Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Any way you want to word it Polk the guys who have the jobs now were more qualified. The US Supreme Court has said the process was sufficiently correct to reinstate the results. You need to move on and get the law changed if some grievous error has been made. What idiot thinks getting the best to protect the public shouldn't be a priority here? Looks like that would be you Polk.
Your ignorance knows no bounds. They didn't "pass" because they "worked their asses off". They received higher scores because of the city's choice to place a higher weight on oral portion of the exam that other cities did.
what? black people can't talk?
Swing and miss. Written exams are objective. Oral exams are not. And there is a ton of evidence showing that graders are much more generous in the scoring of oral exams of people of the same race. So when you have a test being administered by white people, they're going to give white people higher scores.
Damn city government, having the nerve to obey the law. What the hell were they thinking.
The Supreme Court is the highest law of the land. The city should follow the damn law. I agree!
Yep! These men worked their asses off and passed the test. They deserve their promotions. Just cause somebody else chose not to study ain't their problem.
Your ignorance knows no bounds. They didn't "pass" because they "worked their asses off". They received higher scores because of the city's choice to place a higher weight on oral portion of the exam that other cities did.
what? black people can't talk?
Your ignorance knows no bounds. They didn't "pass" because they "worked their asses off". They received higher scores because of the city's choice to place a higher weight on oral portion of the exam that other cities did.
what? black people can't talk?
How enlightening.
questions enlighten? who knew?
How enlightening.
questions enlighten? who knew?
A lot of us knew....a lot of us.
Any way you want to word it Polk the guys who have the jobs now were more qualified. The US Supreme Court has said the process was sufficiently correct to reinstate the results. You need to move on and get the law changed if some grievous error has been made. What idiot thinks getting the best to protect the public shouldn't be a priority here? Looks like that would be you Polk.
I do think getting the best to protect the public should be the priority and I'd hope you'd feel that way was well, but you've made it clear you'd rather defend a biased test since it favors your politics. The facts of the case were that the higher passage rate for whites was based solely on the disproportionate weight given to the oral exam.
what? black people can't talk?
Swing and miss. Written exams are objective. Oral exams are not. And there is a ton of evidence showing that graders are much more generous in the scoring of oral exams of people of the same race. So when you have a test being administered by white people, they're going to give white people higher scores.
would you mind providing that "ton of evidence." Did the SCOTUS have access to this "ton of evidence."?
The courts application of its own standard might be of only passing importance, were it not for Justice Ginsburgs claims that that the court presented a selective reading of the record and a demonstrably false representation of the citys showings. Indeed, it appears that the court ignored or downplayed considerable testimony that the tests were flawed and unrelated to the duties performed by lieutenants and captains in the fire department evidence credited by the district court and Justice Ginsburg both.
This evidence, properly considered, may not have met the courts new standard. But Justice Kennedys aggressive reading of the record, coupled with Justice Alitos concurring opinion suggests that the court is impatient with what it perceives to be race-based politics.
Detecting Race Bias in Workplaces - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com
Any way you want to word it Polk the guys who have the jobs now were more qualified. The US Supreme Court has said the process was sufficiently correct to reinstate the results. You need to move on and get the law changed if some grievous error has been made. What idiot thinks getting the best to protect the public shouldn't be a priority here? Looks like that would be you Polk.
I do think getting the best to protect the public should be the priority and I'd hope you'd feel that way was well, but you've made it clear you'd rather defend a biased test since it favors your politics. The facts of the case were that the higher passage rate for whites was based solely on the disproportionate weight given to the oral exam.
Really?
The Supreme Court set a new standard for employers' use of race in hiring decisions, ruling that New Haven, Conn., wrongly discriminated against a group of mostly white firefighters who lost out when a promotion exam was scrapped because no blacks scored well enough to advance.
Monday's opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy said employers must show a "strong basis in evidence" before ignoring results of employment-related tests -- even if they worry the outcome was unfair -- so as not to frustrate other applicants. The 5-4 decision, on the final day of the court's term, follows a series of Supreme Court rulings that limit the scope of policies intended to address racial bias.
Ruling Upends Race's Role in Hiring - WSJ.com
Further:
Justice Kennedy, writing for the court's conservative majority, said the city violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "Whatever the city's ultimate aim -- however well intentioned or benevolent it might have seemed -- the city made its employment decision because of race," he wrote. "The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white."
Justice Kennedy said an employer can't negate an exam unless there is strong evidence the test was unfair to minorities
I do think getting the best to protect the public should be the priority and I'd hope you'd feel that way was well, but you've made it clear you'd rather defend a biased test since it favors your politics. The facts of the case were that the higher passage rate for whites was based solely on the disproportionate weight given to the oral exam.
Really?
The Supreme Court set a new standard for employers' use of race in hiring decisions, ruling that New Haven, Conn., wrongly discriminated against a group of mostly white firefighters who lost out when a promotion exam was scrapped because no blacks scored well enough to advance.
Monday's opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy said employers must show a "strong basis in evidence" before ignoring results of employment-related tests -- even if they worry the outcome was unfair -- so as not to frustrate other applicants. The 5-4 decision, on the final day of the court's term, follows a series of Supreme Court rulings that limit the scope of policies intended to address racial bias.
Ruling Upends Race's Role in Hiring - WSJ.com
Further:
Justice Kennedy, writing for the court's conservative majority, said the city violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "Whatever the city's ultimate aim -- however well intentioned or benevolent it might have seemed -- the city made its employment decision because of race," he wrote. "The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white."
Justice Kennedy said an employer can't negate an exam unless there is strong evidence the test was unfair to minorities
And there was strong evidence of that, but Kennedy ignored it because it didn't align with his activist views.
Really?
The Supreme Court set a new standard for employers' use of race in hiring decisions, ruling that New Haven, Conn., wrongly discriminated against a group of mostly white firefighters who lost out when a promotion exam was scrapped because no blacks scored well enough to advance.
Monday's opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy said employers must show a "strong basis in evidence" before ignoring results of employment-related tests -- even if they worry the outcome was unfair -- so as not to frustrate other applicants. The 5-4 decision, on the final day of the court's term, follows a series of Supreme Court rulings that limit the scope of policies intended to address racial bias.
Ruling Upends Race's Role in Hiring - WSJ.com
Further:
Justice Kennedy, writing for the court's conservative majority, said the city violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "Whatever the city's ultimate aim -- however well intentioned or benevolent it might have seemed -- the city made its employment decision because of race," he wrote. "The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white."
Justice Kennedy said an employer can't negate an exam unless there is strong evidence the test was unfair to minorities
And there was strong evidence of that, but Kennedy ignored it because it didn't align with his activist views.
ha ha,, how convenient.. for you,, but in this case the hard working studiers have been rewarded.. A good thing.
Activist? The court was stepping away from activism of quotas. I'm disappointed Polk, you can normally do better than this. Call it a day.
Activist? The court was stepping away from activism of quotas. I'm disappointed Polk, you can normally do better than this. Call it a day.
What quotas? There was no quota is place.
And there was strong evidence of that, but Kennedy ignored it because it didn't align with his activist views.
ha ha,, how convenient.. for you,, but in this case the hard working studiers have been rewarded.. A good thing.
They weren't hard-working. They benefited from a biased hiring process. If they were so much hard-working, their scores on the written exam would have been significantly better, but they weren't.
Activist? The court was stepping away from activism of quotas. I'm disappointed Polk, you can normally do better than this. Call it a day.
What quotas? There was no quota is place.
It must have been a quota of at least one or more. Otherwise, none of this would have been an issue.
Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion (beginning at page 54) for four members of the Court – herself and Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer. She says that the majority opinion “leaves out important parts of the story,” including the history of racial discrimination in the firefighting profession (in New Haven in the early 1970s racial minorities comprised 30 % of the city’s population but only 3 % of the firefighters) – that the white candidates in this case had greater access to study materials because they had relatives in the department – that other cities use different tests that have less racially disproportionate impact – and that multiple choice tests may not be the best way to evaluate leadership capability in the field. In particular, the dissenters thought that the City of New Haven acted in good faith when it threw out the test results. The dissenters found that there was substantial evidence that the City was worried that it would not be able to defend the validity of the test if the black firefighters brought a suit under Title VII for "disparate impact."
Ricci v. DeStefano – the New Haven Firefighter case – Which Is Fairer, Multiple Choice or Oral Examinations?
The reason Briscoe is suing now, rather than suing earlier: He had to wait to find out the results of the test. Briscoe states that he topped the field on the oral section, but not on the written.
...
Although Briscoe had the highest score in the department on the oral section of the exam, he ended up 24th overall: not high enough for a promotion.
He would have been promoted “if it had been scored in a sensible way,” said Rosen. A weighting of even 60 percent oral to 40 percent written would have given Briscoe a top score, making him eligible for promotion.
If the exam had been weighted like other city’s exams, more African-Americans would have been among the top scorers, according to the complaint. It states, “If the oral exam were weighted 70 percent — the norm for public safety agencies across America — the plaintiff would be ranked fourth, and three African-Americans instead of none would be in the top 12.”
New Haven Independent | After <em>Ricci</em> Ruling, Black Firefighter Sues City
