[stupendousman]

Dayton's News Source :: Top Stories - Civil Service Board Announces Police Recruit Scores

This is mind blowing. The black applicants who couldn't even manage to get a D level score on a test are being forced on the city of Dayton because the Obama DOJ thinks that blacks are too stupid to be able to compete with the white applicants and should be held to lesser standards. It's not that intelligent black men aren't applying for the jobs, or that the white applicants are simply better qualified. It's some kind of racist plot by Dayton to strip dumb black men of their rights to a job they don't deserve.

::SIGH::

[subego]

How is this different than the Bush DoJ suing them and making the city hire more black police/firefighters as part of the settlement?

[turtle777]

That's just fair.

We lowered our standards as a country by electing the Democrats and Obama administration. It's ok to repeat this on a local level.

-t

[subego]

I address the question to you as well.

[turtle777]

We know that Bush did a lot of idiotic things. What else is new ?

What's more bothersome is that Obama, after trashing Bush for years, turns out to be the even bigger idiot when it comes to policies and politics.
He continued the same dumb things from the Bush administration, and added to it more idiocy from the pool of Leftist pipe dreams.

-t

[subego]

That's a pretty fancy way of saying "it's not".

[turtle777]

Right, it's not. I have no problem admitting that in this case. Bush was no better than Obama.

-t

[BadKosh]

But the same Obama administration's DOJ is failing to prosecute the black Panther thugs waving clubs outside of the election center. They didn't get charged for any election type crimes because they were pro-Obama. Radicals!

Hows affirmative action going these days? Is that still needed? Doesn't the existence of Affirmative Action seem to suggest the gov't knows without that program even more blacks would be unemployed because of their lower skills?

[mduell]

What's the philosophical/theoretical justification for the disparate impact test? Racism is so prevalent we can't even figure out the means so we must look at the end?

[subego]

Originally Posted by mduell 

What's the philosophical/theoretical justification for the disparate impact test? Racism is so prevalent we can't even figure out the means so we must look at the end?

If your test is biased, and there's a history of being unable to correct that, at some point it may be more expeditious to statistically correct for the bias rather than attempt again to form an unbiased test.

On the other hand, if your test isn't biased, and is just accurately reflecting the state of your jurisdiction (which in this case was white people passing more than twice as often as black people), you've got a much bigger problem than a disparate means test. At that point it's triage. Which is worse: lowered standards for city services, or compounding an already disastrously ****ed up social order?

As for the prevalence, you can use whether the DoJ sues as a barometer. The overwhelming majority of jurisdictions don't get sued.

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Right, it's not. I have no problem admitting that in this case. Bush was no better than Obama.

-t

So, Bush's DoJ was racist?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, Bush's DoJ was racist?

I didn't refer to it as racist.

I think it (the policy) is just stupid and dumb.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I didn't refer to it as racist.

Hence the question.

If you had said so, I wouldn't need to ask. As you're posting affirmations in a thread titled "more racist insanity from the DOJ", merely not mentioning racism doesn't make your position clear.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

If your test is biased, and there's a history of being unable to correct that, at some point it may be more expeditious to statistically correct for the bias rather than attempt again to form an unbiased test.

You cannot correct it, because it does not exist. If there was bias in the test, a reasonable person should be able to find it and remove it. The problem is, the "bias" is that more of the black applicants do no have knowledge of information important to become an office as do the white ones. Black students are taught with the same books and with teachers who graduate from the same colleges as the white students. If there's a "bias" it's that the black applicants didn't apply themselves in the same way that the white ones did. That's not a "bias" that needs correcting by the government, but rather the black applicants. They need to go back, study, and then pass the test.

On the other hand, if your test isn't biased, and is just accurately reflecting the state of your jurisdiction (which in this case was white people passing more than twice as often as black people), you've got a much bigger problem than a disparate means test. At that point it's triage. Which is worse: lowered standards for city services, or compounding an already disastrously ****ed up social order?

Instead of spending money on stupid policemen who'll fail at doing their job because they've not met reasonable standards, I say take that money and spend it on adult education programs that will allow people with lesser mental capability to possibly pass the test in the future. You gain nothing by lowering your standards. The old saying goes that "you're only as strong as your weakest link." Adding weaker links will definitely result in lower quality law enforcement, and that benefits no one.

[subego]

You didn't answer my question.

How is this different than the Bush DoJ suing them and making the city hire more black police/firefighters as part of the settlement?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you had said so, I wouldn't need to ask. As you're posting affirmations in a thread titled "more racist insanity from the DOJ", merely not mentioning racism doesn't make your position clear.

I did NOT post affirmations. Where do you read affirmations to "racist insanity" ?

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I did NOT post affirmations. Where do you read affirmations to "racist insanity" ?

Those are two different things. I accused you of the first, not the second, so the answer to your question is "I did not read such, nor claim you made such statements".

I did however, point out that posting affirmations in a thread titled "racist insanity from the DOJ" without clarifying your disagreement with the overall premise, may lead to confusion.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

You didn't answer my question.

How is this different than the Bush DoJ suing them and making the city hire more black police/firefighters as part of the settlement?

Who said it was?

However, I don't remember anyone in the Bush Administration make a pattern of efforts for "their people" in the way that the current administration has, to the point of refusing to prosecute the guilty, and refusing to hold all men to the same standard.

Just because the Bush administration does something stupid, doesn't mean that they are innocent, or guilty of the type of racist actions that the current DOJ has engaged in.

[subego]

Jeez-o-Pete, people. Where did I say that? Who said it was?

If you had said it, I wouldn't be asking the freaking question.

[OAW]

Assuming the recruitment test isn't filled with topics that a non-police officer wouldn't be familiar with ... it seems pretty silly to lower the minimum score standards to me. If you can't manage to get a high D and a low C on the two sections then perhaps you ought to consider another line of work.

OAW

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The black applicants who couldn't even manage to get a D level score on a test are being forced on the city of Dayton

This is not correct. The written test addressed here is simply one component of the hiring process, which would also include an oral exam (interview) and background check. Passing the written exam is not the end of the application process. What has happened here is that DOJ has instructed Dayton to increase the pool of candidates from the written exam that are then considered during the rest of the selection process, based on concerns that the test is biased and unfairly eliminating people who might shine in other aspects of the process. All else being equal, though, the people with the higher scores on the written test are still more likely to be hired.

I agree with others who have said that the best way to address this is to re-write the test, though.

[BadKosh]

Yeah, dumb down the test.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

Those are two different things. I accused you of the first, not the second, so the answer to your question is "I did not read such, nor claim you made such statements".

I did however, point out that posting affirmations in a thread titled "racist insanity from the DOJ" without clarifying your disagreement with the overall premise, may lead to confusion.

You are not making any damn sense.

How did I post "affirmations" (def: "Something declared to be true; a positive statement or judgment.") re: the thread titel ?

Maybe it"s *YOU* that's getting confused, because my position (when reading my posts) is pretty clear.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Maybe it"s *YOU* that's getting confused, because my position (when reading my posts) is pretty clear.

Third time's the charm.

If I wasn't confused I WOULDN'T HAVE ASKED THE QUESTION.

[turtle777]

Ok, I get it. First I thought it was me, but now it's clear.

-t

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Black students are taught with the same books and with teachers who graduate from the same colleges as the white students. If there's a "bias" it's that the black applicants didn't apply themselves in the same way that the white ones did.

You should really spend some time in a school that has predominantly black students before you make off the hip comments on a subject you obviously know little about.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

This is not correct. The written test addressed here is simply one component of the hiring process, which would also include an oral exam (interview) and background check. Passing the written exam is not the end of the application process. What has happened here is that DOJ has instructed Dayton to increase the pool of candidates from the written exam that are then considered during the rest of the selection process, based on concerns that the test is biased and unfairly eliminating people who might shine in other aspects of the process.

They have a clean background and do a good interview but are dumber than dirt in regards to basic matters they need to know in order to serve as law enforcement officers, so they should get a pass?

Again, what could the "bias" be, that can not be detected.

I agree with others who have said that the best way to address this is to re-write the test, though.

What specifically showed bias?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You should really spend some time in a school that has predominantly black students before you make off the hip comments on a subject you obviously know little about.

So they aren't taught using the same books, and teachers educated in the same colleges that white people go to?

If not, why are they using different books, and why would someone go to a college that doesn't give them a decent education?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They have a clean background and do a good interview but are dumber than dirt in regards to basic matters they need to know in order to serve as law enforcement officers, so they should get a pass?

Perhaps you did not read what I wrote. They are not automatically made police recruits, simply kept as part of the larger pool of applicants. Applicants are ranked in their eligibility according to their written score. All else being equal, a white person with a higher score on the written exam is still more likely to be accepted as a police recruit than a black person with a lower score. I think your sense of outrage here is overblown.

Is it a crude way to encourage more minority hiring? Yes. Is it necessary? I have no idea. I do not pretend to defend the DOJ's judgment of the bias inherent in the written civil service test, a topic about which I know nothing. I'm simply pointing out that your characterization that unqualified police officers are being "forced on the city of Dayton" is not correct.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So they aren't taught using the same books, and teachers educated in the same colleges that white people go to?

If not, why are they using different books, and why would someone go to a college that doesn't give them a decent education?

I would have thought the answer was obvious, but then, apparently I'm wrong. Visit a school system in Detroit, or Philadelphia, or Chicago, or NYC, where minorities are prevalent, and then contrast that with a school system in wealthier areas. You'd obviously be surprised at the different levels of teaching skills, and how current teaching materials are in one system vs the other, and how things you seem to take for granted, such as updated computers, don't exist in one of those systems. I'll give you a hint; the deficiencies aren't in the school system in West Bloomfield, MI.

[Chongo]

The Dayton NAACP disagrees?

“The NAACP does not support individuals failing a test and then having the opportunity to be gainfully employed,” agreed Dayton NAACP President Derrick Foward.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I would have thought the answer was obvious, but then, apparently I'm wrong. Visit a school system in Detroit, or Philadelphia, or Chicago, or NYC, where minorities are prevalent, and then contrast that with a school system in wealthier areas.

Ah, you mean places where liberal Democrats have had absolute, unchallenged authority for the last 40-50 years. It's hardly surprising the results are ABYSMAL.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Perhaps you did not read what I wrote. They are not automatically made police recruits, simply kept as part of the larger pool of applicants. Applicants are ranked in their eligibility according to their written score. All else being equal, a white person with a higher score on the written exam is still more likely to be accepted as a police recruit than a black person with a lower score. I think your sense of outrage here is overblown.

Irrelevant. Why would you keep someone as a potential police officer who can not meet the most basic criteria? To promote their self esteem?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I would have thought the answer was obvious, but then, apparently I'm wrong. Visit a school system in Detroit, or Philadelphia, or Chicago, or NYC, where minorities are prevalent, and then contrast that with a school system in wealthier areas. You'd obviously be surprised at the different levels of teaching skills, and how current teaching materials are in one system vs the other, and how things you seem to take for granted, such as updated computers, don't exist in one of those systems. I'll give you a hint; the deficiencies aren't in the school system in West Bloomfield, MI.

So you're saying that black people aren't intelligent enough to not only become police officers, but they aren't intelligent enough to run their own schools and teach classes?

You mention places that are urban in nature and mostly "blue" states. I think I see where you're going with this. This wouldn't be an example of bias in the tests. Having incompetent people running the show based on failed political philosophy is most likely at work here. Maybe if minorities keep failing to get jobs because those they elect fail to ensure basic standards for education, they'll stop electing those people and see themselves get ahead. Giving them intellectual "welfare" isn't really going to help them much.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So you're saying that black people aren't intelligent enough to not only become police officers, but they aren't intelligent enough to run their own schools and teach classes?

You mention places that are urban in nature and mostly "blue" states. I think I see where you're going with this. This wouldn't be an example of bias in the tests. Having incompetent people running the show based on failed political philosophy is most likely at work here. Maybe if minorities keep failing to get jobs because those they elect fail to ensure basic standards for education, they'll stop electing those people and see themselves get ahead. Giving them intellectual "welfare" isn't really going to help them much.

Keep projecting.

You don't see anything, except what you already want to see. It has nothing to do with failed political philosophy and everything to do with institutional racism, and also human nature. Minorities have less political power precisely because they are minorities, and as such can be subjected to any of a number of actions to keep them intentionally separate from the majority.

Once again, you show how little you understand of how humans work, preferring instead to think of how you think the world should operate, as opposed to how it actually operates.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Irrelevant. Why would you keep someone as a potential police officer who can not meet the most basic criteria? To promote their self esteem?

"The most basic criteria" is ultimately a subjective standard. Do you have any idea what the practical difference in terms of on-the-job knowledge between a 66% and 58% score actually is? I don't, and I doubt you do either. So I'm not interested in having that kind of pointless debate with you. I'm happy to point out your hyperbole though in terms of the actual effects of this measure on the city of Dayton's police recruitment. I hope it will help drive this thread toward actual, informed conversation rather than frantic speculation. It's entirely relevant to point out that lower-scoring applicants will be last in line to be recruited because whether the threshold for consideration is 66% or 58%, they both sound pretty wretched and I rest easier knowing that in either case they are less likely to be hired, regardless of skin color. It makes me worry less that Dayton is having recruits "forced" on it, and I hope it makes you worry less too.

Worry about more important things like Obama birth certificates or whatever.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Keep projecting.

You don't see anything, except what you already want to see. It has nothing to do with failed political philosophy and everything to do with institutional racism, and also human nature.

What is racist? Do these school systems you speak of also not require that their teachers have the same degrees and training that other schools have?

Do they not allow the same books to be used to teach by these college educated teachers?

Do they not require the students to achieve at the same levels other schools do?

What specifically is racist. Is this just some "phantom menace" that is unseen and uncorrectable? If so, I'd suggest that maybe there is something else in play other than racism. Possibly institutional incompetency, or simply a lack of good parenting by those who are putting their children through the school systems.

Minorities have less political power precisely because they are minorities, and as such can be subjected to any of a number of actions to keep them intentionally separate from the majority.

Once again, you show how little you understand of how humans work, preferring instead to think of how you think the world should operate, as opposed to how it actually operates.

I don't accept lame excuses for failure. I don't accept phantom rationales for not choosing to do the best possible. If all men are created equal, all should be mentally capable of meeting the same intellectual goals and if we use the same standards, then there should be no problem with everyone who chooses to achieve to do so. Some may choose not to rise to the challenge due to factors involving negative cultural or societal influences. That however, is not the fault of "racism."

If for some reasons the teachers aren't teaching what needs to be taught, then they need to be fired and competent teachers put into place. If the "minorities" don't have the power to do this, then it's not due to racism - but likely due to democrat backed teacher's unions. If the "minorities" don't have the power to persuade students to strive for success due to societal or cultural issues, then it's a failure on the parents part for not holding their children accountable for what they are capable of.

Really, the lame "it's racism" excuse, in a day and age where a Harvard educated black man is elected President by the people of America, just doesn't sound credible. That's not to say that there aren't racist people out there. It's just that the foundation for equal rights when equal standards are in play are broad based in the United States in the year 2011, and if there are problems, it's likely not ones of racism but rather a lack of competency on the part of those in charge.

I'm guessing in the case of the police officers, we aren't talking about them having to do calculus or give their analysis of physics based problems - just the sort of thing people with at least GED should be able to pass. If there's any advanced information, it would likely be related to law enforcement, and that's something that would be the responsibility of the applicant to find out about - not a failure on the part of a third party.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

"The most basic criteria" is ultimately a subjective standard. Do you have any idea what the practical difference in terms of on-the-job knowledge between a 66% and 58% score actually is?

Probably the same as it is when grading in schools.

The point is that a person is supposed to strive for 100%. Someplace under that you have to have a cut-off for failure. You can always push back that cut-off point to include more people, but you are just including more people who do not have the necessary knowledge to complete the task in question.

I don't, and I doubt you do either. So I'm not interested in having that kind of pointless debate with you. I'm happy to point out your hyperbole though in terms of the actual effects of this measure on the city of Dayton's police recruitment.

If a hospital is having troubles finding doctors, you'd be surprised what positive results in recruiting them they'd have if they just allowed anyone with a college degree to serve and be paid as a physician. Lowering standards will fill spots. It won't usually though end up with positive results.

I hope it will help drive this thread toward actual, informed conversation rather than frantic speculation.

I keep asking for specifics, but none seem to materialize. Just phantom accusations of "racism" as the cause of failure.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Probably the same as it is when grading in schools.

The point is that a person is supposed to strive for 100%. Someplace under that you have to have a cut-off for failure. You can always push back that cut-off point to include more people, but you are just including more people who do not have the necessary knowledge to complete the task in question.

Again, you do not know this, in this specific case. Do people who score 58% really have appreciably less required knowledge than people who score 66%? I don't know. I do know that Dayton's recruitment procedure puts both of those people at the very back of the line, and they are still subject to an interview board and background check, either of which they could fail. The system still rewards people who strive for 100%.

I keep asking for specifics, but none seem to materialize. Just phantom accusations of "racism" as the cause of failure.

I doubt very much that anyone here is in a position to answer your question, just as I doubt very much that you are in any position to answer my question about the relative value (specifically to the police force) of someone who scores 66% rather than 58%. However, a careful reading of the news articles and Dayton's police recruitment webpage (linked to earlier) does provide enough specific information to refute your claim that this policy forces Dayton to hire sub-standard police officers.

We could go on and on like this, but it's just mental masturbation on your part so you can exercise your outrage-muscles. I don't see why you should be so concerned if the practical impact is so minor.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Again, you do not know this, in this specific case. Do people who score 58% really have appreciably less required knowledge than people who score 66%? I don't know.

They have 42% less than those who at the top who know all the facts needed to be police officers. Those who scored 66% know 34% less than those at the top.

We don't need to know the difference between the two standards, as it would be exceedingly impossible to judge. It's the same as why IQ tests don't always accurately measure someone's actual intelligence.

What we do know is that both white and black applicants are held to the same standard, and same cut-off point. That cut-off point is essentially the same degree of mastery of the facts as is used in most any educational institute and has been deemed fair by people who are experts at judging the mastery of skills and knowledge of others for quite some time.

Besides, I can't see how a percentage is "racist" as it is determined prior to the race of the person in question even taking the test and is the same for both black and white test takers. It makes little sense to base mastery of facts on how many of a certain type of people either have that mastery, or don't. You decide what is necessary to know, and then have a scale with a cut-off point to judge where a level of lack of knowledge is not acceptable.

I doubt very much that anyone here is in a position to answer your question, just as I doubt very much that you are in any position to answer my question about the relative value (specifically to the police force) of someone who scores 66% rather than 58%. However, a careful reading of the news articles and Dayton's police recruitment webpage (linked to earlier) does provide enough specific information to refute your claim that this policy forces Dayton to hire sub-standard police officers.

If they are on "the line", regardless if it's in the back, when an opening comes up and the back of the line is where they have left to pick from, then those people would have to be hired. If there's no chance of them being hired, then there's no reason to have a lawsuit and for them to fight this.

Is this really all that complicated?

We could go on and on like this, but it's just mental masturbation on your part so you can exercise your outrage-muscles.

Either the people are qualified or not using standard criteria. If they are not, then they have no business having the government force them to be considered for such a position. Trying to justify anything else defies logic and that's the point where "mental masturbation" comes in.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If they are on "the line", regardless if it's in the back, when an opening comes up and the back of the line is where they have left to pick from, then those people would have to be hired.

Not if they fail the interview board. It sounds like you have not actually read the page that I linked to. Get back to us when you have.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Not if they fail the interview board.

...which is a step further than they should have got in the first place.

People who can't reach a minimum level of capability in areas that are deemed important shouldn't have the opportunity to possibly be put into a position where they will have to be hired.

AGAIN, if there's a chance that these people failing the test will become officers - that's something that should be avoided. If there's no chance, there's no reason to pass them through. The bottom line is that you are setting up a scenario where people who have established that they do not possess the most basic requirements to be eligible for a job, are possibly going to be in line for a job they are not qualified for - per government mandate. That's a bad plan all around.

It sounds like you have not actually read the page that I linked to. Get back to us when you have.

You are foisting arguments that are irrelevant to the larger point. Get back to us when you've got one that doesn't possibly end in someone failing the test, and getting on the force.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...which is a step further than they should have got in the first place.

People who can't reach a minimum level of capability in areas that are deemed important shouldn't have the opportunity to possibly be put into a position where they will have to be hired.

AGAIN, if there's a chance that these people failing the test will become officers - that's something that should be avoided. If there's no chance, there's no reason to pass them through. The bottom line is that you are setting up a scenario where people who have established that they do not possess the most basic requirements to be eligible for a job, are possibly going to be in line for a job they are not qualified for - per government mandate. That's a bad plan all around.

That's a perfectly understandable view. I hope you are as vigilant in rooting out double-standards in all aspects of life, although your responses to OldManMac suggest otherwise. I would only point out, in addition to your continued fuzzy definition of "the most basic requirements," that the interview board, by its very nature, provides a certain fail-safe mechanism in the process. I am sure there are many justifications, both real and imagined, that the panel could cite for not recommending a candidate for acceptance, regardless of his/her score. I notice, though, that you have backed away from your initial complaint that these applicants are being "forced" on the Dayton police force. I'm glad I could be of service.

Carry on making mountains out of molehills.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

That's a perfectly understandable view. I hope you are as vigilant in rooting out double-standards in all aspects of life, although your responses to OldManMac suggest otherwise. I would only point out, in addition to your continued fuzzy definition of "the most basic requirements," that the interview board, by its very nature, provides a certain fail-safe mechanism in the process.

It's a fail-safe to ensure that once it's clear that you have at the very least a reasonable grasp of basic knowledge necessary for the job, that the applicant doesn't have issues that prevent them from advancing that might not be exposed via that part of the hiring process.

At the point of this "fail-safe", it can be assumed that everyone getting to the interview process has shown at the least a minimum level of competence that had been pre-decided. Moving that level later in order to let unqualified applicants in due to race is just another in a long line of good intended, bad policy decisions based on the "soft bigotry of low expectations."

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's a fail-safe to ensure that once it's clear that you have at the very least a reasonable grasp of basic knowledge necessary for the job, that the applicant doesn't have issues that prevent them from advancing that might not be exposed via that part of the hiring process.

At the point of this "fail-safe", it can be assumed that everyone getting to the interview process has shown at the least a minimum level of competence that had been pre-decided.

Again, it's clear you have not read Dayton's recruitment web page. The interview is far more than a "fail-safe" check after establishing "minimum level of competence." The interview panel evaluates "problem solving, decision making, maturity, responsibility, leadership, and common sense," pretty basic "emotional competency" factors that would be a part of a baseline assessment of general competency. I referred to it as a "fail-safe" because the panel obviously has more latitude for interpretation than the written test, and, just like any job interview, it should be assumed that not everyone who appears before it is judged equally.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Again, it's clear you have not read Dayton's recruitment web page. The interview is far more than a "fail-safe" check after establishing "minimum level of competence." The interview panel evaluates "problem solving, decision making, maturity, responsibility, leadership, and common sense," pretty basic "emotional competency" factors that would be a part of a baseline assessment of general competency. I referred to it as a "fail-safe" because the panel obviously has more latitude for interpretation than the written test, and, just like any job interview, it should be assumed that not everyone who appears before it is judged equally.

You can use any semantic argument you like. The fact is that after the applicant shows mastery of basic knowledge, they go on to the next step which tests other skills and abilities to ensure that they can accomplish things other than their mastery of that basic knowledge.

In fact, most interview procedures I've ever taken part essentially tested how well you communicated and could find reasonable answers to non-knowledge based questioning. Being good at an interview process is how lots of unqualified applicants get into jobs they are not prepared for. I've hired many people whose resume looked good (dishonestly padded - found out after the fact) and did very well in a formal interview, but where not prepared for the job because they lacked some basic skills that we did not test for. The interview process is much more subjective - people can get a break because they are they have great personalities and know what to say when asked. The testing portion ensures that people who have the chance to do well on an interview has the very least amount of knowledge to do the job. IT DOES provide a "fail-safe" to weed out people who are unqualified but may do well in other portions of the job judging criteria.

A cop who can't add or subtract, write a report, or already have a basic grasp of the law isn't going to be a very good candidate for a job just because they come off as having a decent level of skills in "problem solving, decision making, maturity, responsibility, leadership, and common sense." That's why they have to pass the test.

It does no one any good to ignore the fact that these minorities lack basic knowledge to do the job, but might be good at other portions of the selection process. They have the tests for a reason, and it's not to disqualify minorities.