Reverse Discrimination Case

[Jiro]

Remember - the test is 60% MC and 40% Oral Interview. Mind you - this problem is in New Haven, CT. In case you didn't know, CT is predominantly white. I wouldn't be surprised if the department leans toward to appointing white to captain seat. This would not be a case in say.. Baltimore. or LA.

IMO - the test is not flawed. It's the society... which lsfoster's post #138 pretty much sums it up.

 

[jillio]

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:

Two courts who have examined the test disagree with you, as does the Board of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. And obviously you don't know that Affirmative Action applies to the workplace, as well. But this is not an issue of Affirmative Action. Had the black firefighters scored as high or higher than the white firefighters, and the lower scoring white firefighters were promoted over the higher scoring black firefighters, it would be an issue of Affirmative Action.

You also might want to keep in mind that it was the white firefighters who filed the lawsuit, not the black firefighters.

 

[jillio]

Remember - the test is 60% MC and 40% Oral Interview. Mind you - this problem is in New Haven, CT. In case you didn't know, CT is predominantly white. I wouldn't be surprised if the department leans toward to appointing white to captain seat. This would not be a case in say.. Baltimore. or LA.

IMO - the test is not flawed. It's the society... which lsfoster's post #138 pretty much sums it up.

60% multiple choice and 40% oral equals 100%. Obviously, you are referring to a different test, as the test in question also contained a written portion; meaning that it was not multiple choice but long answer. You have failed to account for that portion in your percentages.

And, if your second statement is any indication, then racism most certainly should be concern. If they are promoting based on race, rather than qualification, they have more problems than this one testing situation.

 

[Jiro]

60% multiple choice and 40% oral equals 100%. Obviously, you are referring to a different test, as the test in question also contained a written portion; meaning that it was not multiple choice but long answer. You have failed to account for that portion in your percentages.

refer to OP's article in first post -

The promotion exams were closely focused on firefighting methods, knowledge and skills. The first part had 200 multiple-choice questions and counted for 60 percent of the final score. Candidates returned another day to take an oral exam in which they described responses to various scenarios, which counted for 40 percent.

And, if your second statement is any indication, then racism most certainly should be concern. If they are promoting based on race, rather than qualification, they have more problems than this one testing situation.

like I said - it's not the test, it's the society.

 

[jillio]

refer to OP's article in first post -

That was the weight given to the subsections, not the composition of the test.:roll:


like I said - it's not the test, it's the society.

How so? Explain your reasoning.

 

[lsfoster]

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

I have, because it is just as possible that the men who didn't do well weren't as qualified. Not because of their race, not because of their culture, simply because of them as individuals. I would make the exact same argument if only black firefighters had done well. Maybe it's not that the test discriminated against white people, but maybe in this specific group, the black firefighters were more qualified. Until our country is ready to admit that not everyone is the same as everyone else, and that results need to stop being evaluated by race, there's no way around this problem.

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.

But again, you are arguing hypothetical situations making assumptions about things you can't possibly know. To begin with, there are fewer black firefighters than white firefighters on the force in New Haven. To expect an even distribution in the results is just ridiculous. Even if every single person did exactly the same, there would be 2/3 fewer black people than white people. It is not impossible that in this case, there were simply a majority of white people, and some of them happened to be more qualified than the other people taking the test, whether those people were black, white, hispanic, or anything else.

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.

Again, you're simply wrong and don't seem to be reading the articles at all.
"Mr. Ricci did well, he said, coming in sixth among the 77 candidates who took the exam. But the city threw out the test, because none of the 19 African-American firefighters who took it qualified for promotion. That decision prompted Mr. Ricci and 17 other white firefighters, including one Hispanic, to sue the city, alleging racial discrimination."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/us/10scotus.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all
77 total. 19 of them were black. 17 of them were eligible for promotions. That leaves 41 people who weren't black and also weren't eligible for promotion. Way more than the number of black firefighters who didn't do well. This discussion would probably move along much faster if you actually bothered to read the articles before making incorrect statements.

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.

Again, no, the articles don't. This has been posted numerous times by myself and others. Here is the order: the test was given, the city looked at the results and decided to throw them out based on race, then the test was determined to possibly be flawed. The statements about reliable instruments don't really matter in this case, but you seem to be unwilling to discuss the actual issue, which is why the city decided to throw out the results, and whether that decision was discriminatory.

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.

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.

As I said before, unless you know the test, and have a secret history of studying firefighting and the important aspects necessary to qualify for promotion, this just isn't true. We're not arguing test reliability. The reason we got side-tracked on that issue is because you were making clearly false statements about that also and refused to back down. I'm not getting back into a discussion of that. The issue is the decision that the city made. And you have no more knowledge of that issue than anyone else in this thread.

Also, I have said numerous times that the city should have simply administered another test. If you are going to agree with my previous statements, you might try doing it in a way that sounds less like you're making a new point that you're throwing in our faces to prove how wrong we are. I said that a long time ago. Glad you agree.

 

[Jiro]

How so? Explain your reasoning.

My posts are quite succinct. No further explanation is needed

 

[Jiro]

Two courts who have examined the test disagree with you, as does the Board of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. And obviously you don't know that Affirmative Action applies to the workplace, as well. But this is not an issue of Affirmative Action. Had the black firefighters scored as high or higher than the white firefighters, and the lower scoring white firefighters were promoted over the higher scoring black firefighters, it would be an issue of Affirmative Action.

You also might want to keep in mind that it was the white firefighters who filed the lawsuit, not the black firefighters.

and where did I imply in my posts that black firefighters sued about the test?

and yes I'm aware of affirmative action that applies to workplace but this is the workplace that is the matter of life and death. Like the article said - the fire doesn't discriminate the skin color.

 

[jillio]

I have, because it is just as possible that the men who didn't do well weren't as qualified. Not because of their race, not because of their culture, simply because of them as individuals. I would make the exact same argument if only black firefighters had done well. Maybe it's not that the test discriminated against white people, but maybe in this specific group, the black firefighters were more qualified. Until our country is ready to admit that not everyone is the same as everyone else, and that results need to stop being evaluated by race, there's no way around this problem.

So you are saying that none of the blacks or full Hispanics (as the one that scored higher on the test was bi-racial--Hispanic and white) scoring low on the test was no more than the result of coincidence? That it is just coincidence that all of the low scores came from minority populations? An intro course in statistics will easily show why that is not feasable as an argument.


But again, you are arguing hypothetical situations making assumptions about things you can't possibly know. To begin with, there are fewer black firefighters than white firefighters on the force in New Haven. To expect an even distribution in the results is just ridiculous. Even if every single person did exactly the same, there would be 2/3 fewer black people than white people. It is not impossible that in this case, there were simply a majority of white people, and some of them happened to be more qualified than the other people taking the test, whether those people were black, white, hispanic, or anything else.

And exactly what is your argument but hypothetical? Likewise, you cannot substanitate your claim of coincidence with any kind opf fact that would support even a remote possibility of truth. And if a test is valid, it will show an even distribution. That is what validity is all about. A skewed distribution indicates problems with validity. Please, before you attempt to argue the issues of validity and reliability, you really do need to learn something about it. You just keep demonstrating your lack of knowledge.


Again, you're simply wrong and don't seem to be reading the articles at all.
"Mr. Ricci did well, he said, coming in sixth among the 77 candidates who took the exam. But the city threw out the test, because none of the 19 African-American firefighters who took it qualified for promotion. That decision prompted Mr. Ricci and 17 other white firefighters, including one Hispanic, to sue the city, alleging racial discrimination."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/us/10scotus.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all
77 total. 19 of them were black. 17 of them were eligible for promotions. That leaves 41 people who weren't black and also weren't eligible for promotion. Way more than the number of black firefighters who didn't do well. This discussion would probably move along much faster if you actually bothered to read the articles before making incorrect statements.

Your last statement actually supports the claim of bias in testing. This discussion would have been over long ago if you knew anything at all about the subject you are attempting to discuss.


Again, no, the articles don't. This has been posted numerous times by myself and others. Here is the order: the test was given, the city looked at the results and decided to throw them out based on race, then the test was determined to possibly be flawed. The statements about reliable instruments don't really matter in this case, but you seem to be unwilling to discuss the actual issue, which is why the city decided to throw out the results, and whether that decision was discriminatory.

They did not throw them out based on race. They threw them out as a result of disparities in scoring. The city suspected flaws, the Board of Industrial and Organizational Psychology confirmed problems with the validity, and then the scores were thrown out. They were not thrown out prior to confirmation. Had the disparity in scores not pointed to possible bias, this would never have become an issue.


As I said before, unless you know the test, and have a secret history of studying firefighting and the important aspects necessary to qualify for promotion, this just isn't true. We're not arguing test reliability. The reason we got side-tracked on that issue is because you were making clearly false statements about that also and refused to back down. I'm not getting back into a discussion of that. The issue is the decision that the city made. And you have no more knowledge of that issue than anyone else in this thread.

I know testing procedures, how to determine validity and reliability for any instrument, sources of bias, and how to insure that an instrument contains cross cultural validity. Things that you obviously have no knowledge of. Given that, you cannot say that I am wrong, as you have not seen the test, and even if you had the test in front of you at this very moment, would not be able to determine it's reliability nor its validity. Therefore, for you to claim that it was when you don't have the test, and do not have the knowledge necessary to make that determination, is nothing less than absurd. I can make a probable determination based on the information given due to the fact that I have extensive education and training in the area. You do not. Therefore, you cannot even make a probable determination,

Also, I have said numerous times that the city should have simply administered another test. If you are going to agree with my previous statements, you might try doing it in a way that sounds less like you're making a new point that you're throwing in our faces to prove how wrong we are. I said that a long time ago. Glad you agree.

And I did not disagree with that statement. So obviously, if you believe the city should have given another test, you are also admitting the possibility of flaws in the first test that led to the disparate results. Otherwise, there is no need for a second test.

 

[jillio]

My posts are quite succinct. No further explanation is needed

Succinctness is not explanatory. Explain your reasoning. All you have done is state a conclusion. What are the problems in society that led to disparate scores in the testing?

 

[jillio]

and where did I imply in my posts that black firefighters sued about the test?

and yes I'm aware of affirmative action that applies to workplace but this is the workplace that is the matter of life and death. Like the article said - the fire doesn't discriminate the skin color.

But obviously the test did. And, again, Jiro, this is not a test to decide the men's ability to fight a fire. As they were all employees of the fire department that has already been determined. So your comment about fire not discriminating based on skin color is unrelated to the issue.

 

[Jiro]

methinks someone in here just don't know when to gracefully give it up.

 

[jillio]

methinks someone in here just don't know when to gracefully give it up.

Methinks someone just made a couple of statements before they thought them all the way through, and when challenged to support them, tries to deflect.

 

[Jiro]

Methinks someone just made a couple of statements before they thought them all the way through, and when challenged to support them, tries to deflect.

really? hmmm methinks someone made a witty comeback just to mask his/her loss along with obfuscation and flooding.

anyway - back to business.

 

[jillio]

really? hmmm methinks someone made a witty comeback just to mask his/her loss along with obfuscation and flooding.

anyway - back to business.

Nope, just can't refute you when you can't even support your point. Back to class for you.

 

[Jiro]

Nope, just can't refute you when you can't even support your point. Back to class for you.

correction - we can't just make you see where you already lost.

btw - i'm already done with school and you're at school. it's back to business for me and back to class for you

 

[jillio]

correction - we can't just make you see where you already lost.

btw - i'm already done with school and you're at school. it's back to business for me and back to class for you

Sweetie, I haven't lost anything. Two court decisions indicate that. I am at school because I am teaching. If you go back and achieve an advanced degree, you will be able to do the same.

 

[Daredevel7]

*inserts random thinly veiled personal attack as a form of subtext*
YEA BEAT THAT.

 

[jillio]

 

[Jiro]

Sweetie, I haven't lost anything. Two court decisions indicate that. I am at school because I am teaching AND LEARNING. If you go back and achieve an advanced degree, you will be able to do the same.

I have absolutely no interest in going back to school for a while. After all - the Real World is better than the Hypothetical World

might be a reason why you cannot understand the issue of this reverse discrimination case. who knows?