[dcmacdaddy]

See this article.
Firefighters in historic Supreme Court case finally promoted / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
14 of the original 20 firefighters involved in the suit got the promotions they should have received five years ago based on their test scores.

I know we discussed this a lot in several threads, but as I can't remember the threads to resurrect I am posting this new one. as for my opinion, I think it is good they got the promotions and that New Haven cannot enact policies that would allow them to make hiring decisions based on the fear of being accused of racism. (I won't call it reverse racism as I think that term has a specific meaning to those who use it to agitate for anti anti-discrimination policies.)

And let me say, I am all for meritocracy AND anti-discrimination policies. I think there should be race-neutral decisions in hiring practices not favoring one racial group over another. At the same time, I think there should be policies in place such that if hiring decisions are made based on racial bias/preference, the group doing the hiring should be held accountable, and possibly punished, for their actions. Granted, this applies mostly to government groups that have non-discrimination practices as part of their mandate. But I could envision such a policy being applicable in some parts of the non-government employment sector as well.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I think there should be race-neutral decisions in hiring practices not favoring one racial group over another.

Amen. Best wo/man for the job, no matter what their race.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Amen. Best wo/man for the job, no matter what their race.

And that's why I don't like the term reverse discrimination. There is only one kind of racial discrimination, and that is using someone's race as a preferential factor in deciding to hire them.

Whether it is a exclusive country club hiring the less-qualifed white guy over the more-qualified black guy or it is the NAACP hiring the less-qualified black women over the more qualified white women, I want the group doing the racial discrimination to be subject to persecution, and for public agencies, prosecution, for their actions if as an organization they use race to make hiring decisions. I want your organization to be held accountable for engaging in racial discrimination.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

And that's why I don't like the term reverse discrimination. There is only one kind of racial discrimination, and that is using someone's race as a preferential factor in deciding to hire them.

Whether it is a exclusive country club hiring the less-qualifed white guy over the more-qualified black guy or it is the NAACP hiring the less-qualified black women over the more qualified white women, I want the group doing the racial discrimination to be subject to persecution, and for public agencies, prosecution, for their actions if as an organization they use race to make hiring decisions. I want your organization to be held accountable for engaging in racial discrimination.

I'm thinking of applying for a job as Polling Station Security in Philadelphia. They say the hiring process is rigorous but is fair and based on merit. I'm not crazy about the uniform though.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I know we discussed this a lot in several threads, but as I can't remember the threads to resurrect I am posting this new one. as for my opinion, I think it is good they got the promotions and that New Haven cannot enact policies that would allow them to make hiring decisions based on the fear of being accused of racism. (I won't call it reverse racism as I think that term has a specific meaning to those who use it to agitate for anti anti-discrimination policies.)

And let me say, I am all for meritocracy AND anti-discrimination policies. I think there should be race-neutral decisions in hiring practices not favoring one racial group over another. At the same time, I think there should be policies in place such that if hiring decisions are made based on racial bias/preference, the group doing the hiring should be held accountable, and possibly punished, for their actions. Granted, this applies mostly to government groups that have non-discrimination practices as part of their mandate. But I could envision such a policy being applicable in some parts of the non-government employment sector as well.

Agreed.

If scoring well on a test is part of the requirements for promotion ... then score well on the test. These guys scored well so they should get promoted. And the promotions shouldn't have been held up because no black firefighters who took the test would have been promoted given their scores. Now having said that, the firefighting profession has a long history of excluding minorities. In many communities the existence of black firefighters in significant numbers is due to the city forcing the fire departments to be inclusive. So I agree that the term "reverse discrimination" is problematic because it is typically used to describe such efforts. IMO, for these promotions to be held up the test itself would need to be proven to be discriminatory. There is a lawsuit filed alleging just that but it has not yet been decided. If that suit is successful, then the test should be thrown out and replaced with one that is not. If not, then the black firefighters will simply need to step their game up when it comes to the test. In any event, such a test should be relevant to the job, reasonably predictive of job success, and study materials should be equally accessible to all.

Now it is possible that a test itself can be "non-biased", but the way in which the test is used to determine promotions is "discriminatory", or perhaps one should say leads to "disparate impact based upon race". But this is a much trickier area and definitely a much harder thing to prove in a court of law. IMO, the best thing to do when it comes to tests is to use them to determine if someone is qualified or not. A simple pass/fail approach. Nickel and dime-ing over who scored 1 or 2 points higher should not override other factors like job experience, job performance, etc.

OAW

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I'm thinking of applying for a job as Polling Station Security in Philadelphia. They say the hiring process is rigorous but is fair and based on merit. I'm not crazy about the uniform though.

Is he carrying a horse whip?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Is he carrying a horse whip?

Yahtzee! Yay!

[Osedax]

In my opinion the bigger effect of the supreme court judgement wasn't that 14 people that deserved the promotions finally got them, but that a major policy shift occured with the decision.

Prior to this decision, it was the results of such tests that determined if the test was prejudice or not. Now it is the test itself that is reviewed for bias. This is a major shift and in my opinion this is how it should be.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by OAW 

A simple pass/fail approach. Nickel and dime-ing over who scored 1 or 2 points higher should not override other factors like job experience, job performance, etc.

Agreed on the 1-2 point difference, but pass/fail scoring is a bad idea for many types of exams. A score of 95 is much better than a 70. With pass/fail scoring, that disparity gets lost.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Agreed on the 1-2 point difference, but pass/fail scoring is a bad idea for many types of exams. A score of 95 is much better than a 70. With pass/fail scoring, that disparity gets lost.

This is true. But you can have a guy that gets a 95 on a written test who has limited experience and terrible people skills. Whereas the guy who gets a 70 (and I'm not saying 70 has to be the threshold ... just using your example) has a lot of experience and is well-respected by his team and peers. So which one should get the open Captain's position in that situation? My point is that in most positions the job duties don't involve sitting around taking a standardized test all day. If it did, then certainly the person who's better and taking a test should get the position. But that's not the real world. That's why I said that the test should be used to determine whether the individual is qualified or not. After that, it is the other factors that are more relevant to the daily duties of the position that should take precedence.

So I agree. Pass/Fail scoring is a bad idea for many types of exams. I just don't think this is one of them.

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

This is true. But you can have a guy that gets a 95 on a written test who has limited experience and terrible people skills. Whereas the guy who gets a 70 (and I'm not saying 70 has to be the threshold ... just using your example) has a lot of experience and is well-respected by his team and peers. So which one should get the open Captain's position in that situation? My point is that in most positions the job duties don't involve sitting around taking a standardized test all day. If it did, then certainly the person who's better and taking a test should get the position. But that's not the real world. That's why I said that the test should be used to determine whether the individual is qualified or not. After that, it is the other factors that are more relevant to the daily duties of the position that should take precedence.

As a slight aside, go have a read of Management and Machiavelli by Antony Jay. Interesting perspective on who should get the promotion, right there.

[Big Mac]

Discrimination on the basis of race in the public sphere of the US should be intolerable no matter which way it is directed; I'm glad most all of us can agree on that point. Affirmative Action practices are plainly unfair and very much in opposition to MLK's dream of judgment based on character rather than skin color. Even if it makes sense to help African Americans in some form because of past injustices (an argument which, unlike most conservatives, I can at least recognize some merit in), Affirmative Action helps one group while harming another and fosters needless racial resentment.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Even if it makes sense to help African Americans in some form because of past injustices (an argument which, unlike most conservatives, I can at least recognize some merit in), Affirmative Action helps one group while harming another and fosters needless racial resentment.

I must say that I'm most surprised by your statement in italics above. Perhaps you're not a lost cause after all?

Having said that, where we (likely) disagree is the latter part of your statement. IMO, the impact of AA on the white community as a group has always been negligible at best. The fact of the matter is that the unemployment rate in minority communities has always been 2 - 3 times that of the white community ... and of those minorities who are in the workforce many (if not most) work in positions that don't even have AA programs in place (i.e. low skilled, low wage jobs). Furthermore, when AA programs are in place (e.g. construction jobs, etc.) these are implemented as very modest "goals" with no actual requirements or enforcement mechanism, consequently they are rarely (if ever) even remotely met. So all the hoopla over AA is way overblown when you examine the issue from a logical and rational standpoint. The "racial resentment" you speak of is an emotional reaction in most cases and IMO, simply not warranted by the facts on the ground.

Personally, I've long been ambivalent about AA. Basically because while I recognize the need for it given the historical record and legacy of racial discrimination in this country, I also recognize that it's always been implemented in a half-assed manner thus its benefits to minorities (other than white females) has always been extremely limited at best. I posted this in another thread about 4 years ago ....

Originally Posted by OAW

Take for example the situation in St. Louis County with the well-paying blue collar profession of firefighting ....

http://www.firetimes.com/story.asp?FragID=4333

"In its nearly 50-year history, the Spanish Lake Fire Protection District has never hired an African-American firefighter, even though it now serves a district that is 54 percent black.

Spanish Lake is not alone. Of the 42 fire departments serving St. Louis County, 22 have no African-American firefighters. Nine departments have just one black firefighter.

In north St. Louis County, the black population has grown steadily in recent years, yet most of North County's fire departments have remained overwhelmingly white."

AA was intended to be a counter-balance to BS like this. It's been around since the 1970s so this is a prime example of why I say its benefits to minorities has always been extremely limited at best. (And no the situation hasn't changed significantly in the last 4 years other than the black population of the area has increased even further). It's about to be 2010 ... and if those critics of AA were even halfway as outraged about the numerous situations like this that continue to exist as they are about AA our country as a whole would be in a much better position. It might even relegate the entire topic of AA to the footnotes of history. Imagine that.

OAW