Legally speaking? Justice bows to statistical propriety? Interesting...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Printable View
Legally speaking? Justice bows to statistical propriety? Interesting...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
...
No, its simple statistics. Why would they have to point that out anyway. It was listed in one of the source materials I read. In the case of the promotion to captain's list, a change from 3 to 4 passing the test changes the results from 37.5% to 50% for blacks. If 5 had passed the test, the percentage would have been larger than the white percentage. When a change of 1 or 2 makes a significant difference, what good is it? Such small samples cannot qualify for the 80% rule, because statistically, they have a large error factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Says you.
My question is, how does a test get 'certified', as it were, to be race-neutral?
I doubt neutrality can be established at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
I'm beyond my depth here. I know fuck-all about civil service.
Maybe you should ask WC. He seems to know all about it.
:lol at all you trying to make a 5-4 SCOTUS decision look clear cut.
It's really hard to tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Something as objective as tying a shoe lace can be found to have bias.
I read a study in which a researcher asked 100 black, white, and hispanic 6 year olds, all of which supposedly had normal IQ's, to tie their shoes. It turned out that most of the blacks could, some of the hispanics could and very few of the whites could.
Turns out the black kids grew up tying their own because a lot of times their parents weren't around to do it for them and the whites were used to having them tied for them.
There are all these weird quirks that make up our social beings. I would think that a fire man's test would be able to be race neutral.. because the things you have to know as a fireman are pretty much all taught... none of it is really things you pick up as you grow.
Laughing at you, for not paying attention. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by spurster
The Activist Judiciary strikes again! Now the SCOTUS can step in and force certain hiring/promotion practices at a LOCAL fire department? Why can't we let states and cities hire and promote whoever and however they want?
:)
Its clear cut because it is the morally correct decision. The city issued a neutral test that favors no ethnicity. Some men did well, and other men did poorly. The city then ignored the results of their test, and avoided promoting the men who did well. The Supreme Court fixed that.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurster
Conservatives are worried about the disparate treatment of qualified whites. It's racist.
I would argue that it shouldn't be just conservatives who should be worried about stuff like this. When a man, any color of man, is refused a promotion based off of race, it is wrong. And thats what it comes down too isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
The city was gonna get sued by either party in this case. Either the whites (and hispanic dude) for disparate treatment or the minorities for disparate impact.
There was a lot more people who failed the test than there were people who passed it. The city simply went with the side they felt was going to result in the least amount of lawsuits.
DI and DT were seen fairly equally. Now it looks like DT is going to be a lot easier to prove than DI.
Because white people are the real victims here. They were entitled to the promotions but got shouldered aside in favor of unqualified minorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
I concur.Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000
She will still be confirmed.
:tuQuote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
With all due respect the law would have stood with two more Sotomayor's on the bench. It was a 5-4 decision. 4 were hoping for otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000
They did leave it to the city, until the city decided to throw out measures and tests it previously approved because those tests and measures gave them results they didn't like. Then they decided to throw those measures out an unconsitutionally discriminate against hispanics and whites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Reductionist. She's dissenting because of what she sees as an entrenched prejudicial environment in municipalities like firefighting, combined with a test that has a starkly disparate impact on minorities. It's a closer call than you're making it out to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I still want to know how a test gets certified as "race-neutral". :) I mean, the loca FD seemed to accept it, so it's bad on them.
In a larger sense of the question, should private companies have the right to hire whoever they want, even if thier hiring practices are unfair due to things like racism?
For instance, what if I own a company, and I hate seeing handicapped people. Should I have the right not to hire them?
I read that they had several outside individuals come in to help them build the exam. They had several minorities on the panel that created and signed off on the exam as being racially fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
That's what I don't get. They basically had an overabundance of minorities consult on the test, got the test results, and then said they couldn't promote because it was racist. WTF...
The way the law is written, employers are responsible even for disparate impact that is unintentional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
No, it's not written that cut and dry. I remember reading up on that. It recognizes differences, and it's a case of presuming all other things are equal. In the case of the fire fighters, promotion to lieutenant test, you likely had a larger percentage of whites with more years of experience, from past hiring. The captains test had a better percentage of blacks passing, but to be lieutenant, they already had good experience under their belt. Still, maybe not as many years of experience. Consider the likelihood that there are similar numbers to my example for the lieutenants test:Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
43 Whites, 19 Blacks, and 15 Hispanics took the test. Let's assume that if we break it down at the 10 year point, there 15 Whites, and 12 Blacks, and 10 Hispanics with less than 10 years of experience. You would therefore have 28 Whites, 4 Blacks, and 3 Hispanics with 10 years or more. When you consider how you are naturally better qualified with longer experience, you cannot use something like the 80% rule. You would have to look at that from a year by year perspective. Again, the sample size is too small to have any statistical relevance. If we assume that an average of 75% of the 10 yr+ people pass and 15% of the <10 year pass, you end up with 23 Whites, 7 Blacks, and 5 Hispanics passing.
Remember, this is a made up example to illustrate a point that is recognized. That there used to be little or no minorities hired. This means that Whites have the bulk of experience.
WC, two questions, one procedural, one philosophical:
1) Can private companies legally discriminate when hiring, aka the handicapped scenario above?
2) Should private companies be able to discriminate when hiring?