Question #1: Which Dave Matthews song is best for putting out a fire?

Let's get back into the ring here at AofG and talk about something new -- like race, for example.  As many know, the Ricci v. DeStefano case was reversed by the SCOTUS yesterday.  Who do you think is right (or most right or least wrong)?  Personally, I don't see how a firefighters' exam could be racially biased, unless it was chock full of Dave Matthews trivia or something.  And contrary to what folks at the NAACP have claimed, it was not solely a written exam. There was also an oral portion (weighted at 40%) that involved a group of 30 assessors, the majority of whom weren't white.  And the ongoing infantilization of the black community by the NAACP is an entirely different tangent that I won't continue now (but will gladly address in the comments if someone else wants to).

Bottom line, many occupations utilize written examinations when evaluating individuals.  Sometimes you have to.  It's the only way to incorporate some kind of objective way to draw a distinction between candidates who appear to be equally qualified in terms of peer review, oral examination, and overall experience.  Throwing out the tests after the results come in  -- does everyone a disservice (particularly minority groups). You either re-test or you adjust future tests.  Instead, New Haven (and subsequently the District and Second Circuit Appellate courts) made a fuckin' mess of it all for political reasons. 

Of course, that's just one asshole's opinion.  What's yours?

Comments

[Vandelay]

What's yours?

I will go ahead and concur. I don't think it should even be up for debate.

[Mr. Kruger]

IMHO I don't see how any sane organization would pick out the best candidates for saving the most lives under extreme conditions by a freakin' multiple choice test- so retarded.

Not saying it was fair to have those people go through all that "studying" and then say "oh well we changed are minds, you don't really have a job." That's asinine.

BUT, that's New Havens problem. Fact is, in 1971 title VII of the Civil Rights Act which emanated out of a SCOTUS decision held that "a test that one racial group passed at less than 80 percent the rate of another group would place an employer in presumptive violation of Title VII." I believe New Haven's disparity was 88%? So, if you want your judges to follow the law and not their politics then this was one followed to the T.

AND, the Supreme Court today, (as I'm shamelessly basing my opinion on Linda Greenhouse's NYT Edit.) shifted from the original reading of the law to a far more narrow one opening up a whole new can of worms involving statistical disparity v. racial profiling. Huge mess. I think it would have been better for the Supreme Court to have upheld the law as it is [was] written.

[jackie]

And the ongoing infantilization of the black community by the NAACP is an entirely different tangent that I won't continue now (but will gladly address in the comments if someone else wants to).

Expound.

[Jack Klompus]

"I don't see how any sane organization would pick out the best candidates for saving the most lives under extreme conditions by a freakin' multiple choice test- so retarded."

Once again, the written exam was not the only criteria. Conversely, it would be foolish to rely only on oral exams as well. The idea behind the written exams is to provide a more objective or neutral angle. Relying only on a human to make the assessment is far less neutral (and open to bias) than test questions that all parties have equal access to in advance.

"Fact is, in 1971 title VII of the Civil Rights Act which emanated out of a SCOTUS decision held that "a test that one racial group passed at less than 80 percent the rate of another group would place an employer in presumptive violation of Title VII." I believe New Haven's disparity was 88%? So, if you want your judges to follow the law and not their politics then this was one followed to the T.

Yes, I do believe judges should follow the law. And if you read anything further than the NYT about this (like the dissents, for example), you'd see how the concept of strong basis-in-evidence comes into play. In other words, by upholding the 80% rule (disparate impact discrimination), they were in effect violating another part of Title VII -- race-based decision making (disparate treatment discrimination). In order to do so, the disparate impact must prove the strong basis-evidence in order to justify disparate treatment. However, the Second Circuit never acknowleged whether or not the Fire Dept knowingly administered a biased test, whether or not the test satisifed business necessity, or if the Fire Dept purposely avoided a fair alternative. Instead, they based it only on the potential of a disparate impact lawsuit. Even the four dissenting judges in the SCOTUS acknowledged that error by the lower courts. Now I think there's worthy debate over the differing SCOTUS opinions, but the idea that New Haven or the Second Circuit judges "followed the law to a T" is asinine. The City of New Haven knew they would have a lawsuit either way. They also knew that a disparate impact suit filed by the black firefighters never would have succeeded; however, it would have been a much bigger PR nightmare (particularly for DeStefano). So who really opened the can of worms here? City of New Haven could have avoided this by not throwing out the test results completely. That was dumb and cowardly.

[Aaron]

“I will go ahead and concur. I don't think it should even be up for debate.”

Wow. That’s the weak side defense, you realize. Shut down the argument by declaring that rational minds cannot disagree on the topic. Unfortunately that kind of logic will not serve you well on many of those written examinations you so highly revere.

“Bottom line, many occupations utilize written examinations when evaluating individuals. Sometimes you have to. It's the only way to incorporate some kind of objective way to draw a distinction between candidates who appear to be equally qualified in terms of peer review, oral examination, and overall experience.” Really? A written examination is “the only way” to draw an objective distinction? Not like, “let me see how long it takes you to drag this fire hose from here to here,” or “Climb this ladder as fast as you can”? You know, those other “objective” ways of drawing distinctions by having them, you know, perform some of the physical tasks they’ll actually be doing? All while you boldly declare a written exam is the only way?

Do you see how absolutely ridiculous your argument is now? You’re choosing draft picks based on the combine results. You clearly did not approach it from a standpoint of “is this test legitimate or not” and then weigh what would seemingly be the obvious: the tie between the job and the test. You made up your conclusion that you were siding with the white firefighters and then backed up your conclusion with a reverse engineered argument.

This is where it gets scary. It’s the backwards justification that frightens me. You’ve convinced yourself not based on whether the law as written has been upheld by the argument, or whether the law is correct or not as applied in this circumstance. You’ve convinced yourself, without knowing a single question on the test (you don’t, do you?) that the test proved that these white firefighters are more deserving of the promotions, despite the fact when they tested them on real life situations, a more diverse group excelled. You’re backing up a test you know nothing about based on the results. It’s that assumption that since it’s all white firefighters, the test must have proved worth. Yikes.

[Vandelay]

Wow. That’s the weak side defense, you realize. Shut down the argument by declaring that rational minds cannot disagree on the topic. Unfortunately that kind of logic will not serve you well on many of those written examinations you so highly revere.

Well for the record there my friend, I wasn't trying to shut down the argument. I simply haven't formed an opinion on this and hearing Klompus' argument without reading any dissenting opinions, I didn't see how it could be up for debate. I wasn't necessarily trying to spit on the first amendment there. I am aware that there are people well more versed on the topic than myself. I just meant that what he wrote made a lot of sense to me. Word?

[Jack Klompus]

"All while you boldly declare a written exam is the only way?"

No, but I apologize for the confusion because I see how my words could be misleading. What I was saying is that when you have candidates that are very close or equal in terms of oral and physical exams (ie. climbing ladders) then the best way to separate such candidates (fairest) is to administer a written exam. I'm not saying it's bias-proof, nor majorly relevant to the job titles in question. But compare the concept it to using peer recommendations as a deciding factor (for close candidates). Especially in a notoriously racist place like New Haven, CT.

"Do you see how absolutely ridiculous your argument is now? You’re choosing draft picks based on the combine results."

If your asssertion were correct, a better analogy would be that I was deciding based on the Wonderlic. But I wasn't making that claim.

"You’re backing up a test you know nothing about based on the results."

Likewise, you are dismissing/villifying a test you know nothing about based on the results. I think you completely missed everything I said in response to Kruger. What I was arguing was that because New Haven didn't reveal the actual test questions during testimony (nor did the Second Circuit demand such review), then the law was not followed properly. Instead, they relyed solely on the disparity of the results. Again, they should have examined the test itself to see if there was any evidence that (a) they knew a disparate impact was likely to occur prior to administering, (b) the test itself was justifiably relevant to the job qualifications, or (c) that a fair alternative was suppressed in favor of this test. For whatever, reason (I can think of a few), that evidence wasn't considered.

Furthermore, all the written questions came from manuals that all parties had access to. All test takers knew in advance (by virtue of their union) that there would be a written component that accounted for 60% and an oral compenent that accounted for 40%. I don't know enough about firefighting to say whether or not that's a retarded approach -- but I wouldn't guess it makes much sense. Whether or not it made sense, those were the rules. There was nothing preventing black or hispanic firefighters from cramming the manuals, or hiring tutors, or buying old tests -- knowing that it meant 60% of their chance for a promotion.

[Assman]

For the record, it's "Tripping Billies."

For the other record, I got my job by having a resume, enough experience, passing an interview and successfully pissing in a cup. Apparently, that was a fair measurement to prove my competency in the field of whatever it is I do. If the people who manage firefighters think the best way to sort out who can save the most ass in a 15 second window is via written test, who am I to say they don't know what they're doing? I'm all for asses being saved, so I excuse myself from judgment.

And the ongoing infantilization of the black community by the NAACP is an entirely different tangent that I won't continue now (but will gladly address in the comments if someone else wants to).

I'm thinking of the constant excuse-making for people who can't read. I'd think the better use of their efforts would be to teach people how to pass the test rather than explain why they didn't.

[puddy]

Wasn't this an "all other things being equal" thing and then the test is almost like a tiebreaker? Then when the results weren't racially sensitive they threw the tests out. I think that from a physical standpoint, all of the people taking the test were qualified for the promotion. That said, they needed some way to separate them.

Now, is a written test the best way? Maybe not. I think I'd prefer some sort of committee that has seen each of the individuals in action make decisions based on ability but also on the likelihood that the individual can handle the increased duties. There would be personal biases inherent to this method, which would necessitate a large panel, but I think informed decisions could be made.

[Jack Klompus]

"Wasn't this an "all other things being equal" thing and then the test is almost like a tiebreaker?"

Not in this case. The written exam accounted for 60% of the total score. That allocation was decided on by the firefighters union. Perhaps the issue should be taken up with them.

[Mr. Kruger]

And if you read anything further than the NYT about this (like the dissents, for example), you'd see how the concept of strong basis-in-evidence comes into play.

You missed the fact that the court brought out the "strong basis in evidence" standard as it applies to title VII just during this latest case. Now you have 2 standards that have to be met that are closely incompatible. That is, in order to avoid title vii disparate impact violation you have to take race into account which violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. They want to establish Intent as measure of violation. But really, what does it matter what the intent is in employment discrimination cases. They should have kept to one standard.

The other fact is that New Haven's population consists of over 60% non white people. Not one of the non-white applicants had been eligible for promotion. hmm, that under-representation at its finest.

[Jack Klompus]

"But really, what does it matter what the intent is in employment discrimination cases."

It does matter when your dilemma is knowingly discrimining against one to prevent potential discrimination against another.

"Now you have 2 standards that have to be met that are closely incompatible."

But they are compatible. The fact that no blacks were in the top qualifying portion of test takers does not necessarily mean blacks were denied a chance at the promotion based on the color of their skin. It's possible, which is why they should have reviewed the exam itself. It may have more to do with a flawed test, in which case Title VII isn't really relevant. On the other hand, the white firefighters were summarily denied the promotion based entirely on the fact that too few black peers did not score high enough to qualify. No matter which way you slice it, that decision is based entirely on skin color. I believe that is the essence of Title VII.

[TMan]

Interesting note: most cities don't need Fire Departments to nearly as large as they are. How many large fires happen in a city per year? 1? If that?

If you know any fireman (I do), they spend most of their time sitting around, sleeping and cleaning the trucks. Here in Boston, they even got it in their contract that they repair the trucks. There was a crash this year when the brakes on the truck failed and it plowed into a brick wall, killing the driver. Predictably, his family sued the City, but not the union or any individual firefighter who did the repairs.

IMHO, SCOTUS made a mess of a very narrow section of Title VII. Roberts has been a disaster as the Chief Justice, Scalia is a belligerent old coot and Thomas oozes self-loathing in a way that is mind-blowing.

[Kenny Bania]

I think they need to compete in a Ninja Warrior style obstacle course to determine any tie breakers. Fuck the guy that's better at fire science. I'd hire the guy that can get past the jumping spider, through the dodging hammer, past the wall lifting, and finish the rope climb.

[Vandelay]

I'd hire the guy that can get past the jumping spider, through the dodging hammer, past the wall lifting, and finish the rope climb.

So the black guy then?

[TMan]

Or the crazy Japanese guy who built the obstacle course in his backyard and divorces his wife so he has more time to practice.

[Kenny Bania]

So the black guy then?

Or the crazy Japanese guy who built the obstacle course in his backyard and divorces his wife so he has more time to practice.

Small ripped Asian guys only. Alright... my plan won't work, but it's a start.

Regardless, no women. Ever seen the female Ninja Warriors? Awful. It's like there whole female obstacle course was "See if you can balance on this since you have no upper body strength."

[puddy]

There's that one with the blond hair that can carry me out of a fire i bet. And I would let Jennifer Esposito do it as well.

Also, TMan, that comment about 1 fire in a city a year is absurd.

[Jack Klompus]

"IMHO, SCOTUS made a mess of a very narrow section of Title VII."

Narrow section? Are you referring to the Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications exemption?

[TMan]

Puddy, really? Where do you live? Ask a firefighter how many real fires they respond to in a week/month/year. It will appaul you that your tax dollars go to support a system that is based on having no fire suppression/warning systems, when anything built in the last 50 years is required to have it.

Klompus, the narrow section is how to administer standardized testing. If you read the court's ruling, it's clear that had the defendants offered another test that was comperable but did not have a disparate racial effect, their logic would fail.

[Jack Klompus]

"If you read the court's ruling, it's clear that had the defendants offered another test that was comperable but did not have a disparate racial effect, their logic would fail."

Not necessarily. They still could have re-tested without throwing out the original results. A re-test would not necessarily have been a violation of Title VII. Instead, they threw out the results without determining a cause behind the statistical anomaly. In doing so, they all but ensured Title VII would be a factor one both sides of the coin.

[TMan]

Klompus, you made my point. Generally speaking, SCOUTUS decisions should clarify rather ther confuse. By their logic, if New Haven had promoted based on the test results, it would have left the City open to a claim by the minority firefighters who were not promoted. I have mixed feelings about affirmative action, but this decision helps no one other than the plaintiffs in this case.

IMHO, we can scrap affirmative action when all other forms of affirmative action are scrapped. In other words, the George W. Bush affirmative action is dismantled. A guy with his academic track record had no business being admitted to Philips Andover, Yale or Harvard Business School. But we all know that isn't going away, so you've got to try to balance the playing field for the rest of us.

[April]

I was going to write a long comment, but pretty much everything I was going to say is exactly what Klompus wrote. (and far better than I would've been able to write it.)

Good job, Klompus!

[Jack Klompus]

"Generally speaking, SCOTUS decisions should clarify rather ther confuse."

Agreed. But in my opinion, I think the SCOTUS did clarify it. They addressed the components of Title VII that the District and Second Circuits avoided.

"By their logic, if New Haven had promoted based on the test results, it would have left the City open to a claim by the minority firefighters who were not promoted."

That's not reason enough to ignore disparate treatment discrimination.