Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by madanthonywayne, Jan 6, 2010.
There's no written test for street smarts, holmes.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Uh...why were minorities failing? Do you need white skin to be a good policeman/woman?
A good question
We don't know what the problems with the exam were. Which is why some want to presume that blacks are just less intelligent.
That's clearly racist, and disadvantages black people. Clearly.
So some of the white guys had the books from relatives who were firefighters? I got schoolbooks off my older siblings when I was at school too. Everyone does it. And there's not one fucking racist thing about it. If those guys got the study materials off previous generations of firefighters and those guys just happened to be white, that is not in any way the fault of the examiners, the guys who made the test, or the fire department.
Yes, they were white and hispanic, and scored well. The black guys failed. The white and hispanic guys qualified. The City piked and canceled the show. The document you linked shows all this, and shows that event he Supreme Court backed the white and hispanic firefighters.
Ginsburg says other cities have used "better tests" which have resulted in less racially skewed outcomes. First, that only means the tests were designed to allow more people to pass, or to make it easier to pass. Second, if you read further down that dissenting judge's remarks, his argument is that they should have found a way to promote more people from minorities simply because they're from minorities. In other words, he's a tool.
However, if you go waaaay down to the end of Ginsburg's remarks, you get:
Which I found interesting.
That's not the fault of anyone but the candidates.
Unfair comes into it when the City canned all of them just for being white and hispanic, or just because the black firefighters were so crap.
Speculation doesn't cut it
The prevailing theme of my response to your points is simply that while you argue fine abstract principles isolated in an ideological vacuum, you are not accounting for (A) American history in general, and (B) American constitutional and judicial history.
One specific point I'll make, though:
That's entirely speculative.
All things considered, I would suggest your outlook is more about black people than actual facts.
Well, that post seems entirely speculative to me. The US Supreme Court decided the facts really. The facts were that the firefighters passed or failed on their own merits, and the City was wrong to trash the results. The fact that all those black firefighters failed is not my fault, not the fault of whatever opinions you believe I may have, and is certainly not the fault of the fire department.
There is if previous generations of racist hiring policy have ensured that only white applicants have family members to give them books.
It's also nepotistic and so unfair on those grounds, regardless of any racial impact.
They didn't "just happen" to be white. They're white because of generations of racism in the hiring process.
Yes it is. They have a responsibility to come up with a fair test, not tainted by racial, class, familial, or other types of bias. They could change the test more frequently to prevent this sort of favoritism, but they chose not to, even when its impact became readily apparent.
On what grounds do you conclude that? The presumption that black people are inherently unqualified?
By "crap," you mean "not unfairly aided by relatives?"
Bookshops. At school if I needed a book that my siblings didn't already have, I went out and bought it. Well, ok, my parenys bought it.
So the white firefighters are actually a minority. And somehow being really fucking good means they only succeeded because of racist hiring policies?
There was no unfairness in the testing. The black firefighters were not in any way disadvantaged by any sort of unfairness in the tests. The court case proved this.
The statement in the judges' decision, that more people passed.
I mean they were crap. They could have bought the books. They could have borrowed the books. They could have done any number of things. The Supreme Court found that all the candidates had equal preparation time and such. But they failed.
And if the books require 4 weeks to order, and the test is in 6 weeks? That gives those who can get free books from their family a substantial advantage in study time. Likewise, said family members can tell them what sort of material is on the test, greatly increasing the efficacy of their study time.
Or are you totally unaware of the circumstances of the case in question?
How can we be sure that they were so fucking good when racist hiring policies were in place? Where are these presumptions of qualifications coming from?
Sure they were. The test was nepotistic and, given the history of racist hiring, by that virtue racist as well. Anyone who has ever taught a college class knows that tests that are not changed frequently enough disadvantage those students who don't have access to friends/family that have already taken the test.
Court cases don't "prove" anything, in the existential sense of the word. They tell us what some set of judges and/or jurors think about something.
And how do you conclude that the people taking that test weren't simply more qualified?
They did buy the books. But it takes several weeks for the books to be shipped to you, leaving you scant time to actually study them.
Like petition for a fair test?
If they did, they're wrong.
The US Supreme Court found not one shred of evidence of any sort to support any claims that the preparation and examination process was unfairly biased against the black firefighters. Nothing. Nada. Zip. They had access to the materials, they did study, and they failed.
Shoe me these racist hiring policies that somehow affected the people in question.
Liar. The Supreme Court found it completely fair.
They certainly prove more than people ranting on Internet forums about shit they know nothing about.
As you can see in my previous post, I concluded that more people passed.
Good for you. Go find out how long each candidate had to wait for a book. And keep in mind that Ricci couldn't even read his; he's dyslexic and had someone read it on tape for him. He still passed. The black firefighters failed.
Libraries, other firefighters. Or, you know, go and purchase the books. Which they did. And they still failed.
They already had a fair test. The US Supreme Court found not one shred of evidence hinting at any sort of unfairness.
Why? Because you want the black firefighters to have passed? Bad luck. They failed.
Oh? Then what's with those dissenting opinions? Do you understand that this was a 5-4 ruling?
The New Haven fire department openly aknowledges its long, embarassing history of racist hiring policies. That's why they were on the look-out for disparate impact liabilities in the first place. And it's also why only applicants of certain races have family members to provide them with unfair guidance to the test.
So how do we know the test wasn't just easy, or rigged?
That I disagree with the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling does not make me a "liar" any more than it makes the 4 dissenting justices "liars."
Hearsay is when someone relates something they heard someone else say about something else. You can call me assertion unbacked if you like, but I'm still not hearing any actual disagreement with it. And it's certainly not "hearsay."
Have you ever taught a college class? Ever taken one?
No, that more people passed was a basic fact you started from. You concluded that the test must have been easier, without accounting for the possibility that the testees were more qualified.
Which is interesting: when black people fail a test, it's because they're unqualified. But when black people pass a test, it's because the test is easy. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that you assume black people are unqualified to begin with, and then assess test results based on that supposition.
No they didn't.
You mean, 5 of the 9 Justices concurred that the evidence was insufficient?
No, because the assertion of fairness conflicts with reality.
What I want is a fair system that provides equal opportunity. Which, in this particular case, would have resulted in more black applicants passing, yes.
umm, i can see quite a good reason for the police at least (as well as medical services if not fire services) to want a good mix of ethinics reflecting the various cultures of those they are serving. Its alot easier to communicate with someone if you are fluent in there language just for starters.
The dissenting opinion from Ginsburg:
Don't blame me. Blame the US Supreme Court.
Actually that was the City.
You're assuming none of the black firefighters had relatives, friends, or other associates involved in firefighting who might assist them.
You're also assuming all the white firefighters had relatives, friends, or other associates involved in firefighting who might assist them.
Because the US Supreme Court said so, and you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist. But feel free to show how the test was some evil conspiracy to keep the black man down.
The dissenting opinion from Ginsburg:
Don't blame me. Blame the US Supreme Court.
Well, I didn't hear you say any unsupported nonsense, but I saw it. Call it Looksay or Seesay if you want. You still did it.
How is that applicable to the Supreme Court ruling in favour of those white firefighters?
My conclusions are the facts. My beliefs = facts. I concluded that more people passed. Here it is again:
"that more people passed."
Actually they failed a difficult test because they were crap. They pass in other places because: the tests in other places are "better" as one judge said; the tests in other places are easier; or the black firefighters in other places are smarter.
You draw whatever conclusions you like, but you're working on a straw man there.
The US Supreme Court disagrees with you.
I mean the US Supreme Court found not one shred of evidence hinting at any sort of unfairness.
Apparently the US Supreme Court and the City of New Haven conflict with reality too then.
Maybe they just need to be smarter.
Ah, the promotions came through. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you want to complain about them, complain about their website design skills. Their website sucks arse.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is stupid. They failed the exam. If most folks fail an exam, they repeat the study and/or the exam. But a minority with lots of presence in the media? Oh hell no. It must be about racism!
Grow the fuck up. If you fail, you're not good enough. Study harder. Learn more. Get better. Stop blaming your failures on others.
the fact of the matter is most first generation imigrants from non english speaking countries have a very low grasp of english. You try even explaining to them a simple thing like "We need to take you to hospital so your head can be stiched back up from that fall", its not easy (that was from a real case, from memory it was a chiness imigrant and we were lucky that his daughter who DID speak english was there). Further more there are cultural issues to be concidered as well. I doubt you would suggest that the rape squad (and all the medical staff who deal with rape victoms) should be all male would you? Lastly its easier for people of the same background to get infomation than for other officers who dont speak the language and dont understand the culture. Just look at the history with the Australian mobsters just before (i think but it could have been just after) WW2 or the vietnamise gangs after the vietnarm war. the majority of the crimes were "contained" with in these ethnic groups and police had a very hard time getting witnesses and infomation to actually tackle the crimes (thats why the asian gang squads ect were set up)
1. How did you get on to immigrants?
2. Nobody is obligated to change their language to cater to visitors. If you come into my home, you learn my language and my customs, or you get out.
so you would accept the police being unable to find any witnesses to the murder of your relitive of choice (child, parent, partner, sibbling) because they couldnt communicate with the very people who may have witnessed the murder because of a stupid ideal?
So because I think people should learn the ways of the place they move to, that somehow equates in your brain with my being ok with murder and with murderers getting away with it?
I don't understand why the politicians do what they do here.
Separate names with a comma.