~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Last week, the U.S. supreme court heard arguments in a reverse discrimination complaint by a group of white firefighters from New Haven, CT.
The city of New Haven spent $100,000 on a test given to all firefighters competing for officer positions within the department. The city coded the test takers by race, and of the top 15 scorers, 14 were white and one was Hispanic. There were only 15 vacancies in the top ranks of the fire department meaning no blacks would be promoted.
What did the city do? After much racially charged debate, the city's civil service board rejected the test scores and promoted no one.
At issue is a conflict in federal civil rights law. On the one hand, the Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 say employers may not discriminate against people because of their race.
But employers have also been told they may not use hiring or promotional standards — including tests — that have a "disparate impact on the basis of race" unless it is "required by business necessity." Although this test was designed to be part of the evaluation process for officer positions within the fire department, the city claims it is not certain that the knowledge tested by the firefighters' exam was required to be a lieutenant in the fire department. What? Then why would you spend $100,000 on the test?
When the U.S. Supreme court rules on this case in June, it will likely be in favor of the white firefighters, but it will not, unfortunately, be a ruling that is far enough reaching to end Affirmative Action - legislation that is not only unfair by today's standards, but that actually encourages the continuation of the racial divide with its position that minorities (blacks, women, etc.) are not "good enough" to secure positions/promotions based on their own merits.
It is one thing to assure equal opportunity to all people, but when you exclude a group of people - based entirely on their race - isn't that still discriminatory whether they are black or white?
Last week, the U.S. supreme court heard arguments in a reverse discrimination complaint by a group of white firefighters from New Haven, CT.The city of New Haven spent $100,000 on a test given to all firefighters competing for officer positions within the department. The city coded the test takers by race, and of the top 15 scorers, 14 were white and one was Hispanic. There were only 15 vacancies in the top ranks of the fire department meaning no blacks would be promoted.
What did the city do? After much racially charged debate, the city's civil service board rejected the test scores and promoted no one.
At issue is a conflict in federal civil rights law. On the one hand, the Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 say employers may not discriminate against people because of their race.
But employers have also been told they may not use hiring or promotional standards — including tests — that have a "disparate impact on the basis of race" unless it is "required by business necessity." Although this test was designed to be part of the evaluation process for officer positions within the fire department, the city claims it is not certain that the knowledge tested by the firefighters' exam was required to be a lieutenant in the fire department. What? Then why would you spend $100,000 on the test?
When the U.S. Supreme court rules on this case in June, it will likely be in favor of the white firefighters, but it will not, unfortunately, be a ruling that is far enough reaching to end Affirmative Action - legislation that is not only unfair by today's standards, but that actually encourages the continuation of the racial divide with its position that minorities (blacks, women, etc.) are not "good enough" to secure positions/promotions based on their own merits.
It is one thing to assure equal opportunity to all people, but when you exclude a group of people - based entirely on their race - isn't that still discriminatory whether they are black or white?
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
26 comments:
Looking quickly at the article you linked to, it seems to me that this case is more about racial bias in test construct and less about racial bias in the workplace. Wait, that doesn't make sense, the test is being used in the workplace. Crap...
I'm not a fan of affirmative action, so I'm curious to see how this case develops.
Personally I hate the term 'reverse discrimination'.
Since according to Title VII ".... It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
This does not specify minorities or women under race.
I would be curious to see what questions are on this test to earn all of this ire.
Hubman, somehow, I believe that even with a black President in office, we will continue to see Affirmative Action in place. Hell, I'd be happy with some modifications and a plan to eliminate it at this point.
ASM, well, we both know that Title VII was put in place to address the very real workplace discrepancies that faced minorities (primarily blacks and women), not to protect the predominately white male workforce. Although I agree that "reverse discrimination" makes no sense in the literal context of Title VII, it was never white men that were discriminated against *shrugs*
I wasn't able to find specific information on the test, but several articles indicated everyone taking the test was given identical access to the study materials provided by the company that wrote the test.
I have a draft post about this very issue!! If I make my point here, I can scrap it and move on.
The most qualified people should get a job/be promoted. Period. Especially in terms of public safety jobs, there should be ZERO room for affirmative action.
Sorry that no minorites passed the test. I guess they should have STUDIED HARDER.
The fact that our courts have to waste judicial resources on crap like this is the true travesty of justice.
I'd like to know more about the test questions. There are so many ways to discriminate via testing that it makes me wonder.
I studied a lot of that psychology ot testing stuff in college WAY back in the day.
I am not in favor of completely doing away with Affirmative Action but I will say this...
I loathe the phrase, "Reverse Discrimination". Discrimination is discrimination no matter the color, creed, etc. of who is on the receiving end.
And on a different, yet related note, I really get ticked off by upping the penalties for so-called "Hate Crimes".
I am of the mind that crimes, especially violent ones against another person, on their face, indicate some form of hate, be it temporary or deep seated no matter who is getting violated. Okay I'm done. Cheers!!
So to correct the mistakes of the past, we not discriminate against that dwindling segment of our society, the white male.
I have been on interviews where I knew I would not get the job because "We are looking for someone to mesh with the rest of the senior staff " (they were all women)
As others have said, I would like to see the questions, but if everyone had access to the study material...everyone was on a level playing field.
"When the U.S. Supreme court rules on this case in June, it will likely be in favor of the white firefighters, but it will not, unfortunately, be a ruling that is far enough reaching to end Affirmative Action ..."Wait. I thought we were opposed to activist judges who legislate from the bench? ;-)
What's always bugged me about Affirmative Action is that it basically sets a minimum and says "There, just maintain that number of minorities and you don't have to do anything else." And it's a way for white people to still look down on minorities and say "I can't believe you aren't more grateful to us white folk. Look at everything we've done for you. It's not like you could have accomplished anything by yourselves." And it gives white people the "Well, he or she didn't REALLY get a great education and rise all the way to Owner/CEO/Successful doctor/lawyer/POTUS. He or she only did it because of AA."
Karen, well post it damn it! I need somewhere else to plop my soapbox! I think it is terribly demeaning that we have to give excuses to any group for their failure.
Real Live Lesbian, I have to wonder if the test questions are really the issue. Everyone was given access to the same study materials - both written materials and audio tapes. I'm not sure it could have been made any more fair.
Matt-Man, you and ASM and your semantics. Isn't that my job?? And yes, violent crimes are generally committed out of some form of hate, and when we start placing a higher value on some lives based on sexual orientation, gender and/or race, we are doing a HUGE injustice to the rest of the victims.
Bond, why yes ... we must make someone pay for our past societal woes - who better than the white male? I'm going to do a bit more searching on the test questions and see what I can find, but I do believe that equal access to study materials in both written and oral form pretty much erases any bias.
Jay, I am only opposed to activist judges who legislate from the liberal bench! Thanks for keeping me honest Jay ...
As the mother of a "black" son, I am offended by a society who believes my child needs a "leg up" because he'll never be quite able to make it without some legislation in his favor. If he is not successful as an adult, that burden is mine - as a parent - for not doing everything within my power to prepare him for the real world. Giving him some sort of preferential treatment does nothing but encourage him to be "less than".
Just to say, my issue with the semantics of "Reverse Discrimnation" wasn't directed at you, it is directed at the fact that it has become a commonplace phrase in legal circles.
And as for the Hate Crime thing, I am also opposed for stiffer sentences against those who kill cops. A cop's life deserves no more or less sentencing and/or retribution than the killing of Sally or George who lives down the street. Cheers!!
If everyone was given the same study materials, then everyone had equal ability to pass that test. I agree with you on this one.
This subject has always burnt me up.. I mean I know this is something that has always and is always going to play apart in the world no matter how far everyone thinks we have come.
I understood along time ago AA had to be set in order of minorities to get jobs due to a lot of racism. We now have Educated Men and Women from all walks of life.. Color should not matter but it still does, I don't know if I would use they should have studied better to get the job or pass the test, I say that best person no matter what should get it.
sorry dana I really was going somewhere with this and then I had flash backs to my best friend paul that went out of a job and did not get it because they had "filled" their quota's.. SUMMABISCUTS!
Ne
Matt-Man, can you do me a favor? Put a gigantic circle around today on the calendar because you and I agree on all points on this one! Lotto ticket anyone?
Evil Twin's Wife, and not only given the same access to identical study materials, but given both written and oral versions of the same study materials. How can it get any more equal than that?
Ne, in my lifetime, I have seen Affirmative Action bridge some gaps that clearly needed to be addressed, but believe it is yet another of those programs that has attained it's original goal and now needs modification to fit the reality of today.
i was faced with this a few years ago at a company i worked for, they wanted contracts with the local board of education... we were told by the board that we did not have enough black employees to get the contract, so they set about hiring three black employees, the interview process was set up and only two black people applied, after the basic aptitude test was given, all mathematics, both failed... they were hired anyway so we could get the contracts..
im all for equal opportunity in all cases, yet there should be equal qualifiers in these cases, you want to play pro ball? or be in the military? or be a firefighter? go for it... but the same tests that are given, be they physical, mental, etc... should be equal as well... in the simplest terms... if the job requires you lift 150 pounds on a regular basis and you cant.. then you dont get the job.. quotas are dangerous and simply lead to a less effective group to get the job done, whether its a career, education, military or whatever.. we always should seek to hire or sign on the best... not a cross section... it makes me angry to see kids seeking a college education that score higher on entrance exams passed up in favor of race or gender... equality means just that a level playing field for all that seek to be involved, brought on board by accomplishments, not a physical situation of birth..
The 100 grand was to make a racially unbiased test and the results still favored the whites.
I want the guy who passed the test fair and square to be running the Fire trucks and saving the people from burning buildings.
I completely disagree with Hammer.
I'd rather have the person with the best ability saving my white ass when the fire is blazing. Screw the written test.
When I see a test that is passed only by the whites, it does make me wonder how the test was written and by whom. Lexicon is a slippery slope when it comes to being fair.
I will say this about those tests. My sister worked for a company that wrote standardized educational tests and you'd be amazed at how easily a team can produce a very gender or racially biased test without ever intending to at all. Although I would argue that those biases are actually more likely to be along economic lines since the people who write the tests tend to be very well educated and make high salaries.
Clay, thanks for stopping by - or delurking - whichever the case may be. I'm with you - if we want a level playing field, then we need to make sure it's a level playing field and not sloped in any direction.
Hammer, well ... right ... and there was no question as to the fairness of the test until it became clear that no blacks would make the cut. Something is wrong there.
Real Live Lesbian, absolutely, but if that written test helps determine who has the best ability, shouldn't that be figured in?
Jay, and I would hope that - since we are dealing with what should be a fairly standardized group of people (they were all already firefighters) - and since they were all given access to the same study materials - that any bias should be all but negated.
I think Karen said exactly what I would have said.
I dunno.. I have looked at some of the comments here and well. I see that a little bit of what everyone said is good.
My only concern is getting the Minorities no matter what color they are to apply for the jobs and not bitch about it at all.. I work for a place where I am in the minority. I think the best person, whether be color or not should get the job.. test help a lot to see what areas one needs to work on..
I guess I can say I Dunno fully but I have been around where some places are very Shady!
I think you should be promoted strictly on ability. If ability seems race sided then I guess the other folks better step it up a notch.
Whenever I hear about these tests being biased against someone based on race or sex I get confused. Why am I confused you ask? Because I don't understand how you can slant a test for a particular vocation. Do I believe that some knuckleheads could/would/have tried to accomplish this dirty deed? Yes I do. I just don't understand how you do it. All tests discriminate against those who give the wrong answers. If I fail a test does that mean i'm being discriminated against?
I'm sure they were all given the same test material and probably all had the same amount of time to prepare for it. Just because one race didn't have anyone pass high enough to make the mark isn't a reason to penalize the 15 who did.
It's like if someone goes on an interview and fails a drug test. They didn't pass because they did something they shouldn't have. They aren't being discriminated against, they've just got drugs in their system. These people weren't discriminated against because of their race. They just didn't cut it and need to try harder another time later on down the road.
When I was in school, if someone didn't pass a test or make a high enough mark on it, it wasn't because they were discriminated against. It was because they didn't study enough. Didn't know the material enough. Didn't understand it well enough. ETC. *Sigh* I hate that people are given an excuse to fail at something by being able to turn around and scream about some "unfairness." I hate stuff like this. It's ridiculous. And clearly pisses me off, lol.
I've had it with discrimmination- real or imagined. The law is quite clear on this, and is for every race, color ,or creed. Favoring one over the other should be dealt with by the laws- which are clear. Giving a minority an unfair advantage over another in the same boat is wrong. This country has no extra money to deal with these frivolous complaints right now. Equal opportuntity has been in place for two generations, and that is long enough for it to stop being an issue. I'm middle class, worked my whole life, paid taxes, etc. I now have no income- no help, and am unqualified to get aid, unemployment, tax breaks,etc... Do not talk to me about being a minority- I've become one with no rights!
Post a Comment