- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,438
- Reaction score
- 47,477
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Then I think it is important when a judge's decision could be viewed as being based upon emotion that said decision be articulated.
We have little to no reason to believe that this case is not based on some emotion or some socio-political agenda.
As I still refuse to believe a test can somehow be racist.
Statistics are a starting point. However, I do note the Judge does claim long standing discrimination:
Declining to impose racial quotas, Judge Garaufis nonetheless ruled that a systemic effort was required. “It is the court’s view that nearly 40 years of discrimination will not be cured by a few simple tweaks to the city’s policies and practices,” he wrote.
(snip)
Judge Garaufis did not, however, lay blame entirely at Mr. Bloomberg’s feet.
“That this discrimination has been allowed to persist in New York City for so long,” he wrote, “is a shameful blight on the records of the six mayors of this city who failed to take responsibility for doing what was necessary to end it.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/nyregion/monitor-must-oversee-ny-fire-dept-hiring-judge-rules.html
and your way of 'thinking' is easy to do
simply choose to ignore the facts
Unless of course the tests are graded arbitrarily
And some sort of evidence would be provided for this?
The City has failed to demonstrate a sufficient relationship between the tasks of a firefighter and the abilities it intended to test on Exams 7029 and 2043. It has failed to take measures to ensure the reliability of those examinations; it has failed to take steps to ensure that that the reading level of the examinations was appropriate; it has failed to test for various recognized important abilities of a firefighter; it has failed to test for abilities needed upon entry into the Academy, rather than abilities to be learned on the job; it has failed to retain
testing professionals to devise the examination questions; and it has failed to demonstrate that the examinations it administered actually tested the abilities it intended to test. Compounding these
failings, the City has imposed arbitrary pass/fail scores, unrelated to the qualifications for the job of entry-level firefighter, and has constructed eligibility lists based on distinctions in test scores
that are unrelated to corresponding differences in the qualifications of firefighter candidates. Following the Second Circuit’s holding in Guardians, the court concludes that the City
improperly relied upon these poorly constructed examinations in the face of a disparate impact upon minority candidates.
What facts?
Statistics with no supplemental information? Sorry, that leads one to make an assumption of what the cause of the statistical difference is.
And somehow, the assumption is always racism on behalf of X.
Holy **** are you being purposely dense? I posted the actual ruling:
it has failed to test for various recognized important abilities of a firefighter; it has failed to test for abilities needed upon entry into the Academy,
there are circumstances when one must use a preponderance of the evidence or a clear and convincing evidenciary standard to make a finding. we charge respected members of the court, recognized for their sober objectivity, to make such decisions. we call them judges. pity i need to explain that to a member of law enforcement
Yet where is the judge's proof of discrimination?
In statistics?
I suspect it was presented in court. Which is a point I keep making. In court, both sides present evidence. This was not the first case, and in each case evidence is presented. This is how it is done, right?
the FDNY not representing NYC's demographics, is not in itself evidence of institutionalized racism at the FDNY.
however, some folks simply want to find racism...so they will see it wherever they can.
I suspect it was presented in court. Which is a point I keep making. In court, both sides present evidence. This was not the first case, and in each case evidence is presented.
the FDNY not representing NYC's demographics, is not in itself evidence of institutionalized racism at the FDNY.
.
A quota type system alone cannot be used, however it is can be a factor when considering "underrepresented minority groups".
Did you read this post:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...y-ordered-hire-minorities.html#post1060274304
This is the important part:
Reading is our friend.
First, if there is significant evidence of violating the equal rights act then the judge ruled properly.
Second, to all those who insisted that there is no quota system being used anywhere in the US (in other threads on similar topics), I respectfully say, "Bite me, bitches, I told you so!"
There IS a quota system still in place and it IS being enforced. So there.
and what if there are cultural factors behind some of this?
The real problem here is that this ruling does nothing to stop racism. They are forcing the issue of race to be considered in the hiring process. The better way to do this would be to eliminate race as a factor in the hiring process.
The real problem here is that this ruling does nothing to stop racism. They are forcing the issue of race to be considered in the hiring process. The better way to do this would be to eliminate race as a factor in the hiring process.
Yes. But what the basis for the evidence was.... and whether it was an opinion garnered from an attempt to fill in the blanks of what statistics can't prove... or whether it was in the form of emails from administrators saying, "DON'T HIRE DEM DERE KNEEEGROWS OR DEM MEX-E-CANS!" are two different things.
Agreed. But the question is how. It isn't like they or anyone would openly say we don't want a minority, or do anything too overt. They would just find away not to hire a minority. This is done rather often yet today. In private conversations I have been told by some who hire that the law be damned, no minority will work for them. So, without that admission, and as qualifications are really more subjective than most want to admit, how do you go about it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?