Firefighters and the Simmering Race Problem
When you first look at it, the lawsuit brought by eighteen white firefighters against the city of New Haven doesn't seem relevant to everybody's daily life. But it is. The central dispute in the case is over race and how it affects who gets hired, who gets promoted, and why. Let me summarize the facts before looking deeper. We have to look deeper, though, because the stalemate in race relations must be broken somehow.
The case is well known by now. In 2003, the city of New Haven devised a promotion test for their fire department. They thought the test was unbiased, but when the results came in, no black firefighters passed, which meant that no black fireman, however long his experience, could be raised to the rank of lieutenant or captain. (One Latino fireman, who joined the lawsuit, also passed the test.)
It was a classic affirmative action divide but also a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't," as the Supreme Court pointed out last week in its various decisions and dissents. Faced with a possible lawsuit from white firemen if they threw out the test and from black firemen if they didn't, the city canceled all promotions. They got sued anyway, and the Supreme Court, divided 5-4 between the liberal and conservative wing, ruled in favor of the white firefighters. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, said the court, can't be overridden by deciding to do nothing. Now the case has been returned to the lower courts to be retried.
I think all of us should ask, who was right here? Can anyone's conscience be certain? Just last week the Supreme Court was so anxious about racism returning to elections in the South that they refused to release Southern states from special scrutiny under the Voting Rights Act. But this isn't solely a Southern issue. There's a simmering resentment about affirmative action in this country, four decades after the practice, which was meant to be temporary, began.
Looking deeper, I don't think this is a case about racism. It's a case about doubt, impatience, exasperation, and false promises. Everyone wants discrimination to come to an end; everyone acknowledges that the process takes time. But hope and good wishes aren't enough. On the side of the white majority, you can't mandate equality and then live so unequally that black education, housing conditions, and social status are totally unequal. On the black minority's side, you can't ask for special treatment without any end in sight.
What bothers me about the New Haven case isn't that somebody might get treated unfairly, although that's a serious concern, of course. It's the sad fact that no black firemen passed the test. One sees, with a mixture of guilt and sympathy, impatience and resentment, that fifty years of mandated equality has come nowhere near the ideal. Black ghettos are more isolated than ever, with entrenched behaviors ranging from drug peddling, street crime, and hatred of the police, to reverse racism that blocks any significant progress. One sees on the White side a lingering racism, desire to hold on to power, social suspicion, and fear. Barack Obama eloquently addressed this during his campaign speech on race last spring.
The central point of the speech still holds good. Both sides of the color divide have their grievances; both sides are justified; both sides need to get over it with as much good will and honesty as they can muster. The New Haven firefighters case doesn't help, and one can only hope it doesn't incite a wave of discriminatory hiring. (Not just municipalities are affected. This case affects hiring, firing, and promotion in the private sector, too.) The good thing about the case is that it reminds us, not of the racist past, but of the difference between telling minorities that they are equal and making that equality real in everyday life. Closing that gap is something we can't shirk, no matter who wins in court and who loses.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The foundation for all of this is economic. Jobs are scarce because: manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas, increases in productivity means same output with fewer jobs, and loss of jobs means loss of demand.
When jobs are scarce, people group together to secure an advantage in competing for jobs. Cultural factors may have defined the groups initially, but economics keeps them bound together.
Capitalism has no morality and those who worship at its alter likewise have none. Everyone should be guaranteed a job, and no one has a right to complain about welfare unless and until jobs are available to all who are able to work. If society does not provide a guaranteed job, nor an adequate alternative support (welfare) system, then criminal activity and continuing internecine warfare should come as no surprise to anyone.
Affirmative action is a tough call. When I was getting my BS, there was no scholarship money for a white girl, no matter how poor. Well, I couldn't think of a better answer at the time, so I lumped it. The problem, as Chopra points out, is when and how to end affirmative action. Both sides have responsibilities here; I do not see minority/white leader cooperating on how to end the need for affirmative action.
I have never regretted being on the "wrong side" of affirmative action in the 70s, because some of the people I knew who got in and got help via affirmative action did so well. Not all, but enough for me to consider it worthwhile.
Part I:
The ignorance of the average "white" person regarding race is astounding. White females have benefited the most from affirmative action. The term "gender" was introduced in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by a Southern congressman for the express purpose of diluting the rights of blacks. It has worked perfectly. The amount of money spent on programs for white women (such as Title IX) dwarves amounts spent specifically to remedy the effects of racism. The progress of white women in colleges, universities, professional schools and the job market has greatly outpaced that of blacks of either gender. Look at EEO-1 data regarding law firms, for example. White women now earn more than black MEN and black women. The notion that white women have not been helped by affirmative action is ludicrous, ahistorical and typical of most whites today.
Affirmative action, like Reconstruction, lasted for about 14 years. The Bakke case was decided in 1978. To be truthful, however, the attack already started in 1974 (the first reverse discrimination case was filed). So, affirmative action began a slow death in 1978.
But, on what basis should we decide when to end affirmative action? Alot of you seem to think that it should be based on whether or not overt discrimination exists. I disagree. Slavery was never about social exclusion; it was about creating white wealth with black labor. Social exclusion was a consequence of this fundamental economic relationship.
The word "gender" does not appear in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Part II:
In 1863, blacks had zero cents for every dollar of wealth that whites had. Accordingly, we should end affirmative action when blacks and whites enjoy rough parity in the distribution of wealth. As blacks today have between 7 to 11 cents for every dollar that whites have, you can understand why I believe that a cry to end affirmative action now is patently absurd on its face. Given these wealth disparities, racism is not "a thing of the past," but rather has concrete effects today.
Moreover, we need to take a lesson from science and understand that race itself does not exist. It is merely a social construct that was invented by whites to justify the creation of white weatlh with black labor. Mr. Chopra cites innercityviolence. Newspapers from the early 1900s wrote the same thing about Jews, who in fact organized a community policing movement to end crime. What we need to understand, as one Jewish writer during the time observed, is that the problems of the inner city are not an innate characteristic of its occupants but rather a consequence of the environment. Stephen Jay Gould uses an apt analogy: if Newton had focused on the unique characteristics of the apple, he would have never discovered gravity, because gravity is not "in" the apple, but part of its environment. If we study the apple and not wind resistance, then whatever answer that we get will be wrong.
Part III:
The same is true about racism. The answer is not in the blacks' genes, culture or any other reification. The answer will be found by changing the environmental conditions in which blacks live (legal, economic, social, etc.). Two quick examples: disparate sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine; and blacks under the Civil Rights Act are required to prove unequal pay was caused by racism, but white women under the Equal Pay Act are required to prove only that they were paid unequally.
"Ignorant" white person here. While you make some valid points, your basic premise that the plight of blacks in this country is based on some kind of lingering racism completely ignores the social factors, particularly the breakdown of the nuclear family within the black community. The solution therefore will be a cultural one, not some government mandated approach.
No one has ever challenged the legitimacy of the examination itself. Has the content of the examination ever been validated by a testing service, did the city of New Haven publish any guidelines or standards for answering the essay questions, was there a mechanism for verifying the results, were the scorers of the essay disinterested graders or other senior firefighters that have a vested interest in keeping management all-white, and has there ever been an independent audit of the examination? It's telling that prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 high stakes educational and occupational testing was non-existent, however, once minorities could compete for scarce resources a whole testing industry was born. Racial discrimination is masquerading as merit testing, it's amazing how many of these tests take place without the slightest mechanism for verifying anything about them, there's absolutely no transparency concerning the development, coordination or scoring of most tests. Until 1969, southern states used "Literacy tests" to disenfranchise blacks with advanced degrees from voting while permitting white dirt farmers the right to vote, and the same type of rigged exam is being used against blacks. I guarantee you if both potions of the firefighter examination had been weighted equally, some black folks would have been on the promotional list. White folks will always come up with a way to defeat black self-actualization.
How many of you bleeding heart liberals would allow a surgeon to perform open heart surgery on you if you knew he graduated with affirmative action....
You know what they call someone who graduates from the absolute worst medical school with the lowest permissible GPA? "Doctor."
Incidentally, open heart surgery was pioneered by a black man.
The Surgeon you refer to was Dr Daniel Hale Williams. Dr Williams was accepted to Northwestern (then Chicago) medical school not on the basis of a minority quota but on his abilities. He was able to pass the tests without the help of affirmative action. He went on to became surgeon-in-chief at Freedmen's Hospital in Washington, D.C.
All without affirmative action. If he were alive today he is someone I would want as my Doctor. Not because of his race but because of his abilities.
Minorities today have opportunities that he never dreamed of if only they work and take advantage of them. They will not be automatically given because they are a minority.
We all know white guys don't receive any preferential treatment and legacy admissions aren't affirmative action for rich white boys. Trust, but verify--until testing is more transparent the results will always be suspect. It's strange how testing services never want to open up themselves to any outside scrutiny. The Department of Education's Civil Rights Division needs to start auditing both educational and occupational tests to verify results. I know a lot of white guys that have been given a free pass. It's funny, if one black person gets a white man's job the whole concept of Affirmative Action has to be scrapped, while blacks can lose jobs to unqualified whites by the hundreds-o
You are a f00|...
If you want to do well, study and work hard. Doesn't matter what color you are at all!
I can tell you exactly why I did well in school (bad one), while my classmates of other races did not: while I studied and worked my butt off, they skipped classes and dealt drugs. Don't try saying that is just stereotypes, as I witnessed it first hand.
Name one documented instance where a black person was fired from a job to hire an underqualified white person. Just one.
It's funny, I know more r@c1$ts that are black than are white...
We lay people seem to have trouble understanding discrimination in employment. In short, the Court recognizes certain standards of proof as determinate in employment discrimination. In this case, disparate or adverse impact seems to be that standard that the lower district court recognized.
The issue with this case is that there was an academic test, which was passed by many people, but no AAs got a high enough score to be in the top 3. With what the lower court upheld, it creates a situation to where they must disregard test results if minorities are "under represented". That is called a racial quota, and it is absolutely discrimination.
As I have said many times before, there is no such thing as a question that is biased against a particular color skin. If we adopt what many people on here seem to be wanting, we might as well do away with merit altogether and only consider race quotas. Afterall, that is apparently more important that actual test scores.
One of the things that bugged me about the test which wasn't publicized enough if at all was the fact that the test given was a brand new test. It wasn't the usual test given. Now, New Haven I believe is 40% black and the the black firefighters who took the test had been on the job for several years. If they were not competent, why weren't they all fired? I read an article by a California congresswoman who said that she had been subjected to standardized test over the years which asked what she called Regatta questions. For example, she was asked a question on the test where the answer was quiet. The question was about churches and the Congresswoman got it wrong because she said that she grew up in a Hispanic church with mariachi music blaring so, her church was never quiet. As for the Regatta question, she meant that test would ask questions about Regattas, which are boat races, and questions about the game of criket. Now, how many minorities know about these things? They don't belong on standardized tests and this is likely what happened in the firefighters test. Questions that whites might know more about than minorites because of class or social standing have been quite effective in eliminating minorities and keeping generations of firefighters on the job.
Can you provide any evidence that there were "Regatta" type questions on the exam"? My understanding is that it was based entirely on publicly available manuals of fire-fighting practice. In which way is that unfair or racist?
I'm white and I've never been to a regatta, a cricket game or any other aristocratic event, I believe the intention of a standardized test is to encourage critical thinking with respect to questions of this matter. I have to agree with the author, it is sad and perplexing as to why none of these men were able to meet the bar on the test. It is obviously not a matter of lack of ability, so we must address the heart of the issue. the author is right, after four decades of affirmative action we don't have any real results that we were promissed and there seems to be no end in sight. We need to re-think how we are going to move forward on these social inequallities.
Cricket has nothing to do with aristocracy. It's a primarily British sport that also thrives in India and Pakistan because of the Raj. Might as well wonder why the Brits don't play lacrosse.
A white Midwesterner probably wouldn't know what a regatta is, either, because racing watercraft isn't something done on the prairie. I'm from the coast in a town with half a dozen yacht clubs, and the phrase "Race Week" is used in place of "regatta." And I can't seem to find these mystical bowling alleys with liquor licenses you see all the time on TV and in movies beyond the local Jillian's franchise. All you're really doing here is changing the affirmative action criteria from ethnicity to socioeconomics, and we've already seen James Frey and Vanilla Ice misuse the latter to their professional advantage.
If one firefigher had 7 cents for every dollar that another firefigher had and the test materials cost $500 dollars, who would score higher on average? Ricci spent more than $1,000 to purchase study materials and studied 8 to 13 hours a day. Blacks have 7 to 11 cents for every dollar of wealth that whites have, which may in itself explain much of the disparity in test scores.
If the test were based on work performance, then one would assume that after having worked in the department for the requisite number of years just to be able to take the exam would be sufficient to pass the test with minimal or no study.
So this test (like most such tests) reflects class differences and advantages bestowed on whites as a result of racism (i.e., better schools, greater wealth, informal white networks). These advantages are not the "fault" of the individual white firefighters, but neither are the disadvantages the fault of the black firefighters. This decision effectively ignores the larger social question and places full responsibility for solving this structural problem on individual victims. Thus, it legitimates the inequality, and the role of goverment and the courts is not to correct the disadvantage by devising methods that neither reward whites nor punish blacks for the effects of institutional racism. The solution to institutional racism, then, is found in the individual and not the institution.
I disagree with your first paragraph. When working for any government agency, there are "civil service" titles which are provided with salary ranges which dictates that there is a fair compensation for duties. In many positions, tests have to be taken to get titles. Since workig for the NYCT I can guarantee that there is no shortage of African Americans who work here and have taken and passed tests resulting in promotions and salary increases.
As to your second paragraph I can guarantee you that there are tons of incompetents working amongst us (of all ethnicities). The reason is that it cost the city more to fire them (law suits) then it does to keep them lingering in these civil service titles.
"If one firefigher had 7 cents for every dollar that another firefigher had and the test materials cost $500 dollars, who would score higher on average? Ricci spent more than $1,000 to purchase study materials and studied 8 to 13 hours a day. Blacks have 7 to 11 cents for every dollar of wealth that whites have, which may in itself explain much of the disparity in test scores"
While Blacks may have 7-11 cents/dollar of wealth white have in the overall population, do you really believe that's true of Blacks and Whites in the same profession? Are you suggesting that White firefighters make 9-14x the salaries of Black firefighters, or that White firefighters tend to come from wealth?
That argument is empty.
Ricci spent $1000 on study material - do you know if he paid cash? Maybe he jacked up a credit card to do it thinking that it was an investment in getting a promotion and higher salary?
Yes, in fact, weatlh is not based on salary alone. We know, for example, that upper middle class blacks generally have less than half the amount of wealth of their white counterparts. This is only logical. Wealth (and the ability to pass it along from generation to generation) accurately reflects racism, as the wealth that the slaves created for whites did not just evaporate in thin air.
Let's look at the New Deal, Fair Deal and GI Bill. Blacks were excluded from Fair Deal legislation because 80% or more of them at the time were concentrated in agricultural or domestic labor (both categories were excluded from coverage). Blacks were also systematically excluded from the benefits of the GI Bill, including the low-cost financing for homes and educational assistance. So, if you examine the greatest transfers of wealth in the US, slavery and the New Deal/Fair Deal/GI Bill, blacks were left out. So, yes, even "working class" whites, who are gnerally third or fourth generation Americans, have more wealth than "working class" blacks. In fact, many "working class" whites live in neighborhoods that would be beyond their means had their parents or grandparents not helped them.
While whites like to speak about self-help and bootstraps, most have received enormous assistance from their families and white networks. In fact, many employers do not even advertise jobs, because of word of mouth. Police and fire departments are not all white because of merit.
Iris is one of those people that believes they deserve special consideration due to their color. Just look at her other comments..
Intelligence and hard work is not prejudiced. Anyone can do it. Whether they do or not is up to the individual.
Are you saying that nonwhite neighborhoods don't have access to public libraries?
"...both sides need to get over it with as much good will and honesty as they can muster."
Good will and honesty are often found in short supply surrounding these conversations.
You cannot cling to and cite the glorious past when it suits you if you do not also cling to and cite the murderous brutal past when it does not favor.
The civil right to vote and the right to do many other basic things are about forty years old. A time limit was placed on recovery but not expressions of brutality. Using the scientific method, might we not conduct a painful human experiment in reverse, to see the outcomes of such brutality on other hued people to determine if forty years is indeed enough time for a heavily burdened runner to catch a runner who was given every advantage available based on race for hundreds of years as brutal crime?
Mr. Chopra is correct. The larger issue is the inability of a single brown candidate to pass the test. Those in short-supply of good will and honesty are quick to jump on this as an indication of inferiority (though they never come right out and say it, which is the only thing I begrudge a cowardly bigot -- society or individual). Those in short-supply of good will and honesty seek no solutions to the problem of the inability of those who were brown and sat for the test to be able to pass the test.
So we should grade all tests based on "good will" instead of how many questions were answered correctly? How is this any different from the righties lowering testing standards for education?
You are wrong, a brown canidate did pass the test. Or is Latino not brown enough?
Seriously, you display much more bigotry than any of these firefighters. If you want a promotion and know there is a test to be taken, you should study.
Thank you for stepping up and providing a real world example of the damaging effects of a lack of good will. In your case, such seems to have attacked your ability to read and comprehend. Let us review:
"The larger issue is the inability of a single brown candidate to pass the test. Those in short-supply of good will and honesty are quick to jump on this as an indication of inferiority (though they never come right out and say it, which is the only thing I begrudge a cowardly bigot -- society or individual). Those in short-supply of good will and honesty seek no solutions to the problem of the inability of those who were brown and sat for the test to be able to pass the test."
The contrast between what I wrote and what your indoctrination caused you to read, could not be more glaring. Embrace good will and honesty while letting go of self-serving predisposed defensive posturing.
I know that there were targeted tutoring sessions for hispanic and asians in the Postal Service. Could the same hold true in the fire department?
That in and of itself is prejudiced. Why make it only open to hispanic and asians? What about whites and AAs?
People, if these guys really wanted to pass the test, they should have studied harder. Maybe when they take it again in the future, they will have learned their lesson...
So, you have never had a real job working for "the man," right?
New Haven is mostly minority and the city is taking minority tax money and using it to create jobs for white men. There is nothing "affirmative action" or "reverse discrimination" about that!
Public jobs should be held to an even higher standard. If you take money out of a community, the people in that community should have a fair chance at the jobs their tax money provide and they clearly do not in this case. They deserve a chance not just to get the jobs but to obtain promotions.
In private industry, if a company is all white men and you don't like that, you can just stop buying their products.
But you can't just stop paying taxes because they are mostly giving government jobs to white men.
I do not agree that both sides are "justified
They just sued to maintain their "top dog" positions because their scam to rig the test results in favor of the white guys back fired!
Thank you for showing your stunning level of bigotry.
There is no such thing as an academic test that favors one race over another. That is a complete fallacy pushed by people who are lazy. Study materials are available to all, and intelligence is universal.
Your arguments are where the problems with AA come in. Make it merit based, with no consideration for color. Any position should be held by a person who earned it, not by a person filling a racial quota.
If you believe requiring some studying for a test makes it unfair for certain people, I really pity you. That is an argument for a weak-willed person with no intellectual acumen.
Is it your intent to uplift or tear down? You make more progress through a loving touch than through hurled stones.
Your assertions are correct. Let all competition take place on a level playing field and to the winner go the spoils. That said, a word on discovery.
Word!
Mr. Chopra,
I hold you in such high esteem that it is difficult to believe that I am responding to one of your blog posts. However, I respond to correct the record, if I may. Contrary to your assertions, black firefighters did pass the exam, but the "rule of three" led to their non-selection. See text from the opinion:
Seventy-seven candidates completed the lieutenant examination—43 whites, 19 blacks, and 15 Hispanics. Of those, 34 candidates passed—25 whites, 6 blacks, and 3 Hispanics. Eight lieutenant positions were vacant at the time of the examination. As the rule of three operated, this meant that the top 10 candidates were eligible for an immediate promotion to lieutenant. All 10 were white. Subsequent vacancies would have allowed at least 3 black candidates to be considered for promotion to lieutenant.
Forty-one candidates completed the captain examina-tion—25 whites, 8 blacks, and 8 Hispanics. Of those, 22 candidates passed—16 whites, 3 blacks, and 3 Hispanics. Seven captain positions were vacant at the time of the examination. Under the rule of three, 9 candidates were eligible for an immediate promotion to captain—7 whites and 2 Hispanics.
in the lieutenants test 19 blacks took the test --almost the same numbers as whites(18) who failed
58%whites passed------33%of blacks passed-----20% hispanics passed
all 8 positions went to the whites
in the captains test there were more white guys who failed(9) than there were black guys(8) who took the test.
64% whites passed----
all 7 positions went to the whites.
it seems the policy failed because they chose only the highest scores.---
And if you are basing it on merit, wouldn't you want the highest scores?
Seriously, are you even listening to yourselves? All of you are sounding like you are only upset because a white person (and a latino) won over a black person. How about I get in the NBA based on diversity, not on any actual talent?
Or are you just looking for reasons to be offended?
One problem with the department's handling of this situation, is that they never followed up adequately with an effort to determine if the exam was indeed a flawed measure of job performance. Given the results and the concerns, that seemed like a logical and reasonable thing to do. And it ended up being one of the points made by the Supreme Court. With a good review of the exam, then maybe a more informed decision could have been made to address the situation. To drop the ball on that account shows the ineptitude of how the department handled the situation.
Our society is so afraid of lawsuits today, that common sense has taken a back seat.
All that they really had to do is review the test, and if it was found to have no problems in discrimination (which I am certain it would, as studying is not racial) leave things as they are. Lawsuit could be filed, but they would have their ducks in a row to defend.
Affirmative action is necessary as a remedy for past injustice. It is not "reverse discrimina
What bothers me about this case is that the Supreme Court is packed with dishonest, racist, reactionary men who wish to return our country to 1950, to preserve the spoils of our country to white men only, and send women back to the kitchens and minorities back to the lower-paid jobs.
Let's say a ticket seller told the potential customers to get into two lines, one male and one female, but then sold the first 150 (out of 300 total) tickets to men. When the women complain, the "law" tells the ticket seller to sell the remaining 150 tickets to women only. The next guy in line waiting for a ticket, Mr. Bakke, immediately whines that this is "reverse discrimination," and the right-wing jumps to his support. Mr. Bakke says the ticket seller should, from this point forward, sell half to women, half to men. But that means the men end up with 225 tickets and women only get 75, so the injustice is preserved.
Affirmative action is a remedy for past injustices. I would give all the promotions to members of previously excluded groups until the department fairly mirrors the society. Surely the firefighters working there have already been deemed qualified, otherwise they wouldn't have the job. The test is just another gimmick to exclude everyone but white men from the better jobs.
Sorry but discriminating against a new batch of people only creates new wrongs and doesn't solve the problem. Several new wrongs doesn't suddenly make something right & people who didn't cause the problem shouldn't be punished. Multiple choice tests test not only knowlege of subject but also READING ABILITY and ability to do nuance. Thats part of the problem because community college grads with strong language skills will always do better than people with basic high school and so-so language skills. The best solution is to fill in educational gaps not create new discriminations.
can the education gaps be filled in AFTER THE JOB WAS AWARDED.--
You are arguing the right-wing position, Mr. Bakke's claim: from here forward we'll be "fair," and let's just ignore all the past injustice. But my point is that we need not just ignore, and instead should design remedies for past injustice. One such remedy is to affirmatively seek out and bring into the professions members of the previously excluded groups until such time as their percentage mirrors that in society.
The ability of a firefighter to take a multiple-choice test says nothing of their performance.
As for some presumed reading deficiency, what is the factual basis for that claim? There is nothing in the record to suggest that the black firefighters can't read. And we know that women tend to perform higher than men on all verbal tests, which means they should have a majority women in the department if verbal skills were the most important criteria.
As for the position that "people who didn't cause the problem shouldn't be punished," that's just another way of saying that the excluded groups should be denied a remedy. After all, the personnel head who discriminated may have changed jobs, so everyone who was excluded has no rights, according to you. That's not justice -- it's just gotcha. Members of previously excluded groups should receive the benefits of affirmative action to bring them into each profession. That is the true remedy for past discrimination.
Is it possible that the legacy firefighters knew the test? Can we be sure no-one had prior tests?
I cannot begin to describe how terrifying, punitive and backwards this comment is. How long does your "remedy for past injustice" continue? How many race-based promotions and advancements does it take? Is there some sort of quantifiable point at which you've had enough? Or are you just so fixated on the concept of "restitution" that you haven't noticed that the way you spell it looks a lot more like "revenge".
You want to talk about your ticket seller? How about this - your analogy has him going from refusing one group on basis of gender to being forced to refuse another group for the same reasons. Switching from one bias to another. That's not progress. Affirmative action was necessary to break through the barriers of "soft racism" but any mandated selection criteria based on race or gender is a tool to be used with extreme care and discretion, not a hammer of justice to be wielded in a crusade. In an ideal America, we are judged "by the content of our character" - and that means advancement based on merit, not "fairly mirroring" population percentages.
I've never owned a slave. I've never conspired to grant or deny advancement or privilege on the basis of their skin color. I've never committed a hate crime. Do I deserve punishment too? Should I be denied promotions or opportunities because I happen to share a skin color with people who committed an injustice hundreds of years ago? Where does it end?
Exactly
Very well put Gravaton!
I tried a minute ago along the same lines, but you put it much better.
A point of clarification: Black and Hispanic firefighters had about the same pass/fail rate as their White counterpart but most scores were not high enough for them to be promoted to the limited amount of openings.
Second, there are better ways to test for competence then a written test. Ginsburg noted that the city of Bridgeport had the same problem and they change the exam to mostly oral. Now the Fire Department in Bridgeport closely resembles the community.
That's what I thought: that black firemen DID pass, just didn't achieve equally high scores. Of course, the end result is the same - that they couldn't be promoted. How do you mandate for a level playing field from which all participants will start, when the inequality is in the community? The oral test is a good idea but in my work with refugees and migrants I find that oral testing relies too heavily on a lack of bias or prejudice on the part of the tester when faced with unfamiliar or strong accents (English comprehension is usually good, just that the participants speak it differently).
There was an oral section on this test
How much more level should it be?
All were firemen with similar salaries.
All came from similar socio-economic background.
All were given the same test.
Anyone who doesn't consider this a level playing field is not interested in one.
These guys don't file reports orally, they must have a certain level of written proficiency. Otherwise they are not capable of performing their jobs.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
