Sotomayor Overturned

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Do you honestly believe that this examination was slanted against minority candidates?

8 judges thought one way, and 5 judges thought the other. Do you honestly believe there is only one universally correct answer to the question?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>Do you honestly believe that this examination was slanted against minority
>candidates?

I don't know.

Are you 100% certain it was not?

Yep. Look at how it was created and graded. If anything, that would create a system slanted toward minorities.

Or are you postulating that the minority examiners, and the minorities polled to create the material were, in fact, themselves biased against minorities?

After a while, you just kind of have to accept that there's no real bias there, and that sometimes you're going to see different results for other reasons (like studying harder).

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Do you honestly believe that this examination was slanted against minority candidates?

8 judges thought one way, and 5 judges thought the other. Do you honestly believe there is only one universally correct answer to the question?

Yes, I do.

You are incorrect in saying that 8 judges thought that the exam was slanted. Those 8 judges thought that it had a disparate impact--that's different from a disparate process.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,076]

>Yep.

OK, then. You are far better informed than me, and better informed than four Supreme Court justices who heard the case. I'll give you that.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

You are incorrect in saying that 8 judges thought that the exam was slanted.

I didn't say that. Maybe I could have been clearer, but I was typing quickly.

Quote

Those 8 judges thought that it had a disparate impact--that's different from a disparate process.

Harumph!! I really do understand the basic vocabulary.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>Yep.

OK, then. You are far better informed than me, and better informed than four Supreme Court justices who heard the case. I'll give you that.

Can you show me where those justices thought the test itself was biased? It looked to me like they were saying that the disparate impact was the issue, regardless of the bias, or lack thereof, in the process.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

>Yep.

OK, then. You are far better informed than me, and better informed than four Supreme Court justices who heard the case. I'll give you that.

Can you show me where those justices thought the test itself was biased? It looked to me like they were saying that the disparate impact was the issue, regardless of the bias, or lack thereof, in the process.

Tom, you're getting bogged down in the semantics of layman's terms "slanted", "biased", etc. Stick to the meat.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Yep.

OK, then. You are far better informed than me, and better informed than four Supreme Court justices who heard the case. I'll give you that.

Can you show me where those justices thought the test itself was biased? It looked to me like they were saying that the disparate impact was the issue, regardless of the bias, or lack thereof, in the process.

Tom, you're getting bogged down in the semantics of layman's terms "slanted", "biased", etc. Stick to the meat.

I don't think I am.

Here's the thing. It looks to me like no one has seriously argued that the examination itself, the method of it's creation, it's administration, or it's grading was racially biased. The point that it was basically a fair and unbiased examination is basically conceded.

The real question under consideration is this:

"Even though the exam was totally fair, it has failed to yield a result consistent with our social engineering goals. Do we let the results stand, or insist on an exam that is biased in the other direction, in order to further pursue our social engineering agenda?"

The real fact is that the sample size (the number of people taking the exam) is not large enough to give us a statistically relevant result with regards to racial balance. The fact that the results appear to be racially slanted isn't terribly relevant with the small sample size. If we could enlarge the sample to hundreds of thousands of firefighters, maybe (in fact, probably) we'd see a different result.

In other words, we're crying "racism" when the evidence of it is extremely thin, and the evidence to the contrary is thick on the ground.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Ron 10]

Quote

Well, in the Australia case it was - it was a test designed for aboriginal inhabitants of Queensland.

It does not matter, if the test was to perform a job that those skills were needed, it would be a good test.

Quote

As an example, if you did an intelligence test with one test in English, and one in Swahili, do you think the results would show a racial bias? Would that be because one race is dumber/smarter than another, or would it be that Swahili-speakers are primarily one race?

And if you had to two instructors teaching a FJC to two groups of people that speak different languages and at the end of the FJC you held up a picture of a line over.... Don't you think both groups of students should be able to respond correctly or not be allowed to jump? Or do you think only one set should have to answer correctly and jump both groups anyway?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Para_Frog 1]

He is sticking to the meat. What you're avioding is what appears to be a characteristic bias on the part of the judges.

BLUF - Political Correctness blinded the municipal government and their lawyers. They fucked up. They got called on it, and a few jurists saw things their way. SCOTUS worked.

The city appeared to do it's due-dilligence correctly, and as Tom said - if anything, the test should have come out with a bias against non-minorities.
What happened is a bunch of lawyers got scared of the big bad wolf that is the affirmative-action lawsuit, because in that department - during that test phase - the black candidates just didn't score high enough.

Bill...I got what you were saying, but, I like you, couldn't find a modern example. And I doubt this case was such an example.

(Question #43 - What is step two of the secret whitey handshake?)

It just isn't there. I can't think of a single question I've seen on any promotion exam that I am better equiped to answer because I am white. Better educated? Perhaps. And I suppose that can be correlated to race by someone, but tough shit. I have many superiors of color who are better educated than me. They managed without a crutch. I know of one in particular who had his education paid for because he's black. And good for him.

Tom...thanks for the research - been a busy day in the salt mines.

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[Para_Frog 1]

Quote

"Even though the exam was totally fair, it has failed to yield a result consistent with our social engineering goals. Do we let the results stand, or insist on an exam that is biased in the other direction, in order to further pursue our social engineering agenda?"

Perfectly summarized.

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[billvon 3,076]

>It does not matter, if the test was to perform a job that those skills
>were needed, it would be a good test.

It was a general intelligence test. If that test was applied to US employees to determine their fitness for a job, it would be a biased test.

>And if you had to two instructors teaching a FJC to two groups of people that
>speak different languages and at the end of the FJC you held up a picture of a
>line over.... Don't you think both groups of students should be able to respond
>correctly or not be allowed to jump?

Yes.

Now imagine those two instructors, one speaking English, one speaking Japanese. In the class were Japanese, Spanish and English speaking students. The Spanish student did very poorly on the final test, administered in English.

Was that a fair test? Could you therefore conclude "Spanish people cannot safely skydive?"

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

In other words, we're crying "racism" when the evidence of it is extremely thin, and the evidence to the contrary is thick on the ground.

This is outside the norm, how?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Para_Frog 1]

The assumptions of the original exercise:

Native English speaking firefighters (Cept maybe the hispanic guy who passed the test - I have no idea)

Tested in English

Standard atmospheric pressure throughout the room.

#2 pencils.

Now Bill and Ron come up with something more in line with the issue at hand.

I can't even think of a question that would be skewed strictly by skin color.

(#22 - What SPF is the best for you in August?)

I mean really.

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

It was a general intelligence test. If that test was applied to US employees to determine their fitness for a job, it would be a biased test.

Yes, but it wasn't.

Despite your repeated efforts to draw some kind of parallel between this weird 80 year old test you dredged up and this modern, unbiased examination, there is none.

This exam wasn't biased. No one aside from you is saying that it was.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

In other words, we're crying "racism" when the evidence of it is extremely thin, and the evidence to the contrary is thick on the ground.

I don't think we're crying "racism", or if we are, we shouldn't be. The intent of the test creators here is irrelevant. What's relevant is that there was a racial disparity from the test. If that racial disparity was derived purely from testing the skills required for the job, then there's no problem (which is what the majority of the Supreme Court appear to believe). However, if the racial disparity was derived from a test of a skill or trait that doesn't directly apply to the job, then there's an issue. To make an ridiculous, extreme example, if they said "We're only hiring people currently wearing white shoes" and there was a racial disparity (in either direction), then that's a problem.
Or such is my layman's interpretation of the law.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Now imagine those two instructors, one speaking English, one speaking Japanese. In the class were Japanese, Spanish and English speaking students. The Spanish student did very poorly on the final test, administered in English.

Was that a fair test? Could you therefore conclude "Spanish people cannot safely skydive?"

Please explain what relevance this example has to the case at hand.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Ron 10]

Quote

It was a general intelligence test.

And if that general intelligence test was required knowledge.... then it is not a biased test.

Quote

Was that a fair test? Could you therefore conclude "Spanish people cannot safely skydive?"

And you would let them just because they didn't understand due to them not speaking English?

Besides... you are changing the example... TWO, not three groups, each with its own instructor.

You are unable to show how a job skills test can hold a bias... That is without reaching back into the distant past.

For your argument to be relevant... You would need a real world example that held a bias on a job skill of a group that is supposed to have that job skill.... You have failed to provide that.

There is no doubt that in the past there have been issues... But you are unable to show how being of one race is a disadvantage on a job skill test. Rules and procedures are rules and procedures no matter what color you are.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[redlegphi 0]

It doesn't matter if the test has racially biased questions like billvon put out earlier. All that matters is that:

1) A racial disparity existed after the test
2) That racial disparity was caused by an aspect of the test that didn't specifically test the ability of the applicant to do the job applied for.

I don't think anybody debates that #1 happened. Where the debate happened is #2.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

What's relevant is that there was a racial disparity from the test. If that racial disparity was derived purely from testing the skills required for the job, then there's no problem (which is what the majority of the Supreme Court appear to believe). However, if the racial disparity was derived from a test of a skill or trait that doesn't directly apply to the job, then there's an issue.

Yep. And this test only examined job related skills. There is absolutely no indication to the contrary.

The minority here doesn't argue that the test was biased--they concede that it was fair. They are arguing that regardless of the test's fairness, it failed to achieve a specific social engineering goal, and that it's failure to achieve that goal is sufficient grounds to invalidate it.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

It doesn't matter if the test has racially biased questions like billvon put out earlier. All that matters is that:

1) A racial disparity existed after the test
2) That racial disparity was caused by an aspect of the test that didn't specifically test the ability of the applicant to do the job applied for.

I don't think anybody debates that #1 happened. Where the debate happened is #2.

Negative.

The debate on the court is over whether #2 matters at all.

The majority argues that it's ok to have #1, because the test was unbiased.

The minority argues that #1 is not allowable--even though the test was unbiased.

The debate is not over whether the test was biased or not--it is basically agreed that it was not biased.

The debate is over whether an unbiased test matters, if the results don't square up to the preconceived notion about the outcome.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,076]

>And if that general intelligence test was required knowledge.... then it is
>not a biased test.

"General" is the opposite of "specific."

>And you would let them just because they didn't understand due to them not
>speaking English?

No, because the test was biased against them, and they could not be fairly evaluated by the test. If they had previous skydiving experience, and they could pass a test in Spanish concerning everything that was covered in the FJC - would you still claim that they're not good enough to skydive, based on their inability to pass a test in English or Japanese?

[billvon 3,076]

>Despite your repeated efforts to draw some kind of parallel between this weird
>80 year old test you dredged up and this modern, unbiased examination, there is
>none.

Nor did I claim that there was. Parafrog could not believe that there were such biased tests. I provided an example of such a test. That does not mean that they are the same, or even similar.

You are getting nearly as good as MNealTX at intentional misunderstanding!

[redlegphi 0]

Below is a quote directly from Ginsburg's dissent. The bolded bit is especially important.

Between January and March 2004, the CSB held five public meetings to consider the proper course. At the first meeting, New Haven’s Corporation Counsel, Thomas Ude, described the legal standard governing Title VII disparate-impact claims. Statistical imbalances alone, Ude correctly recognized, do not give rise to liability. Instead, presented with a disparity, an employer “has the opportunity and the burden of proving that the test is job-related and consistent with business necessity.” CA2 App. A724. A Title VII plaintiff may attempt to rebut an employer’s showing of job-relatedness and necessity by identifying alternative selection methods that would have been at least as valid but with “less of an adverse or disparate or discriminatory effect.” Ibid. See also id., at A738. Accordingly, the CSB Commissioners understood, their principal task was to decide whether they were confident about the reliability of the exams: Had the exams fairly measured the qualities of a successful fire officer despite their disparate results? Might an alternative examination process have identified the most qualified candidates without creating such significant racial imbalances?

Seeking a range of input on these questions, the CSB heard from test takers, the test designer, subject-matter experts, City officials, union leaders, and community members. Several candidates for promotion, who did not yet know their exam results, spoke at the CSB’s first two meetings. Some candidates favored certification. The exams, they emphasized, had closely tracked the assigned study materials. Having invested substantial time and money to prepare themselves for the test, they felt it would be unfair to scrap the results. See, e.g., id., at A772–A773, A785–A789.

Other firefighters had a different view. A number of the exam questions, they pointed out, were not germane to New Haven’s practices and procedures. See, e.g., id., at A774–A784. At least two candidates opposed to certification noted unequal access to study materials. Some individuals, they asserted, had the necessary books even before the syllabus was issued. Others had to invest substantial sums to purchase the materials and “wait a month and a half for some of the books because they were on back-order.” Id., at A858. These disparities, it was suggested, fell at least in part along racial lines. While many Caucasian applicants could obtain materials and assistance from relatives in the fire service, the overwhelming majority of minority applicants were “first-generation firefighters” without such support networks. See id., at A857–A861, A886–A887.

A representative of the Northeast Region of the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters, Donald Day, also spoke at the second meeting. Statistical disparities, he told the CSB, had been present in the Department’s previous promotional exams. On earlier tests, however, a few minority candidates had fared well enough to earn promotions. Id., at A828. See also App. 218–219. Day contrasted New Haven’s experience with that of nearby Bridgeport, where minority firefighters held one-third of lieutenant and captain positions. Bridgeport, Day observed, had once used a testing process similar to New Haven’s, with a written exam accounting for 70 percent of an applicant’s score, an oral exam for 25 percent, and seniority for the remaining five percent. CA2 App. A830. Bridgeport recognized, however, that the oral component, more so than the written component, addressed the sort of “real-life scenarios” fire officers encounter on the job. Id., at A832. Accordingly, that city “changed the relative weights” to give primacy to the oral exam. Ibid. Since that time, Day reported, Bridgeport had seen minorities “fairly represented” in its exam results. Ibid.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Wtf was Sotomayor thinking?

Probably that the mere quality of being a minority (although, in this case, not a Latino--maybe that's just for women) would make one "wiser" regardless of actually having studied the material.

It's downright scary that promotions in a totally results-based profession could be awarded (or denied) based on skin color. I doubt very much that the fire cares what color the guys fighting it are. And if someone's home is consumed by an out of control blaze, it will be scant consolation to them that they have advanced racial "equity" by making such a sacrifice.

Which may explain her notablily racist comments.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln