NAACP suing NJ, wants state to throw out 123 new state police recruits (spring break, credit check)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. That considering the use of educational records and employment history in evaluating job applications discriminatory is breathtakingly (to use the original author's own favored idiom). Would removing those aspects and making everything based on nepotism and interviews make things fairer?
2. That the sheer number of grammatical and capitalization errors in that post was painful even by internet standards.
3. Most of the rest of the post is taken up by a causation =! correlation fallacy and personal attacks.
4. In all fairness, he does have a point that considering financial status is on very thin ice and could easily be discriminatory depending on the intent of the designer of that policy.
I do kind of find this entertaining as the current superintendent of the State Police is Colonel Rick Fuentes, who just happens to be Hispanic. The man who held the job before him was Carson Dunbar, an African American.
The problem is recruitment where not too many African Americans even apply. The second hurdle is the strict standards that the NJ State Troopers maintain to filter out recruits. I agree that something could be done to help increase recruitment against under-represented groups, but in no way, shape or form should the standards be changed or lessened simply to allow more existing recruits of a particular race into the Troopers. That is a recipe for disaster and is the worst implication of things like Affirmative Action. You don't want a situation where everyone knows the only reason certain people are there is because they had a lower bar to clear.
exactly. it's a dangerous thing to walk down that road. and the results won't be what was intended anyways.
why? do i care that every group is represented as a % of their population? no. i couldnt care less. the important thing is that the standards apply to everyone equally, the standards arent discriminatory and that the police meet their recruitment goals. why is this a problem?
a bigger problem is that groups like this actually have political power and cost taxayers a lot of money. they should file a lawsuit against the state and the state's only issue should be whether or not it discriminates against applicants based on race. it should have no obligation to try to recruit different groups to make sure they are represented. then if a court decided the state isnt discriminating, the NAACP should have to pay the state's legal costs.
you may care less, but the problem is that for decades the standards were discriminatory, and that has put some people at a disadvantage even today. the issue is, most of the methods of addressing the issues of the past have missed the point. trying to correct someone having a lack of access to the same education by changing standards for college acceptance of an 18 year old is too late. you have to fix it at earlier ages. as GOAT said, lowering the standards to be accepted doesn't help anyone. you have to fix it before it gets to that point, if you want to fix it at all, which i know you don't.
if you want to fix it at all, which i know you don't.
exactly, i dont. i just want current standards to be non-discriminatory. what happened in the past doesnt need to be fixed today. its funny that private businesses dont have this obligation but because its government that taxpayers get the shaft once again.
point of the matter is that the process is set up where it justifies the bias that is going on where it becomes the fault of the applicants and not the process that determines it. what they're saying is that the process that is set up where it's difficult for almost anybody who's not a white male to succeed. the reason why i didn't even want to put this up is that you are going to look what validates your opinion besides the article saying....
if that doesn't sound like it's intentional set up to make sure the system is kept the way it is, then i don't know what to tell you. believe whatever you want to believe. it sounds like you have your mind already made up about this issue and i know how it's a hard time forcing some of you city-data.com people off your rock.
i personally know a lot of white males who couldn't pass the physical portion of the test also. why should the physical requirements be reduced? state police are required to be physically fit. the test examines that: pushups, running times, agility tests, etc.
if you want dunkin donuts cops, call your local police. state police have a higher standard, and that's a good thing.
if you want more minorities to pass the exam, focus on getting the information to minorities on what is required, and recruiting minorities that can pass the exam.
people can die on this job because they may not run quickly enough due to their health, or could die because they cannot navigate obstacles in a foot chase. do you really believe that should be overlooked, simply to get a larger percentage of any group (black, white, hispanic, female, male, etc) represented on the force?
i know a white guy who goes to the gym regularly, is in pretty good shape, and he's failed the physical test 3 times.
You seem to be saying that, since the background checks don't provide the result you want, they are racist. Please explain which of the background items you feel are intentionally discriminatory to minorities.
the only thing i could think of in this respect is that years ago, given NJ's history of racial profiling, there could now be plenty of african american candidates who were wrongly arrested, and now have a criminal record. but how do we know which arrests were valid and which were not? we're still living with the effects of racism, and hopefully we get past it. but i don't want my state police having a criminal background. now, is getting arrested at 17 with marijuana really the standard we need to hold? maybe, maybe not.
1. That considering the use of educational records and employment history in evaluating job applications discriminatory is breathtakingly (to use the original author's own favored idiom). Would removing those aspects and making everything based on nepotism and interviews make things fairer?
2. That the sheer number of grammatical and capitalization errors in that post was painful even by internet standards.
3. Most of the rest of the post is taken up by a causation =! correlation fallacy and personal attacks.
4. In all fairness, he does have a point that considering financial status is on very thin ice and could easily be discriminatory depending on the intent of the designer of that policy.
financial status....if a person has questionable credit history, or a history of financial problems, they are more likely to commit fraud. that's looked at from an audit standpoint of a public company as well. you consider in the risk assessment what the audit risk is, and one of the factors that makes up that overall risk is people's access to commit fraud, and you would also consider situations that could lead to fraud. if you're controller happens to have a gambling problem putting him 10s of thousands of dollars in debt...there's a good chance he'll use his access to company cash to pay off his debts....or if he just wants a $10,000 shower curtan.
can you imagine having that sort of risk in a state police officer? he goes to a drug bust, confiscated $500,000 in drug money as evidence, but that other stack of $20,000 sitting under the chair that no one else saw....the theory would be someone with a spotty financial background is more likely to commit fradulant activities.
It is ridiculous. It makes about as much sense as when the NAACP theatened action in Charlotte & Atlanta last winter when the school systems had to hold classes on Martin Luther King Day after schools were closed for 5 days due to bad ice after a storm. This woman pretty well said it all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(to use the original author's own favored idiom). Would removing those aspects and making everything based on nepotism and interviews make things fairer? 
