotional exams grading to a way that a portion of NJ's application exams are conducted and how I think it works for one better then the other.
Also no one in this dispute cited a lack of a physical portion as a drawback, although in the initial complaint the black firefighters did state that they thought the verbal portion of the exam should have its value increased.
RedTide on
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Oddly enough, Tzar pretty well argued against this ruling. He said that no one has a right to a job. Oh hey, isn't that what Ginsburg said in her dissent?
That argument is hollow, as it goes both ways. None of the blacks that didn't pass the promotional exam have a right to the jobs either.
And again, the court didn't rule that the the whites were victims of "disparate-impact." Instead, the ruling is simply that the city can not throw out the results without more basis in evidence that they directly caused a disparate impact.
taeric on
0
Options
MorgensternICH BIN DER PESTVOGELDU KAMPFAFFE!Registered Userregular
edited July 2009
Was it ever revealed how many non-blacks failed the test too?
Morgenstern on
“Every time we walk along a beach some ancient urge disturbs us so that we find ourselves shedding shoes and garments or scavenging among seaweed and whitened timbers like the homesick refugees of a long war.” - Loren Eiseley
It increased the burden of proof for bringing discrimination cases. Basically, if this case had been tried using the case law as the SC has changed it now, the city could've done nothing and a lawsuit would've gone nowhere without every having to really examine whether the allegations of racial discrimination had merit. Institutional, unconscious racism is hard enough to prove already.
It only increased it by requiring that they have some. Again, there was already plenty of evidence that the city tried to be "race neutral" in this case. The results did not come out that way, and, minus the evidence that the city attempted to be fair, that would have been enough. With that fact, you now need a little more than just the results as evidence. Further, you actually also need an alternative that could have been used to produce more fair results. (The city considered several different ways to do things, all of them were essentially considered arbitrary. The banding one, I still have questions on. You basically changed it from "The 'top 3' scores in a 100 point system, to the 'the top 3' in a 4.0 system." At least, that is how it read to me, so I am hoping someone can straighten me out on that one..)
In other words, if a company did not spend a ton of money creating a "race neutral" test that was job related, then simply skewed results would be enough to go forward with a lawsuit. Unless you are opposed to any sort of standardized testing at all, this can only help by encouraging more of them. Hopefully in such a way that they can be audited by national bodies that can ensure they are not discriminatory.
That's the thing, beyond the results, which may seem skewed (small samples can be funny in that way), there was no evidence that there was racial bias of any kind.
Was it ever revealed how many non-blacks failed the test too?
Yeah, the ruling has the pass rates for all parties. I can definitely understand the suspicion that something was up. However, as steps were specifically taken to avoid such a situation, there needs to be more than just a suspicion. I would be curious to see the pass/fail rates of other tests designed by this company.
Oddly enough, Tzar pretty well argued against this ruling. He said that no one has a right to a job. Oh hey, isn't that what Ginsburg said in her dissent?
That argument is hollow, as it goes both ways. None of the blacks that didn't pass the promotional exam have a right to the jobs either.
I don't think anyone except the firefighters were arguing that they had a right to those jobs. I just thought it was funny that Tzar was using that reasoning to support his argument.
And again, the court didn't rule that the the whites were victims of "disparate-impact." Instead, the ruling is simply that the city can not throw out the results without more basis in evidence that they directly caused a disparate impact.
Which seems reasonable, except it just makes it even harder to sue for racial discrimination. I mean, how much evidence is enough?
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited July 2009
Part of the issue is how the written portion of the test was weighted compared to the oral portion. Written exams by their very nature test a variety of skills distinct from the skillset they are intended to evaluate (literacy, reading comprehension, and reading speed, all in the dialect of Standard Written English, which is really Standard White English). If, as is often the case, schools in black neighborhoods and schools in white neighborhoods have significant differences in educational quality, this can easily skew the results of any written test. Oh hey, look--the world is complicated!
Tzar:
I apologize if I sound rude, but I took your approach (reducing arguments to one-sided logical fallacies & dismissing a serious history of racial inequality) to be rude.
I was trying to have a converation, but you decided to take my comments out of context & mock them, just as you did with Taeric's and others. In my mind, that's the break-down point of what consistutes a conversation, and even a debate--that leaves you in a cyclical argument you've stacked so it never ends.
Oddly enough, Tzar pretty well argued against this ruling. He said that no one has a right to a job. Oh hey, isn't that what Ginsburg said in her dissent?
That argument is hollow, as it goes both ways. None of the blacks that didn't pass the promotional exam have a right to the jobs either.
I don't think anyone except the firefighters were arguing that they had a right to those jobs. I just thought it was funny that Tzar was using that reasoning to support his argument.
And again, the court didn't rule that the the whites were victims of "disparate-impact." Instead, the ruling is simply that the city can not throw out the results without more basis in evidence that they directly caused a disparate impact.
Which seems reasonable, except it just makes it even harder to sue for racial discrimination. I mean, how much evidence is enough?
Like has been said: some or any would be a great start. In this case, there was none.
Oddly enough, Tzar pretty well argued against this ruling. He said that no one has a right to a job. Oh hey, isn't that what Ginsburg said in her dissent?
That argument is hollow, as it goes both ways. None of the blacks that didn't pass the promotional exam have a right to the jobs either.
I don't think anyone except the firefighters were arguing that they had a right to those jobs. I just thought it was funny that Tzar was using that reasoning to support his argument.
But isn't that how this argument works? You have to throw it out because the minority members that didn't pass are victims of disparate-impact because they did not get the job. I could see how someone would read this as saying that some member X of the minority has a right to the job. So, either you say that they did have a right to the job by meeting the stated requirements. Or you state that they specifically don't have a right to the job because someone else does.
And again, the court didn't rule that the the whites were victims of "disparate-impact." Instead, the ruling is simply that the city can not throw out the results without more basis in evidence that they directly caused a disparate impact.
Which seems reasonable, except it just makes it even harder to sue for racial discrimination. I mean, how much evidence is enough?
How does that make it harder? And it isn't like this is done. It was specifically sent back down to the lower courts to argue the details some more. Again, the evidence just has to outweigh the counter-evidence. If they have done nothing to show it is a racially neutral and job related test, then you just need the results.
Part of the issue is how the written portion of the test was weighted compared to the oral portion. Written exams by their very nature test a variety of skills distinct from the skillset they are intended to evaluate (literacy, reading comprehension, and reading speed, all in the dialect of Standard Written English, which is really Standard White English). If, as is often the case, schools in black neighborhoods and schools in white neighborhoods have significant differences in educational quality, this can easily skew the results of any written test. Oh hey, look--the world is complicated!
If I ever get a test someday and it says "dat hot shit" and I can't figure out if they mean the new Air Jordans, a steaming dump or a fucking fire I'm going to come to your house and hit you with a halligan.
RedTide on
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Part of the issue is how the written portion of the test was weighted compared to the oral portion. Written exams by their very nature test a variety of skills distinct from the skillset they are intended to evaluate (literacy, reading comprehension, and reading speed, all in the dialect of Standard Written English, which is really Standard White English). If, as is often the case, schools in black neighborhoods and schools in white neighborhoods have significant differences in educational quality, this can easily skew the results of any written test. Oh hey, look--the world is complicated!
And this was considered. They could have weighted the test differently, but were contractually held by the firefighters union to use the weighting they did. Further, changing the weighting would have simply added a very small handful of minorities to the results. Finally, any change in weighting would have to be based on a logical job related requirement. The court had to assume since the firefighters union mandated the weighting that was used, it had a rational reason and changing it would still violate title VII.
taeric on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Part of the issue is how the written portion of the test was weighted compared to the oral portion. Written exams by their very nature test a variety of skills distinct from the skillset they are intended to evaluate (literacy, reading comprehension, and reading speed, all in the dialect of Standard Written English, which is really Standard White English). If, as is often the case, schools in black neighborhoods and schools in white neighborhoods have significant differences in educational quality, this can easily skew the results of any written test. Oh hey, look--the world is complicated!
If I ever get a test someday and it says "dat hot shit" and I can't figure out if they mean the new Air Jordans, a steaming dump or a fucking fire I'm going to come to your house and hit you with a halligan.
I am so prepared to debate whether Ebonics should be incorporated into the classroom. If anyone makes a thread I will go there right away.
Oddly enough, Tzar pretty well argued against this ruling. He said that no one has a right to a job. Oh hey, isn't that what Ginsburg said in her dissent?
That argument is hollow, as it goes both ways. None of the blacks that didn't pass the promotional exam have a right to the jobs either.
I don't think anyone except the firefighters were arguing that they had a right to those jobs. I just thought it was funny that Tzar was using that reasoning to support his argument.
But isn't that how this argument works? You have to throw it out because the minority members that didn't pass are victims of disparate-impact because they did not get the job. I could see how someone would read this as saying that some member X of the minority has a right to the job. So, either you say that they did have a right to the job by meeting the stated requirements. Or you state that they specifically don't have a right to the job because someone else does.
I don't think I view this quite the same. I think the firefighters probably deserved the jobs, and the minority firefighters maybe deserved a little more consideration. None of them had a right to the jobs. Throwing out the test results doesn't mean anyone has a right to any of the jobs.
And again, the court didn't rule that the the whites were victims of "disparate-impact." Instead, the ruling is simply that the city can not throw out the results without more basis in evidence that they directly caused a disparate impact.
Which seems reasonable, except it just makes it even harder to sue for racial discrimination. I mean, how much evidence is enough?
How does that make it harder? And it isn't like this is done. It was specifically sent back down to the lower courts to argue the details some more. Again, the evidence just has to outweigh the counter-evidence. If they have done nothing to show it is a racially neutral and job related test, then you just need the results.
I didn't realize there was more work to be done, so I'll wait for the lower courts to iron things out before I get too upset about it.
Part of the issue is how the written portion of the test was weighted compared to the oral portion. Written exams by their very nature test a variety of skills distinct from the skillset they are intended to evaluate (literacy, reading comprehension, and reading speed, all in the dialect of Standard Written English, which is really Standard White English). If, as is often the case, schools in black neighborhoods and schools in white neighborhoods have significant differences in educational quality, this can easily skew the results of any written test. Oh hey, look--the world is complicated!
If I ever get a test someday and it says "dat hot shit" and I can't figure out if they mean the new Air Jordans, a steaming dump or a fucking fire I'm going to come to your house and hit you with a halligan.
I am so prepared to debate whether Ebonics should be incorporated into the classroom. If anyone makes a thread I will go there right away.
Incorporating ebonics into whats considered proper english (whats taught) is silly in that a lot of the lingo falls off in the course of a few years. Its one thing if a term arises and becomes a part of normative culture so much so that people still use it commonly ten years from now. But if I asked a kid what was "crack-a-lacking" or if he was getting "jiggy" with it he'd either wonder what I was talking about or laugh at me for being antiquated.
RedTide on
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I may be wrong on the lower courts, but that was my understanding.
And as for the argument, I was just pushing that as one way it could be taken. It fits all the facts and has a logical hold to it. I should be clear, I think the argument you pushed does as well. I think this is why I like the ruling. They are saying the city was dumb to just throw them out, but not that the firefighters had a right to the job. If the city had shown any evidence at all that they would be liable for disparate-impact, they could have tossed the results just fine.
taeric on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Part of the issue is how the written portion of the test was weighted compared to the oral portion. Written exams by their very nature test a variety of skills distinct from the skillset they are intended to evaluate (literacy, reading comprehension, and reading speed, all in the dialect of Standard Written English, which is really Standard White English). If, as is often the case, schools in black neighborhoods and schools in white neighborhoods have significant differences in educational quality, this can easily skew the results of any written test. Oh hey, look--the world is complicated!
If I ever get a test someday and it says "dat hot shit" and I can't figure out if they mean the new Air Jordans, a steaming dump or a fucking fire I'm going to come to your house and hit you with a halligan.
I am so prepared to debate whether Ebonics should be incorporated into the classroom. If anyone makes a thread I will go there right away.
Incorporating ebonics into whats considered proper english (whats taught) is silly in that a lot of the lingo falls off in the course of a few years. Its one thing if a term arises and becomes a part of normative culture so much so that people still use it commonly ten years from now. But if I asked a kid what was "crack-a-lacking" or if he was getting "jiggy" with it he'd either wonder what I was talking about or laugh at me for being antiquated.
AAVE (African-American Vernacular English) is more than just passing slang. It has a number of unique, enduring lexical and grammatical features.
Part of the issue is how the written portion of the test was weighted compared to the oral portion. Written exams by their very nature test a variety of skills distinct from the skillset they are intended to evaluate (literacy, reading comprehension, and reading speed, all in the dialect of Standard Written English, which is really Standard White English). If, as is often the case, schools in black neighborhoods and schools in white neighborhoods have significant differences in educational quality, this can easily skew the results of any written test. Oh hey, look--the world is complicated!
If I ever get a test someday and it says "dat hot shit" and I can't figure out if they mean the new Air Jordans, a steaming dump or a fucking fire I'm going to come to your house and hit you with a halligan.
I am so prepared to debate whether Ebonics should be incorporated into the classroom. If anyone makes a thread I will go there right away.
Incorporating ebonics into whats considered proper english (whats taught) is silly in that a lot of the lingo falls off in the course of a few years. Its one thing if a term arises and becomes a part of normative culture so much so that people still use it commonly ten years from now. But if I asked a kid what was "crack-a-lacking" or if he was getting "jiggy" with it he'd either wonder what I was talking about or laugh at me for being antiquated.
AAVE (African-American Vernacular English) is more than just passing slang. It has a number of unique, enduring lexical and grammatical features.
My kids speaking like that un-ironically would possibly be the death of me.
Well it's a good thing that nobody has ever tried to make your kid speak Ebonics. They have tried to better teach Standard English to black children by comparing it to their native dialect, however.
My kids speaking like that un-ironically would possibly be the death of me.
Well it's a good thing that nobody has ever tried to make your kid speak Ebonics. They have tried to better teach Standard English to black children by comparing it to their native dialect, however.
But this is off topic.
Fo' sho'.
RedTide on
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
So? We also don't teach "wicked pissah", "ain't", "y'all", "w00t own3d!" or any number of other dialect variations because they are not standard.
I would also point out that the African Americans I know almost never speak professionally or socially in the African-American dialect including in their homes. The one notable exception is when affecting it in order to seem "more black"(something I've seen suburban Boston Irish do with both a Boston accent to seem more local and a brogue to seem more Irish). That might be because I live in a region with a strong accent and/or with few majority black communities, but it does highlight that its a dialect that exists largely because of the social isolation of black communities and the relatively recent migration of said communities from the South.
So? We also don't teach "wicked pissah", "ain't", "y'all", "w00t own3d!" or any number of other dialect variations because they are not standard.
I would also point out that the African Americans I know almost never speak professionally or socially in the African-American dialect including in their homes. The one notable exception is when affecting it in order to seem "more black"(something I've seen suburban Boston Irish do with both a Boston accent to seem more local and a brogue to seem more Irish). That might be because I live in a region with a strong accent and/or with few majority black communities, but it does highlight that its a dialect that exists largely because of the social isolation of black communities and the relatively recent migration of said communities from the South.
The aim isn't to teach black dialects as standard. The aim is to help black students more easily learn standard English by directly contrasting it to the dialect they learn at home. The purpose of "Ebonics" in schools has been widely misunderstood.
Amusingly, I think this new tangent is similar to some thoughts I have been having regarding handwriting. I've been trying to teach myself caligraphy for the past couple of weeks, and it really is changing the way I look at lettering. It is more than just transcribing words to a page, it really can be a form of art that can be appreciated. I feel this is true for speaking, as well. There is a beauty (and sometimes a large lack of it) to how people say certain things that can be captured in their dialect. I do not wish to eradicate "black" dialects, as I feel that something would be lost if that were done. That said, I do wish there was more understanding in that there is not just a one-to-one word translation for the same words in some dialects. A lot more is said along with the actual words, sometimes.
I just wish most of this appreciation (or demeaning) was taken out of the subconscious.
So? We also don't teach "wicked pissah", "ain't", "y'all", "w00t own3d!" or any number of other dialect variations because they are not standard.
I would also point out that the African Americans I know almost never speak professionally or socially in the African-American dialect including in their homes. The one notable exception is when affecting it in order to seem "more black"(something I've seen suburban Boston Irish do with both a Boston accent to seem more local and a brogue to seem more Irish). That might be because I live in a region with a strong accent and/or with few majority black communities, but it does highlight that its a dialect that exists largely because of the social isolation of black communities and the relatively recent migration of said communities from the South.
The aim isn't to teach black dialects as standard. The aim is to help black students more easily learn standard English by directly contrasting it to the dialect they learn at home. The purpose of "Ebonics" in schools has been widely misunderstood.
Not to get this too far off topic, but I would still point out that this is not something done or necessary for other dialects, nor is it anything approaching the source of the problems in the education of black communities. Its a red herring that takes attention from the actual problems (crime, poverty, discrimination and the general attitude towards education in poor, and especially poor black, communities) and is born more from a desire to assert African American culture (much like the Quebecois are so belligerently protective of the status of the French language in Canada) as legitimate and coequal to "European America" than to correct educational problems.
Not to get this too far off topic, but I would still point out that this is not something done or necessary for other dialects, nor is it anything approaching the source of the problems in the education of black communities. Its a red herring that takes attention from the actual problems (crime, poverty, discrimination and the general attitude towards education in poor, and especially poor black, communities) and is born more from a desire to assert African American culture (much like the Quebecois are so belligerently protective of the status of the French language in Canada) as legitimate and coequal to "European America" than to correct educational problems.
I think that is all broadly true (although I do think that AAVE is substantially more distinct from standard English than most white dialects). Also, I am open to any empirical research that would demonstrate incorporating AAVE into the classroom is ineffective, or deleterious. My interest in the debate is mainly around the insane overreaction the idea provokes from opponents, which usually stem from misunderstandings about the purpose of "Ebonics education," and are usually very revealing about people's racial hang-ups.
Part of the issue is how the written portion of the test was weighted compared to the oral portion. Written exams by their very nature test a variety of skills distinct from the skillset they are intended to evaluate (literacy, reading comprehension, and reading speed, all in the dialect of Standard Written English, which is really Standard White English). If, as is often the case, schools in black neighborhoods and schools in white neighborhoods have significant differences in educational quality, this can easily skew the results of any written test. Oh hey, look--the world is complicated!
If I ever get a test someday and it says "dat hot shit" and I can't figure out if they mean the new Air Jordans, a steaming dump or a fucking fire I'm going to come to your house and hit you with a halligan.
I am so prepared to debate whether Ebonics should be incorporated into the classroom. If anyone makes a thread I will go there right away.
I fucking hate people who think Ebonics is "inner city slang". Ebonics is a Creole language incorporating aspects of English and several African languages. And, BTW, Ebonics is actually quite interesting from a linguistic perspective. It's one of the few examples of the Remote Phase verb aspect that we regularly see.
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.
Part of the issue is how the written portion of the test was weighted compared to the oral portion. Written exams by their very nature test a variety of skills distinct from the skillset they are intended to evaluate (literacy, reading comprehension, and reading speed, all in the dialect of Standard Written English, which is really Standard White English). If, as is often the case, schools in black neighborhoods and schools in white neighborhoods have significant differences in educational quality, this can easily skew the results of any written test. Oh hey, look--the world is complicated!
If I ever get a test someday and it says "dat hot shit" and I can't figure out if they mean the new Air Jordans, a steaming dump or a fucking fire I'm going to come to your house and hit you with a halligan.
I am so prepared to debate whether Ebonics should be incorporated into the classroom. If anyone makes a thread I will go there right away.
I fucking hate people who think Ebonics is "inner city slang". Ebonics is a Creole language incorporating aspects of English and several African languages. And, BTW, Ebonics is actually quite interesting from a linguistic perspective. It's one of the few examples of the Remote Phase verb aspect that we regularly see.
And that's beyond the the fact that we don't that we don't give the British any crap for the stuff they've come up with over the years.
Also, someone's going to have to explain to me how throwing out a test can be racist if the test itself had no racial bias. Were the firefighters pissed that no black people lost their chance at an officer position?
Also, someone's going to have to explain to me how throwing out a test can be racist if the test itself had no racial bias. Were the firefighters pissed that no black people lost their chance at an officer position?
"No X people passed so we're throwing it out" is fairly racist, but isn't exactly what happened.
"No X people passed so we're throwing it out JUST IN CASE the test maybe was biased" is stupid, but not racist.
Also, someone's going to have to explain to me how throwing out a test can be racist if the test itself had no racial bias. Were the firefighters pissed that no black people lost their chance at an officer position?
"No X people passed so we're throwing it out" is fairly racist, but isn't exactly what happened.
"No X people passed so we're throwing it out JUST IN CASE the test maybe was biased" is stupid, but not racist.
It is still a racially motivated decision. It happens to be based on one of a legitimate concern of legal liability, but it is racially motivated.
Though, the real case was more like: "No X people passed this test that we put in a lot of resources to ensure was not racially biased, still JUST IN CASE the test might in fact be biased, we will toss the results without spending any resources to investigate that it was in fact racially biased." (Feel free to keep adding more caveats to the sentence as you see fit... It can probably take us to some amusing results.)
And that's beyond the the fact that we don't that we don't give the British any crap for the stuff they've come up with over the years.
Also, someone's going to have to explain to me how throwing out a test can be racist if the test itself had no racial bias. Were the firefighters pissed that no black people lost their chance at an officer position?
We don't? I'm pretty sure giving people crap for weird things that they do or say is just more visible when it is to or from your direct neighbours.
taeric on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
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.
That's how a lot of people who speak "Standard English*" feel about learning grammar later in life as well. It's pretty common to have complete command of a language and not really understand what it is you're "doing".
*I find the term "Standard English" to be mildly hilarious, considering languages, by nature, continually evolve. I understand the desire to teach everyone the "same" language for basic communication purposes, but I think people who overstep the bounds of "correct language" are simply being ridiculous. An example: ending a sentence with a preposition. Commonly accepted as a grammatical no-no, but also a completely natural form of speech in today's language. I can't remember where I first heard it, but it's always stuck with me: "Ending a sentence with a preposition is just the sort of poor grammar up with which I shall not put".
Chanus on
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
And that's beyond the the fact that we don't that we don't give the British any crap for the stuff they've come up with over the years.
Also, someone's going to have to explain to me how throwing out a test can be racist if the test itself had no racial bias. Were the firefighters pissed that no black people lost their chance at an officer position?
We don't? I'm pretty sure giving people crap for weird things that they do or say is just more visible when it is to or from your direct neighbours.
I do all the time. Two of my best friends are twins from Edinburgh, Scotland. Some of the shit they say is hilarious, and I love reminding them they don't know how to speak English.
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.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
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.
And I meant to be more specific that we do give British people crap. Same for Irish, Chinese, Japanese, etc....
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).
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
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).
Posts
To be fair to Tzar, his position is a bit more complicated than that. The reason the city chose not to certify the test was because they feared doing so would provoke a Title VII suit. Such a suit with restrict an employer's hiring choices, and I believe that is where Tzar thinks the injustice exists.
I know, I was comparing a proposed change in the promotional exams grading to a way that a portion of NJ's application exams are conducted and how I think it works for one better then the other.
Also no one in this dispute cited a lack of a physical portion as a drawback, although in the initial complaint the black firefighters did state that they thought the verbal portion of the exam should have its value increased.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
That argument is hollow, as it goes both ways. None of the blacks that didn't pass the promotional exam have a right to the jobs either.
And again, the court didn't rule that the the whites were victims of "disparate-impact." Instead, the ruling is simply that the city can not throw out the results without more basis in evidence that they directly caused a disparate impact.
That's the thing, beyond the results, which may seem skewed (small samples can be funny in that way), there was no evidence that there was racial bias of any kind.
Yeah, the ruling has the pass rates for all parties. I can definitely understand the suspicion that something was up. However, as steps were specifically taken to avoid such a situation, there needs to be more than just a suspicion. I would be curious to see the pass/fail rates of other tests designed by this company.
I don't think anyone except the firefighters were arguing that they had a right to those jobs. I just thought it was funny that Tzar was using that reasoning to support his argument.
Which seems reasonable, except it just makes it even harder to sue for racial discrimination. I mean, how much evidence is enough?
I apologize if I sound rude, but I took your approach (reducing arguments to one-sided logical fallacies & dismissing a serious history of racial inequality) to be rude.
I was trying to have a converation, but you decided to take my comments out of context & mock them, just as you did with Taeric's and others. In my mind, that's the break-down point of what consistutes a conversation, and even a debate--that leaves you in a cyclical argument you've stacked so it never ends.
Apologies if you feel offended--
Like has been said: some or any would be a great start. In this case, there was none.
But isn't that how this argument works? You have to throw it out because the minority members that didn't pass are victims of disparate-impact because they did not get the job. I could see how someone would read this as saying that some member X of the minority has a right to the job. So, either you say that they did have a right to the job by meeting the stated requirements. Or you state that they specifically don't have a right to the job because someone else does.
How does that make it harder? And it isn't like this is done. It was specifically sent back down to the lower courts to argue the details some more. Again, the evidence just has to outweigh the counter-evidence. If they have done nothing to show it is a racially neutral and job related test, then you just need the results.
If I ever get a test someday and it says "dat hot shit" and I can't figure out if they mean the new Air Jordans, a steaming dump or a fucking fire I'm going to come to your house and hit you with a halligan.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
And this was considered. They could have weighted the test differently, but were contractually held by the firefighters union to use the weighting they did. Further, changing the weighting would have simply added a very small handful of minorities to the results. Finally, any change in weighting would have to be based on a logical job related requirement. The court had to assume since the firefighters union mandated the weighting that was used, it had a rational reason and changing it would still violate title VII.
I am so prepared to debate whether Ebonics should be incorporated into the classroom. If anyone makes a thread I will go there right away.
I don't think I view this quite the same. I think the firefighters probably deserved the jobs, and the minority firefighters maybe deserved a little more consideration. None of them had a right to the jobs. Throwing out the test results doesn't mean anyone has a right to any of the jobs.
I didn't realize there was more work to be done, so I'll wait for the lower courts to iron things out before I get too upset about it.
Incorporating ebonics into whats considered proper english (whats taught) is silly in that a lot of the lingo falls off in the course of a few years. Its one thing if a term arises and becomes a part of normative culture so much so that people still use it commonly ten years from now. But if I asked a kid what was "crack-a-lacking" or if he was getting "jiggy" with it he'd either wonder what I was talking about or laugh at me for being antiquated.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
And as for the argument, I was just pushing that as one way it could be taken. It fits all the facts and has a logical hold to it. I should be clear, I think the argument you pushed does as well.
AAVE (African-American Vernacular English) is more than just passing slang. It has a number of unique, enduring lexical and grammatical features.
In other words, check yo'self before you wreck yo'self.
My kids speaking like that un-ironically would possibly be the death of me.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Well it's a good thing that nobody has ever tried to make your kid speak Ebonics. They have tried to better teach Standard English to black children by comparing it to their native dialect, however.
But this is off topic.
Fo' sho'.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
So? We also don't teach "wicked pissah", "ain't", "y'all", "w00t own3d!" or any number of other dialect variations because they are not standard.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
The aim isn't to teach black dialects as standard. The aim is to help black students more easily learn standard English by directly contrasting it to the dialect they learn at home. The purpose of "Ebonics" in schools has been widely misunderstood.
I just wish most of this appreciation (or demeaning) was taken out of the subconscious.
Not to get this too far off topic, but I would still point out that this is not something done or necessary for other dialects, nor is it anything approaching the source of the problems in the education of black communities. Its a red herring that takes attention from the actual problems (crime, poverty, discrimination and the general attitude towards education in poor, and especially poor black, communities) and is born more from a desire to assert African American culture (much like the Quebecois are so belligerently protective of the status of the French language in Canada) as legitimate and coequal to "European America" than to correct educational problems.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I think that is all broadly true (although I do think that AAVE is substantially more distinct from standard English than most white dialects). Also, I am open to any empirical research that would demonstrate incorporating AAVE into the classroom is ineffective, or deleterious. My interest in the debate is mainly around the insane overreaction the idea provokes from opponents, which usually stem from misunderstandings about the purpose of "Ebonics education," and are usually very revealing about people's racial hang-ups.
I fucking hate people who think Ebonics is "inner city slang". Ebonics is a Creole language incorporating aspects of English and several African languages. And, BTW, Ebonics is actually quite interesting from a linguistic perspective. It's one of the few examples of the Remote Phase verb aspect that we regularly see.
And that's beyond the the fact that we don't that we don't give the British any crap for the stuff they've come up with over the years.
Also, someone's going to have to explain to me how throwing out a test can be racist if the test itself had no racial bias. Were the firefighters pissed that no black people lost their chance at an officer position?
"No X people passed so we're throwing it out" is fairly racist, but isn't exactly what happened.
"No X people passed so we're throwing it out JUST IN CASE the test maybe was biased" is stupid, but not racist.
It is still a racially motivated decision. It happens to be based on one of a legitimate concern of legal liability, but it is racially motivated.
Though, the real case was more like: "No X people passed this test that we put in a lot of resources to ensure was not racially biased, still JUST IN CASE the test might in fact be biased, we will toss the results without spending any resources to investigate that it was in fact racially biased." (Feel free to keep adding more caveats to the sentence as you see fit... It can probably take us to some amusing results.)
We don't? I'm pretty sure giving people crap for weird things that they do or say is just more visible when it is to or from your direct neighbours.
That's how a lot of people who speak "Standard English*" feel about learning grammar later in life as well. It's pretty common to have complete command of a language and not really understand what it is you're "doing".
*I find the term "Standard English" to be mildly hilarious, considering languages, by nature, continually evolve. I understand the desire to teach everyone the "same" language for basic communication purposes, but I think people who overstep the bounds of "correct language" are simply being ridiculous. An example: ending a sentence with a preposition. Commonly accepted as a grammatical no-no, but also a completely natural form of speech in today's language. I can't remember where I first heard it, but it's always stuck with me: "Ending a sentence with a preposition is just the sort of poor grammar up with which I shall not put".
I do all the time. Two of my best friends are twins from Edinburgh, Scotland. Some of the shit they say is hilarious, and I love reminding them they don't know how to speak English.
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.
And I meant to be more specific that we do give British people crap. Same for Irish, Chinese, Japanese, etc....
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).