| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kepler
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
|
 Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 4:56 pm Post subject: Time to Revise the Civil Rights Act? |
 |
|
"After two Supreme Court decisions with very different results in the last year, public employers can be sued for using tests that screen out most blacks and other minorities; they also can be sued by high-scoring white applicants if the test scores go unused.
"The apparent conflict is built into the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the justices said Monday. 'It is a problem for Congress, not one federal courts can fix,' Justice Antonin Scalia said.
"He spoke for the court in a 9-0 ruling in a case that began in 1995 when 26,000 applicants took a written test to become city firefighters. Faced with the large number applicants for only several hundred jobs, the city decided it would only consider those who scored 89 or above.
"This cut-off score excluded a high percentage of the minority applicants....
"Earlier this year, a lawyer for black applicants estimated the total damages in the case could reach $100 million."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-firefighters-discrimination-20100525,0,6405197.story |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chicago's deficit is 300million.
All these court decisions on testing and discrimination. At some point the US is going to have a serious and uncomfortable conversation about group differences. Can't afford not to. Literally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Disparate impact is a concept that needs to be removed from the law. Actively, intentional discrimination should be illegal, but if you say you're only taking candidates who are over a given test score, demographics are incidental. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Disparate impact is a concept that needs to be removed from the law. Actively, intentional discrimination should be illegal, but if you say you're only taking candidates who are over a given test score, demographics are incidental. |
Under Equal Protection, disparate impact needs be accompanied by discriminatory intent (Washington v. Davis). But the Civil Rights Act was passed in a time when discriminatory intent was widespread all over the South. I suppose they wanted to lower the standard of evidence. But, it seems now the Civil Rights Act may need an update. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I sincerely hope no one here is dim enough to agree with the NAACP lawyers on this issue. This goes well beyond the realm of insanity and into the land of movies with bad plotlines. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kabrams
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Location: your Dad's house
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
Chicago's deficit is 300million.
All these court decisions on testing and discrimination. At some point the US is going to have a serious and uncomfortable conversation about group differences. Can't afford not to. Literally. |
And what are those differences, exactly?
Let's have the conversation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conrad2
Joined: 05 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kabrams wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
Chicago's deficit is 300million.
All these court decisions on testing and discrimination. At some point the US is going to have a serious and uncomfortable conversation about group differences. Can't afford not to. Literally. |
And what are those differences, exactly?
Let's have the conversation. |
One difference is that evidently minorities tend to not score as high as whites on fire department examinations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
travel zen
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Location: Good old Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Disparate impact is a concept that needs to be removed from the law. Actively, intentional discrimination should be illegal, but if you say you're only taking candidates who are over a given test score, demographics are incidental. |
+1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kabrams wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
Chicago's deficit is 300million.
All these court decisions on testing and discrimination. At some point the US is going to have a serious and uncomfortable conversation about group differences. Can't afford not to. Literally. |
And what are those differences, exactly?
Let's have the conversation. |
Arson is naughty. Put down the match. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kabrams wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
Chicago's deficit is 300million.
All these court decisions on testing and discrimination. At some point the US is going to have a serious and uncomfortable conversation about group differences. Can't afford not to. Literally. |
And what are those differences, exactly?
Let's have the conversation. |
The gauntlet has been laid, Mr. Mises. Do you choose to accept the challenge?
(40 paces and all that....) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| kabrams wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
Chicago's deficit is 300million.
All these court decisions on testing and discrimination. At some point the US is going to have a serious and uncomfortable conversation about group differences. Can't afford not to. Literally. |
And what are those differences, exactly?
Let's have the conversation. |
The gauntlet has been laid, Mr. Mises. Do you choose to accept the challenge?
(40 paces and all that....) |
Different groups perform differently on different tasks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
| kabrams wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
Chicago's deficit is 300million.
All these court decisions on testing and discrimination. At some point the US is going to have a serious and uncomfortable conversation about group differences. Can't afford not to. Literally. |
And what are those differences, exactly?
Let's have the conversation. |
The gauntlet has been laid, Mr. Mises. Do you choose to accept the challenge?
(40 paces and all that....) |
Different groups perform differently on different tasks. |
Then obviously the tests are flawed because everyone is exactly the same, so any difference in test results have to be due to the test failing the applicants, NOT the other way around.
 Right? 
Tests are inherently discriminatory. Time to do away with them. (or at least teachers marking them.  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sure, at some point in the last 15 years, someone evaluated the test that was given. I'm sure it was analyzed in court. I'm sure it was found to be an ordinary competency exam.
If the test accurately depicts knowledge of the duties required of fire fighters, then we should be glad that we are not being served by a "ethnic rainbow" of inferior fire fighters.
If the test does not accurately depict knowledge of the duties of fire fighters, then they should have revised the test and reissued it in the last century.
As it stands, sucks to be you if you fail a competency exam. Most service sectors require it and hire based on the results. This is neither new nor special. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Tests are inherently discriminatory. |
Yes, tests are inherently discriminatory. They discriminate in favor of the qualified. That's their entire purpose. If a group performs more poorly on average on a test, then either that group is less qualified on average, or the test is not correctly testing for qualification. There's nothing racist about that, and there's nothing unfair about that; diversity is fine, but companies and organizations (especially ones which perform vital, potentially life-saving services) shouldn't be forced to hire less qualified people just to create it. They should simply be barred from discriminating based on race, or even taking race into consideration at all.
If anyone here can prove one of these tests is not accurately testing for qualification, that's an argument worth hearing. Outside of that, I don't see the complaint. Yes, tests discriminate, but they don't discriminate racially. Any racial impact is incidental; there's no question one can ask on a test that a member of race A can know, but a member of race B cannot. The answers to minorities doing poorly is not to lower standards; that's not going to improve our society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
