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.
I don't see how a test could be racially based, but testing in any form is biased and discriminatory!
They discriminate against the less intelligent and/or less-studious. They discriminate against those who are potentially less qualified.
They are biased towards the more intelligent and/or more studious.
exactly right.
clearly, the diversity uber alles crowd will never be content with equality of opportunity - they demand equal of outcome, no matter who they have to run over to get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missmoose
So much hatred. Yum!
when someone starts wailing dementedly about 'hatred' with no hatred in sight, you know they got nothing else.
clearly, the diversity uber alles crowd will never be content with equality of opportunity - they demand equal of outcome, no matter who they have to run over to get it.
when someone starts wailing dementedly about 'hatred' with no hatred in sight, you know they got nothing else.
You know, the court case wasn't over whether the test was racially biased or not. The court case was over whether the city was reasonable in its assumption that because the test results showed racial disparity, that they might be sued on the basis that the test was racially biased.
The city based their assumption on the fact that the legal precedent for demonstrating bias in a test was consistent bias in the test results. The city administered the test to 180 individuals, and from a statistical standpoint, there was a consistency in minority individuals scoring lower. As many of you have pointed out, proving bias in a test is very difficult. The courts have used test results as criteria before, so was the city being unreasonable in thinking that the courts would accept test results in this case?
You know, the court case wasn't over whether the test was racially biased or not. The court case was over whether the city was reasonable in its assumption that because the test results showed racial disparity, that they might be sued on the basis that the test was racially biased.
making policy on the basis of fear of being sued doesn't seem like a very bright idea to me - does it to you?
Quote:
The city based their assumption on the fact that the legal precedent for demonstrating bias in a test was consistent bias in the test results. The city administered the test to 180 individuals, and from a statistical standpoint, there was a consistency in minority individuals scoring lower. As many of you have pointed out, proving bias in a test is very difficult. The courts have used test results as criteria before, so was the city being unreasonable in thinking that the courts would accept test results in this case?
pleasing the courts is irrelevant; how about simply being fair to the test participants? does that not matter?
Actually, you may be on to something. I think there are a lot of Blacks who have an entitlement mentality. I think you are correct that this can hold them back.
- Reel
Can you please give me specific examples the led you to the conclusion that a lot of blacks have an entitlement mentality? Since you were not specific on your definition of a lot, I am going to place it somewhere in between half and a majority. Assuming this, I will now define a lot as between 60-70%. Given that there are 34,658,190 black people in this country (according to the census), that would mean that (according to you) between 20,764,914 and 24,260,733 black people feel entitled. Again, can you please explain the circumstances under which you encountered this many blacks with an entitled attitude? I hate stereotypes and generalizations. You managed to do both in your response.
BTW, there is still no pass/fail for the SAT or the ACT.
well there is a certain amount of points that you have to have on SAT OR ACT to be accepted to high end universities and if you are below it you can be accepted to lower end universities.so this should apply to this test to.
I have no idea what you are trying to say and I'm tired of trying to decode your sentences.
There are no thresholds on the SAT or the ACT to be accepted to "high end" universities. Is that what you are implying?
making policy on the basis of fear of being sued doesn't seem like a very bright idea to me - does it to you?
pleasing the courts is irrelevant; how about simply being fair to the test participants? does that not matter?
I don't think they were making policy per se. They were considering the welfare of the city and the ramifications of a Title VII lawsuit if they didn't discard the test.
The question to the court wasn't about fairness, nor was it about the test. The question in the lawsuit was whether the city adminstrators could have reasonably expected to be sued if they had honored the test. Can you say that the black firefighters would not have sued?
I don't think they were making policy per se. They were considering the welfare of the city and the ramifications of a Title VII lawsuit if they didn't discard the test.
The question to the court wasn't about fairness, nor was it about the test. The question in the lawsuit was whether the city adminstrators could have reasonably expected to be sued if they had honored the test. Can you say that the black firefighters would not have sued?
i'm quite sure they would have been sued no matter which way they went, which brings us right back to my premise: making policy solely on the basis of being sued by irate minorities because the results were not as the PC police demanded, is not a wise path to follow, imho.
i'm quite sure they would have been sued no matter which way they went, which brings us right back to my premise: making policy solely on the basis of being sued by irate minorities because the results were not as the PC police demanded, is not a wise path to follow, imho.
Okay, but Ricci's claim rests on the premise that the city's fear of being sued was unreasonable. But it wasn't an unreasonable fear. The city was further hemmed in, because the firefighters belong to a union. The union contract requires that the city administer a written test, and the written test has to count for 60% of the promotional basis. Why? These aren't new or inexperienced firefighters. If job performance is the basis for promotion, what does a written test have to do with job performance? The legal precedent forbids the city from honoring the test when the test results show a consistent racial disparity. The city is then burdened with proving that the test actually tests skills related to the job. But did it? Wouldn't other tests, physical tests for instance, actually do a better job of testing job skills? But the union contract doesn't allow the city that option. The union contract isn't an acceptable legal defense for the city in the case of a Title VII lawsuit.
Ricci may have felt that he was being screwed, but Title VII, the union, and the test created a situation where the city got screwed no matter what they did.
OK I guess from now on we will have to have test in 4 different forms.........
English for Whites
Spanish for Hispanics
Ebonics for Blacks
Mandarin for Asian
IMO that is even MORE biased than the one given in ONE language, ENGLISH!! If they can't read or understand English, they have NO business taking a fire fighters test anyway.
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.
