Reverse Discrimination Case

[jillio]

Okay then, faith in the professionals that deal with the validity of tests.

Some of us know that tests can be interpreted in different ways. We just have a hard time seeing how something so technical can be misinterpreted.

However, like I said before, this test seems to be more about testing leadership skills (promotion) rather than technical firefighting skills. Testing for leadership skills is definitely left open for interpretation.

Yes, that is what the test is supposed to be testing. But one of the problems with the composition of the test was that it did not test adequately for leadership skills, but for something else entirely. And that items unrelated to leadership or job duties were rated too heavily.

And I agree. Any test that assesses leadership skills will be open to interpretation. And one should not be deciding leadership skills based only on a written test, as there are other, more valuable ways to discover leadership abilities than with a pencil and paper test.

 

[lsfoster]

I am neither criticizing nor insulting. I am educating you about issues that obviously, you have no knowledge, and that is the validity and reliability of testing instruments, and how that can affect the results. And how those implications are determined to be in compliance or not in compliance with Title VII.

Maybe you haven't read your own posts, but yes, yes you are. You also assume whatever you want about people, while at the same time telling them not to make assumptions.

Frankly, I'm not asking for your help in this. I already have the knowledge and education regarding the issue. I understand exactly what you are saying. I am simply telling you that you are failing to see the issue that has 2 courts already saying that the white firefighters do not have a case, and that the instrument was found to be invalid for the purposes for which it was intended. I have no doubt that the third court will find the same way. Why? Because the expert testimony regarding the assessment instrument is being given the proper weight and the actual issue is what is being decided. You have considered neither.

No, it's not. The actual issue is why the test results were thrown out in the first place, which you have conveniently avoided discussing this whole time. However many times you want to say it, they were not thrown out because the test was found to be invalid, they were thrown out because no black firefighters would have been promoted. End of story. Every single article says the exact same thing. The city says the same thing. The only reason they threw them out had nothing to do with the test, but the racial implications of the results.

What if the opposite had happened? If only black firefighters had been promoted. That is just as much a case of "disparate impact" on the white firefighters as is being argued here. Do you think the city would have simply decided to throw out the results? And if they had, would they have had any chance at all of defending that decision in court?

Here, let's try an extreme hypothetical example, since you seem to like them so much. What if you were in a competition to throw a ball the farthest. If you were one of the three who threw the ball the farthest, you won a trophy. You go up, and throw the ball farther than anyone else, but the judges realize that there are no black girls getting awards, so they take away your trophy. You complain, but you're told that the contest was flawed because the ruler they used was a little short, and the first inch was actually only 3/4 of an inch. Therefore the results are invalid, and there's nothing you can do. Is that fair? Are you happy with that result?

The issue is that the court decided the results weren't "fair" to the black firefighters, and there was no consideration of whether their decision was "fair" to the white and hispanic firefighters. That's discrimination. The city's argument is that since nobody got promoted, it was fair to everyone. To me, that sounds a lot like the argument used for interracial marriage bans. Since it put the same restrictions on both groups, there was no discrimination. Were the states wrong in that case?

The issue is why the city decided what it did, and how it decided to handle the situation, and I think they did it poorly. They did not make the situation "fair", then simply made it unfair for a different group than before. If there was a problem with the test, then why did they never administer another test to the same people? Why did it automatically become an issue of the test being unfair, and not who actually deserved a promotion?

You were right in your earlier post where you said that "reverse discrimination" doesn't mean anything. It doesn't. This is a case of discrimination pure and simple, and it doesn't depend at all on cultural bias, test validity, or anything like that. If you want to talk about the actual issue, this is it.

 

[Cheri]

I answer E. It depends on the test, and the test taker.

 

[jillio]

Maybe you haven't read your own posts, but yes, yes you are. You also assume whatever you want about people, while at the same time telling them not to make assumptions.

There you go. Everything is open to interpretation, isn't it? From my perspective, as the poster, I am being neither. From your perspective of the reader, I am. Thank you for illustrating my point.

No, it's not. The actual issue is why the test results were thrown out in the first place, which you have conveniently avoided discussing this whole time. However many times you want to say it, they were not thrown out because the test was found to be invalid, they were thrown out because no black firefighters would have been promoted. End of story. Every single article says the exact same thing. The city says the same thing. The only reason they threw them out had nothing to do with the test, but the racial implications of the results.

Are you aware of the term "consequence?" The test was invalid. As a reult, there was disparity in the scores. The consequence of that disparity was all scores being thrown out. High scores, low scores, middle scores...all were thrown out. That is the consequence of an invalid assessment. None of the scores tested what was purported to be tested, so all scores were thrown out. They didn't just throw out the scores of the white guys, you know.

What if the opposite had happened? If only black firefighters had been promoted. That is just as much a case of "disparate impact" on the white firefighters as is being argued here. Do you think the city would have simply decided to throw out the results? And if they had, would they have had any chance at all of defending that decision in court?
The test would have been just as invalid. Having to ask that question simply affirms that you have very little understanding of the issue.

Here, let's try an extreme hypothetical example, since you seem to like them so much. What if you were in a competition to throw a ball the farthest. If you were one of the three who threw the ball the farthest, you won a trophy. You go up, and throw the ball farther than anyone else, but the judges realize that there are no black girls getting awards, so they take away your trophy. You complain, but you're told that the contest was flawed because the ruler they used was a little short, and the first inch was actually only 3/4 of an inch. Therefore the results are invalid, and there's nothing you can do. Is that fair? Are you happy with that result?The issue is that the court decided the results weren't "fair" to the black firefighters, and there was no consideration of whether their decision was "fair" to the white and hispanic firefighters. That's discrimination. The city's argument is that since nobody got promoted, it was fair to everyone. To me, that sounds a lot like the argument used for interracial marriage bans. Since it put the same restrictions on both groups, there was no discrimination. Were the states wrong in that case?

If the test required me to ride a bicycle to determine how far I could throw a ball, it would be just as invalid as this test is. You are too focused on race to see the actual issue at hand, and the reason that the 2 lower courts threw this case out. And in your example, there were no black participants, so your attempt to compare the two is fallicious.

The issue is why the city decided what it did, and how it decided to handle the situation, and I think they did it poorly. They did not make the situation "fair", then simply made it unfair for a different group than before. If there was a problem with the test, then why did they never administer another test to the same people? Why did it automatically become an issue of the test being unfair, and not who actually deserved a promotion?

You still don't get it. The test wasn't fair to any of the test takers. Not the black ones, not the white ones, not the Hispanic ones, none of them. We don't know who actually deserved a promotion, because the test failed to assess that for anyone.
You were right in your earlier post where you said that "reverse discrimination" doesn't mean anything. It doesn't. This is a case of discrimination pure and simple, and it doesn't depend at all on cultural bias, test validity, or anything like that. If you want to talk about the actual issue, this is it.

You are obviously far too concerned with race. This isn't about race. It is truly a shame that you can't see beyond color to the true issue...the test was an unfair assessment for all the test takers. You have no idea what the issue is. Score descrepancies were the result of problems with the test. ALL the scores were invalid as a result. Or are you trying to say that black firefighters are more stupid than white firefighters? That certainly is what you continue to imply.

 

[Beowulf]

Where can I find the test online?
I'll ace the bugger.

 

[Daredevel7]

A test for promotion is given.
A group of evenly mixed people take the test.
Only white people are promoted.
Black people said "wtf?".

Here is where the sequence of events is important:
A)
Test results are thrown out.
A study on the validity of the test was done and test was deemed invalid.

B)
A study on the validity of the test was done and test was deemed invalid.
Test results are thrown out.

To me: A is wrong and what lsfoster is fighting about. B is right and what Jillio is fighting about. (When I say right/wrong, I mean right/wrong thing to do)

 

[jillio]

Where can I find the test online?
I'll ace the bugger.

 

[jillio]

A test for promotion is given.
A group of evenly mixed people take the test.
Only white people are promoted.
Black people said "wtf?".

Here is where the sequence of events is important:
A)
Test results are thrown out.
A study on the validity of the test was done and test was deemed invalid.

B)
A study on the validity of the test was done and test was deemed invalid.
Test results are thrown out.

To me: A is wrong and what lsfoster is fighting about. B is right and what Jillio is fighting about. (When I say right/wrong, I mean right/wrong thing to do)

That is pretty much it in a nutshell. Test results were excluded after the test was found to be invalid.

 

[lsfoster]

That is pretty much it in a nutshell. Test results were excluded after the test was found to be invalid.

No. No they very clearly were not. If you are going to refuse to actually read the articles or any of the posts written, then I wouldn't consider yourself in a position to state what anyone clearly does or does not understand. The order of events is what is important here, because the "consequences" cannot precede the "cause".

Also, I have not implied anywhere that anyone was stupid, or that "black firefighters are more stupid than white firefighters". Clearly you don't understand my posts. My point is that their race should have nothing to do with it. A certain number of people took an exam, and as a result, some were eligible for promotion and some weren't. Saying that one individual did not do as well as another is not the same as saying that all black firefighters are stupid. The fact that you seem to equate the two is exactly why there is a court case, and exactly why I disagree with the decisions that were made. Plenty of white firefighters also weren't eligible for promotion. Does that mean I'm also implying that all white firefighters are stupid? If you can't see the difference between saying that all black firefighters are stupid and saying that a specific group of individuals (black, white, hispanic, and otherwise) didn't do as well as another group of individuals on a test, then maybe that would explain why you seem to have so much trouble understanding my posts.

The reason I'm concerned with race in this situation is because I firmly believe they should not be concerned with race. And it was exactly that concern that led them to handle the situation in a way it shouldn't have been.

 

[jillio]

No. No they very clearly were not. If you are going to refuse to actually read the articles or any of the posts written, then I wouldn't consider yourself in a position to state what anyone clearly does or does not understand. The order of events is what is important here, because the "consequences" cannot precede the "cause".

Also, I have not implied anywhere that anyone was stupid, or that "black firefighters are more stupid than white firefighters". Clearly you don't understand my posts. My point is that their race should have nothing to do with it. A certain number of people took an exam, and as a result, some were eligible for promotion and some weren't. Saying that one individual did not do as well as another is not the same as saying that all black firefighters are stupid. The fact that you seem to equate the two is exactly why there is a court case, and exactly why I disagree with the decisions that were made. Plenty of white firefighters also weren't eligible for promotion. Does that mean I'm also implying that all white firefighters are stupid? If you can't see the difference between saying that all black firefighters are stupid and saying that a specific group of individuals (black, white, hispanic, and otherwise) didn't do as well as another group of individuals on a test, then maybe that would explain why you seem to have so much trouble understanding my posts.

The reason I'm concerned with race in this situation is because I firmly believe they should not be concerned with race. And it was exactly that concern that led them to handle the situation in a way it shouldn't have been.

If you are so concerned that race shouldn't be an issue, then you really need to stop focusing on it. And by failing to understand that the scores for all the test takers were affected, you are saying that the black firefighters did poorly because they are black.

Your argument has just gone completely circular. You are trying too hard.

I did read the articles. I think the difference is, I also understood them beyond a superficial comprehension.

You are also failing to note that 2 courts have already decided that the lawsuit was without merit. They dismissed it. Why? Because their were problems with the test that affected all the scores. Therefore, the city was justified in throwing all the scores out.

 

[VamPyroX]

So, if a test requires you to memorize things... then how does that relate to race?

 

[Reba]

courant.com/news/local/hc-firefighter-race-lawsuit.artapr06,0,5219178.story
Courant.com
NEW HAVEN BIAS CASE
U.S. Supreme Court To Hear New Haven Firefighters' Race Discrimination Case This Month

By DAVID SAVAGE

Tribune Newspapers

April 6, 2009

Frank Ricci, a firefighter from New Haven, spent months listening to study tapes as he drove to work and in the evenings as he prepared for a promotional test. It was a once-a-decade chance to move up to a command rank in the fire department.

Ricci earned a top score but no promotion.

The city had coded the test takers by race, and of the top 15 scorers, 14 were white and one was Hispanic. Because there were only 15 vacancies in the top ranks of the fire department, it looked like no blacks would be promoted.

After a racially charged debate that stretched over four hearings, the city's civil service board rejected the test scores in 2004 and promoted no one.

"To have the city throw it out because you're white or because you're not African American is insulting," Ricci said when he and 19 other firefighters sued the city for race discrimination.

The Ricci case, due to be argued at the U.S. Supreme Court this month, is the first to come before the court under Chief Justice John Roberts that broadly raises the issue of race in the workplace. The outcome could reshape hiring and promotion policies for millions of the nation's public employees — and possibly for private employers as well. And Roberts, leading a five-justice majority, has made clear he believes it is time to forbid the use of race as a factor in the government's decisions.

The Obama administration, taking its first stand on race and civil rights, sided with the city and said it was justified in dropping the test if it had "gross exclusionary effects on minorities."[/B]

Although blacks make up about 31 percent of New Haven's 221 firefighters, 15 percent are officers — eight of 42 lieutenants and one of 18 captains.

At issue is whether an employer can weigh the racial effect of a hiring or promotional standard.

Lawyers for the firefighters say the city violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it threw out the test scores. The white firefighters "ask nothing more than the basic right to be judged by who they are and what they have accomplished, not by the color of their skin," they say.

But the president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund said the claim ignores the history of discrimination that excluded blacks from fire and police departments. In many cities, including New Haven, the "fire department was the preserve of white males," said John Payton, who is also counsel for the defense fund. "African Americans were virtually excluded."

The case highlights 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.

However, employers also have 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." For example, it is not certain that the knowledge tested by the firefighters' exam was required to be a lieutenant in the fire department.

In New Haven, the city's lawyers cited this "disparate impact" rule as their reason for scrapping test scores.

"I understand their disappointment," Victor Bolden, the city's corporation counsel, said in an interview, referring to the white firefighters. "But this test had an adverse impact [on minorities]. The city did the right thing."

Lawyers for the white firefighters insist "racial politics" and "cronyism" were behind the city's decision.

Citing the "voluminous record in this case," the Obama administration says the court should send the case back to a judge in Connecticut to consider whether the white firefighters were victims of racial politics.

Copyright © 2009, The Hartford Courant

U.S. Supreme Court To Hear New Haven Firefighters' Race Discrimination Case This Month -- Courant.com

1. The city had coded the tests by race. Why?

2. How did the test have "gross exclusionary effects on minorities"?

3. " it is not certain that the knowledge tested by the firefighters' exam was required to be a lieutenant in the fire department." So, they don't know if the test was valid or not. It could have been.

4. "The city's lawyers cited this "disparate impact" rule as their reason for scrapping test scores."

"This test had an adverse impact [on minorities]."

So, their legal reason for throwing out the test was "disparate impact" on the black community, not invalid test questions.

 

[Reba]

courant.com/news/local/hc-supreme-court-newhaven-0423.artapr23,0,1231656.story
Courant.com
NEW HAVEN FIREFIGHTERS
U.S. Supreme Court Hears New Haven Firefighters' Reverse Discrimination Arguments

By EDMUND MAHONY

The Hartford Courant

April 23, 2009

Twenty white New Haven firefighters who claim the city wrongly denied them promotion for racial reasons urged an apparently divided U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday to overhaul the way government considers race when making personnel decisions.

In an animated hearing punctuated by near nonstop questioning, the justices seemed intent on trying to arrive at a means to balance the often conflicting issues of workplace diversity and the prohibition against race-based decisions in hiring and promotion.

It is the court's first examination of race since the election of President Barack Obama and analysts said the ruling could have broader implications in areas such as political redistricting and public school funding.

From questions by the justices — only Justice Clarence Thomas remained silent — it appeared that the court was divided along its conservative and liberal blocs on the question at the center of the 6-year-old reverse discrimination complaint: Did New Haven, sensitive to the issue of racial diversity in employment, act illegally in 2003 when it invalidated a promotion examination because only white candidates received top scores?

The 20 plaintiffs, one of whom is Hispanic and also identified as white, claim that the city's decision to scrap the examination results before any promotions were made violated their rights to be employed in an environment free from racial classification.

All 20 plaintiffs would have qualified for promotion to lieutenant or captain had the test, which the city purchased for $100,000 from a consultant, been used by the city civil service board. No blacks scored high enough to qualify for promotion. The test was divided between written and oral questions.

Gregory S. Coleman, a Texas lawyer who argued for the firefighters, called the city's invalidation "pernicious" and "regrettable racial politics." He told the court that "strong safeguards are needed to smoke out the improper use of race" in formulating municipal hiring and promotional policy.

But Christopher J. Meade, who argued for New Haven, said the city acted properly in the face of legal ambiguity and potential conflict between civil rights laws and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Meade repeated New Haven's long-standing argument that it is obligated to scrap tests that produce "disparate" results among test takers of different races.

Disparate results amount to "adverse impact" when it comes to the employment of low-scoring minority group members, Meade said.

"There was a severe adverse impact here," Meade told the court. "Employers should be able to act when confronted by severe disparate results and suggestions of improper testing."

Karen Lee Torre, the New Haven lawyer who sued on behalf of the firefighters in 2004, reacted sharply to the suggestion that the test results were flawed because the examination was somehow biased.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. seemed to agree when he remarked with sarcasm during his questioning that the only criticism of the test came from an executive with a competing test preparation firm. The competitor testified at a civil service board hearing in New Haven that he thought he could design a better test, Alito pointed out.

"The only thing wrong with the test is that it didn't suit the political agenda of the mayor of New Haven," Torre said Wednesday on the courthouse plaza.

Torre's reference to Mayor John DeStefano resurrected an element of the lawsuit that has been little heard from since the case reached the lofty, legal realm of the Supreme Court. One of the white firefighters' claims is that DeStefano jettisoned the promotional exam to satisfy influential, black political supporters who were pushing for a greater black presence in the fire department's officer ranks.

The city has denied that its actions were politically motivated.

All 20 plaintiffs, dressed in white shirts and crisp blue uniforms, sat in a tight group in the center of the court gallery as their case was argued before a capacity audience.

Analysts have said the decision could guide public and private employers who are trying to meet diversity goals while complying with prohibitions against race-based decisions.

And, there could be wider implications should the court rule in favor of the white firefighters, who have argued that "race-conscious" employment decisions should be subject to strict review. The decision could affect government choices on issues from locating public schools to allocating educational resources to minority outreach recruiting efforts.

New Haven has said a key factor in its decision to scrap the test was its belief that blacks would sue if white firefighters were the only ones promoted.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, viewed as the court's swing vote on racial issues, had pointed questions for both sides.

But he seemed concerned by New Haven's assertion that it was not acting on the basis of race when it invalidated the test results.

"It looked at the results and it classified the successful and unsuccessful applicants by race," he said. "I have trouble with this."

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked if the city could reject the next fire department exam — if it doesn't like those results.

"They get do-overs until it comes out right?" Roberts asked.

Justice Antonin Scalia seemed skeptical of New Haven's claim that the decision to reject the test was race-neutral.

"You're saying it is neutral to set aside a test because one race prevails," he said. "I wouldn't call that neutral."

The court's liberal wing, led in questioning by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, suggested that New Haven acted properly after receiving the racially disparate test results.

Justice David H. Souter said New Haven faced a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation" when it identified the race of the successful test takers. No matter what the city did, it would have been sued by whatever race viewed itself as losing, he said.

Firefighter Frank Ricci, the lead plaintiff in the case, was the only firefighter who would speak with reporters after the arguments, and he avoided addressing the merits of the case.

"The only thing that I'll say is that we're all happy to have our day in court," Ricci said. "If you work hard and you study and you apply yourself well at your job, you can succeed in America."

The firefighters' case is one of two major civil rights cases on the court's calendar in the next two weeks. The other deals with a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.

Underlying both cases are broader questions about racial progress and the ongoing need for legal protections from discrimination for minorities. especially in light of Obama's election.

Even if the court rules for the New Haven firefighters, the case could be sent back to U.S. District Court in New Haven for further proceedings. The Obama administration's Justice Department, while largely supportive of New Haven in the dispute, asked the court Wednesday to send the case back to New Haven for trial.

Copyright © 2009, The Hartford Courant

U.S. Supreme Court Hears New Haven Firefighters' Reverse Discrimination Arguments -- Courant.com

1. "The test, which the city purchased for $100,000 from a consultant."
So much for the "experts" who devise tests.

2. "The test was divided between written and oral questions."
So there was an interview portion of the test.

3. "Meade repeated New Haven's long-standing argument that it is obligated to scrap tests that produce "disparate" results among test takers of different races."
Again, New Haven's defense of its actions was based on race, not whether or not the test was about measuring leadership skills.

4. "The only criticism of the test came from an executive with a competing test preparation firm. The competitor testified at a civil service board hearing in New Haven that he thought he could design a better test, Alito pointed out."
So much for the "experts" who criticize tests.

 

[jillio]

U.S. Supreme Court To Hear New Haven Firefighters' Race Discrimination Case This Month -- Courant.com

1. The city had coded the tests by race. Why?

2. How did the test have "gross exclusionary effects on minorities"?

3. " it is not certain that the knowledge tested by the firefighters' exam was required to be a lieutenant in the fire department." So, they don't know if the test was valid or not. It could have been.

4. "The city's lawyers cited this "disparate impact" rule as their reason for scrapping test scores."

"This test had an adverse impact [on minorities]."

So, their legal reason for throwing out the test was "disparate impact" on the black community, not invalid test questions.

I truly do not see why it is so difficult to understand that if a test has a disparate impact on minorities, it is not a valid assessment for that population. It is a well known fact, and is not difficult to understand at all.

 

[lsfoster]

If you are so concerned that race shouldn't be an issue, then you really need to stop focusing on it. And by failing to understand that the scores for all the test takers were affected, you are saying that the black firefighters did poorly because they are black.

Your argument has just gone completely circular. You are trying too hard.

I did read the articles. I think the difference is, I also understood them beyond a superficial comprehension.

You are also failing to note that 2 courts have already decided that the lawsuit was without merit. They dismissed it. Why? Because their were problems with the test that affected all the scores. Therefore, the city was justified in throwing all the scores out.

Nope, clearly you don't understand what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the fact that they did poorly has nothing to do with the fact that they are black. I don't know how to say it any more clearly. You are the one that is concerned with their race. To me, if an individual did poorly on a test, is reflects their ability as an individual. Seems like to you, someone's results only reflect their race, not their actual ability or qualifications.

If I'm in a class, and I take a test and get an A, and someone else takes it and gets a B because they didn't understand the material as well. Is it somehow racist of me to say that I did better if they happen to be a minority? I am one person. I do not represent all girls, or all whites, or all gays, or anything. I represent me. Similarly, the other girl does not represent all girls, or all blacks or hispanics, or whatever race she happens to be.

You seem to be unable to say that a group of men didn't do well on the test. It shouldn't be that hard to ignore their race.

I'm not sure you even managed a superficial comprehension of the articles. When you don't have any actual evidence to support your "order of events", and every article linked or quoted in here differs from your statement, you might consider simply saying that perhaps you were mistaken about something, not criticizing my understanding of what they do actually say. It makes you seem childish and petty.

Also, you seem to be backing your argument up with the court rulings that have already been made. I'm pretty sure I don't need to go make a list of court rulings that I'm sure we can all disagree with throughout America's history. You yourself have disagreed with court rulings in many other threads. Unless you're suggesting that the courts are always right only when you agree with one decision and want to bolster your case, I would really try to stay away from that line of reasoning.

Also, if the scores for all test takers were affected, then the relative ranking should be the same, and the results should not have been thrown out. Or, they should have simply stated that there was a problem with the test and administered a new one. Of course both of those situations are pretty much useless to mention since, as you continue to ignore, the results were thrown out because of the racial implications, and not because the city found the test to be flawed.

 

[jillio]

U.S. Supreme Court Hears New Haven Firefighters' Reverse Discrimination Arguments -- Courant.com

1. "The test, which the city purchased for $100,000 from a consultant."
So much for the "experts" who devise tests.

2. "The test was divided between written and oral questions."
So there was an interview portion of the test.

3. "Meade repeated New Haven's long-standing argument that it is obligated to scrap tests that produce "disparate" results among test takers of different races."
Again, New Haven's defense of its actions was based on race, not whether or not the test was about measuring leadership skills.

4. "The only criticism of the test came from an executive with a competing test preparation firm. The competitor testified at a civil service board hearing in New Haven that he thought he could design a better test, Alito pointed out."
So much for the "experts" who criticize tests.

And the Board also stated that the written portion was weighted improperly. Just because one identifies themselves as a "consultant" does not mean that they have properly checked the instrument they have created for validity or reliability. In this case, the city aslo has a claim against the firm from which they purchased the test for providing the assessment that created the problems. If you will read the article from yesterday, the Board of Industrial and Organizational Psychology identified specific areas of the test that created questionable validity.

And the fact still remains...two courts have already dismissed the lawsuit from the white firefighters and upheld the city's decision to scrap the scores. So, have the firefighters take another test that has been determined to be reliable and valid. If the white firefighters are truly more qualified as they seem to be claiming, they will again score higher, and this time, there will be no repercussions because there will be no problems with the instrument. Or is it that they are afraid they will not do as well on a second test?

 

[Daredevel7]

Looking at it from a different angle: Instead of reporting their race, I wonder what would happen if they reported their parents' income instead. My gut feeling says that most, if not all, of those who were promoted come from families who have a higher income. It just so happens that they were white. This is related to an inconvenient truth: Most of minorities come from low income families.

 

[lsfoster]

Looking at it from a different angle: Instead of reporting their race, I wonder what would happen if they reported their parents' income instead. My gut feeling says that most, if not all, of those who were promoted come from families who have a higher income. It just so happens that they were white. This is related to an inconvenient truth: Most of minorities come from low income families.

Yup, just as I said a few times already, I think that the idea of classifying by race ignores the fact that generally education and how one values education are a result of one's socio-economic status, not race. That's why I pointed out the quote in the article stating that minorities test worse, and questioned why nobody had commented on that. I don't understand how people can say it's racist and discriminatory to promote a group of people that doesn't include any black people based on how they did on an exam, but it's totally fine to say "minorities test worse", when that ignores the actual root of the problem, and instead just lumps it up to race. It is true that most lower-income households are minorities, which makes it that much more important to differentiate between the two, since one is clearly wrong and racist to say, and the other is a huge problem in our country right now that desperately needs to be addressed and remedied.

 

[jillio]

Nope, clearly you don't understand what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the fact that they did poorly has nothing to do with the fact that they are black. I don't know how to say it any more clearly. You are the one that is concerned with their race. To me, if an individual did poorly on a test, is reflects their ability as an individual. Seems like to you, someone's results only reflect their race, not their actual ability or qualifications.

Okay, then you explain why no black test takers and only 1 Hispanic test taker did not qualify for promotion.

If I'm in a class, and I take a test and get an A, and someone else takes it and gets a B because they didn't understand the material as well. Is it somehow racist of me to say that I did better if they happen to be a minority? I am one person. I do not represent all girls, or all whites, or all gays, or anything. I represent me. Similarly, the other girl does not represent all girls, or all blacks or hispanics, or whatever race she happens to be.

And if you are in a class, and all the females fluck the test, and all the males pass the test, there is due cause to look for gender bias in the test, particularly if the female students demonstrate competence in class work and assignments. And you are correct. You, by yourself, do not represent all girls. However, when you are placed within a group of the female gender who have all received disparate scores compared to a group of the male gender, there is cause to investigate the validity of the instrument.
You seem to be unable to say that a group of men didn't do well on the test. It shouldn't be that hard to ignore their race.

That is because the group of men who did not do well on the test were all a member of a minority group. Had that group of men been composed of minorities and whites, the conclusion would be that that particular group of men did not do well on the test. But because all of the men were members of a minority group, it is necessary to look at the instrument and the possible bias contained that resulted in the group of men who did not do well on the test all being of a minority group.

I'm not sure you even managed a superficial comprehension of the articles. When you don't have any actual evidence to support your "order of events", and every article linked or quoted in here differs from your statement, you might consider simply saying that perhaps you were mistaken about something, not criticizing my understanding of what they do actually say. It makes you seem childish and petty.

The article supports my order of events. It is called sequencing. Something that most people are readily capable of when reading a specific article. And my statements regarding valid and reliable instruments and cultural bias in testing has been supported through decades of testing, assessment, and research. I can refer you to several graduate level texts if you would like to learn a bit more about it.
Also, you seem to be backing your argument up with the court rulings that have already been made. I'm pretty sure I don't need to go make a list of court rulings that I'm sure we can all disagree with throughout America's history. You yourself have disagreed with court rulings in many other threads. Unless you're suggesting that the courts are always right only when you agree with one decision and want to bolster your case, I would really try to stay away from that line of reasoning.

The fact still stands that the courts have ruled, and they have ruled in a way that supports my reasoning. And my reasoning is supported through the decades of testing, assessment, and research that I spoke of in the above paragraph. No where have I said anything was "right" or "wrong". Perhaps your thinking is simply too concrete, and you must have an either/or answer to satisfy that concrete manner of thought. What I have said, it is quite possible that the test was not valid based on the information that has been given, and if the validity is under question, the results are innaccurate. If the results are innacurrate based on questionable validity of the instrument, then the results are innacurrate for ALL PERSONS TAKING THR TEST. Those who did well are not as knowlegable as they appear to be because their scores are artificially inflated, and those who did not do well are most likely more capable that they appear to be because their scores were artificially deflated.
Also, if the scores for all test takers were affected, then the relative ranking should be the same, and the results should not have been thrown out. Or, they should have simply stated that there was a problem with the test and administered a new one. Of course both of those situations are pretty much useless to mention since, as you continue to ignore, the results were thrown out because of the racial implications, and not because the city found the test to be flawed.

No, the relative ranking will not be the same on a second test if the first test was not valid. Now you are talking about reliability, not validity. The fact that you have even stated such shows that you have no understanding at all regarding reliability and validity in testing. And giving a second test that has been determined to be valid is certainly an option. Test-retest is one of the proven methods for determining reliability. But the issue is not reliability, as a test can be reliable, and still not be valid. The issue here is validity. However, it would appear that those bringing the lawsuit are opposed to taking a second test. And you continue to ignore that had the test been valid for all the populations taking it, there would not have been the disparity that is seen in the scores based on race.

 

[Jiro]

Yup, just as I said a few times already, I think that the idea of classifying by race ignores the fact that generally education and how one values education are a result of one's socio-economic status, not race. That's why I pointed out the quote in the article stating that minorities test worse, and questioned why nobody had commented on that. I don't understand how people can say it's racist and discriminatory to promote a group of people that doesn't include any black people based on how they did on an exam, but it's totally fine to say "minorities test worse", when that ignores the actual root of the problem, and instead just lumps it up to race. It is true that most lower-income households are minorities, which makes it that much more important to differentiate between the two, since one is clearly wrong and racist to say, and the other is a huge problem in our country right now that desperately needs to be addressed and remedied.

I strongly agree. This is a fireman exam, for heaven's sake. Not some Affirmative Action thing to get into college. This firemen exam is pretty much standardized across the nation. Come on - the fire in NJ is same as fire in CA. Same for procedures. Why? because many firemen from different states fly over to another states for additional manpower/training.

To claim the test as racist/discriminatory is nothing but a crybaby. :roll: