SCOTUS strikes down reverse discrimination

[Thunder]

Other then the fact it preferentially selected against African Americans…

It may be difficult to say why this test preferentially selected against this group but the results went well beyond statistical chance.

That leaves 3 possibilities IMO

1) The test was skewed against African Americans despite the attempts to make it fair
2) A training system that selected against African Americans getting the skills they needed to pass the test
3) African Americans are innately less qualified at the things the test covered. .

one of the guy's whos score was thrown out, had dislexia. if a guy with dislexia could do well on this test, then so could anyone else.

why do i believe the black folks didn't pass the test? maybe they didn't study enough. its got nothing to do with genetics.

when I was in high school, if a black student did well on a test or a paper, other black students would often insult him for wanting to be "white".

what am i saying? i think there is a real social problem within some of the black community, and that problem is a negative stigma associated with academic achievement.

this is something I'm sure other white students noticed if they grew up in a major urban area with a large minority population in their schools. some black students actually associate doing well, with being an "oreo".

and if one black student does really well, that suggests that all black students can do well. that tares down the belief that there is a systemic racial element keeping down all of black society, and some would rather keep that belief-system undisrupted, rather then bring their community up by demanding academic excellence, regardless of the odds.

it all boils down to self-esteem. i believe that slavery and segregation has left a legacy that can keep the black community at low levels, for generations to come. that is a legacy of self-imposed low self-esteem and a low sense of self-worth.

only they can fix this. no amount of affirmative action can change it

 

[Ziggurat]

We could include small sample size onto the list that lomiller gave, and that would make it four. Any other possible explanations?

2 and 3 both fall under the general category of African American candidates not being as qualified. That general category is then split in two: innate differences (which I think most people will agree is unlikely), and differences in preparation. But this second category is potentially far larger than his description covers. For example, did the African American fire fighters even go through the same training programs that the white firefighters went through? If they trained in other cities and moved to their current jobs, it's possible that their training was not as good, even training programs in both New Haven and wherever else they might have trained could have treated students equally. A more likely possibile explanation is discrepancies in education prior to firefighter training. Such discrepencies could be due to racism, or they could be simply economics (poorer people tend to get worse educations than rich people). To actually make any kind of causal determination, we'd need a lot more information than is generally available. And in the end it doesn't matter: if the reason for disparity in performance on the test is because of disparity in qualification (and nobody has demonstrated otherwise), then the cause of that disparity is not an issue before the court. If that cause is something that should be remedied, the law requires a different remedy than the one taken by the city.

 

[Brainster]

Interesting that no one on this thread has mentioned that the Supreme Court reversed a decision that nominee Sotomayor endorsed as a federal appeals court judge. Now had Sotomayor been on the bench ...

It would still have been decided the same way. Sotomayor is replacing Souter, who voted with the minority.

 

[Brainster]

P.S. Can we do away with the myth that affirmative action means giving a patently unqualified black applicant immediate preference over Socrates Elmer Gantry Joe DiMaggio when he's applying to college? Affirmative action doesn't work like that. A.A. is a policy where race may be considered as one of many facets of an applicant. Which translates to, all other things being equal, the under represented minority should be given preference.

If that were true, you wouldn't get so much of an argument about it. But the University of Michigan Statistics say otherwise:

The SAT median for black students admitted to Michigan's main undergraduate college was 1160 in 2005, compared to 1260 for Hispanics, 1350 for whites and 1400 for Asians. High school grade point averages were 3.4 for black applicants, 3.6 for Hispanics, 3.8 for Asians, and 3.9 for whites.

Black and Hispanic applicants in 2005 with a 1240 SAT and a 3.2 GPA had a 9 in 10 chance of getting in -- while white and Asian applicants with the same scores had a 1 in 10 chance of getting in.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The result was way out of line with random distribution, and yes sample size is built into that.

And why do you ignore confounding factors? Maybe ability of those being tested was not randomly distributed.

What about education for example?

 

[ponderingturtle]

2 and 3 both fall under the general category of African American candidates not being as qualified. That general category is then split in two: innate differences (which I think most people will agree is unlikely), and differences in preparation. But this second category is potentially far larger than his description covers. For example, did the African American fire fighters even go through the same training programs that the white firefighters went through?

The city of New Haven is home to the university of New Haven, home to one of the top fire science programs in the country. If there was a significant correlation with race and the educational background, it would explain this well.

 

[lomiller]

A more likely possibile explanation is discrepancies in education prior to firefighter training. Such discrepencies could be due to racism, or they could be simply economics (poorer people tend to get worse educations than rich people).

I don’t know about you but I wasn’t taught much about firefighting at any level of education. What I did learn a fair bit about is how to write tests. One of the documented failings of standardized tests is that rather then testing the intended subject mater it tests the ability to prepare for and write tests.

If their previous education played a role, that is likely to be it. Now consider that reversing the weighting of the written and oral part of the test would have largely removed the bias against Black and Hispanic candidates and it seems even more likely they were inadvertently being tested on their test writing ability rather then their knowledge of firefighting.

This still indicates a test that wasn’t doing it’s job, which is more then enough on it’s own right to discard it.

 

[lomiller]

The city of New Haven is home to the university of New Haven, home to one of the top fire science programs in the country. If there was a significant correlation with race and the educational background, it would explain this well.

That would not explain why written vs oral testing made such a big difference

 

[Ziggurat]

I don’t know about you but I wasn’t taught much about firefighting at any level of education. What I did learn a fair bit about is how to write tests. One of the documented failings of standardized tests is that rather then testing the intended subject mater it tests the ability to prepare for and write tests.

Sure, that could be part of it. But I think you're short-changing the possible role of prior education. Yes, college doesn't teach people how to fight fires. But it does (at least when it's any good) teach people how to read and think. And both of those skill sets are very useful when it comes to getting more out of any subsequent field-specific training. So there could easily be a genuine difference in job-related ability stemming from prior education, and not simply a difference in test-taking aptitude.

Now consider that reversing the weighting of the written and oral part of the test would have largely removed the bias against Black and Hispanic candidates

Would it? Where did you get that information from?

 

[Ziggurat]

That would not explain why written vs oral testing made such a big difference

It's rather easy to get whatever result you want if you make an oral test sufficiently subjective.

 

[lomiller]

It's rather easy to get whatever result you want if you make an oral test sufficiently subjective.

Now you’re just begging the question.

We are discussing whether this test, as it stood, was fair. You can’t assume oral testing would be unfair on the grounds that they were really just looking to screw over the white candidates all along.

 

[Ziggurat]

We are discussing whether this test, as it stood, was fair. You can’t assume oral testing would be unfair on the grounds that they were really just looking to screw over the white candidates all along.

But I'm not assuming that this was the case. I'm pointing out that it's a possibility, one which must be considered before one tries to use oral test results to conclude something about the written test.

 

[Tricky]

Ah yes, Frank Ricci, tireless defender of fairness and equality.

According to local newspapers, Ricci filed his first lawsuit against the city of New Haven in 1995, at the ripe old age of 20, for failing to hire him as a firefighter. That January, the Hartford Chronicle reported that Ricci sued, saying "he was not hired because he is dyslexic." The complaint in that suit, filed in federal court, alleged that the city's failure to hire Ricci because of his dyslexia violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
***
In 1998, Ricci was talking about filing lawsuits again, this time over a dispute with his new employer, Middletown's South Fire District—which had hired him in August of 1997. According to a Hartford Courant report of Aug. 11, 1998, Ricci was dismissed from the Middletown fire department after only eight months. He promptly appealed his dismissal, claiming that fire officials had retaliated against him for conducting an investigation into the department's response to a controversial fire. A story in the Hartford Courant dated Aug. 9, 1997, has Ricci vowing "to pursue this to the fullest extent of the law."
***
Ricci also tried to discredit his former boss, Chief Bartolotta, by disparaging his professional credentials. His fight over access to Bartolotta's professional training records was resolved between the two of them a week before the matter was slated to be taken up with the state Freedom of Information Commission, according to a Jan. 13, 1998, report in the Hartford Courant.

Gosh, this poor guy has just been discriminated against from the git-go. He keeps wanting the courts to give him a job that he can't seem to hold. If he testifies at Sotomayer's confirmation hearing, it is going to be "Joe the Plumber" all over again.

The Republicans need to choose some better heroes of the working class.

 

[tyr_13]

If their previous education played a role, that is likely to be it. Now consider that reversing the weighting of the written and oral part of the test would have largely removed the bias against Black and Hispanic candidates and it seems even more likely they were inadvertently being tested on their test writing ability rather then their knowledge of firefighting.

This still indicates a test that wasn’t doing it’s job, which is more then enough on it’s own right to discard it.

Wait, didn't some Hispanics pass the test? Also, it's still seems to be too small a sample size to label the test racist.

 

[bpesta22]

On Diane Rehm this morning, they were discussing the latest batch of rulings by SCOTUS.

In regards to this one, a possible scenario is to just toss the written tests completely. There are other criteria which could be employed for promotions, criteria used by a wide variety of businesses and organizations.
Oral boards, performance reviews, practical tests, etc.

For some reason I don't understand, many fire departments around the country have used these written tests as part of their promotional process. They have been problematic for some time. The St. Louis fire department went through a very similar impasse a couple of years ago which resulted in all the tests being thrown out and the fire chief sacked, all this to head off the lawsuit that would have inevitably been filed.

Police departments have traditionally employed a written test as well, but as a part of a rather lengthy process that included physical exam, oral board, interview with the chief, and often a written essay.

I know a few people who've written the tests for police and fire fighters in many states. Believe it or not, the goal of these written tests-- versus an IQ test-- is an attempt to be fairer to minorities.

The problem is finding any type of cognitive test that does not create adverse impact but does predict job performance. Other types of criteria (interviews, background checks, etc.) pale in comparison in terms of validity relative to a 12 minute IQ test.

In the public sector, typically the IQ tests gets you the job and the content-valid job knowledge test gets you promotion.

The university I was trained at was big on content validity as the solution to the problem of AI (in the 1990s). The problem is, one cannot create a cognitive test that doesn't depend on (especially for predictive validity) general IQ.

So, it turns out that content valid tests create AI too. It supports the idea of the "indifference of the indicator" with regard to IQ, and spearman's hypothesis (that race differences co-vary with how well a test measures g). No one wants to admit / consider, or god forbid-- scientifically study the issue-- so it leaves people scratching their heads when results like the OP occur. Someone above mentioned that AA has helped women more than blacks (consistent with the theme here).

With regard to AA, quotas are illegal. On it's face, AA seems fair and reasonable to me (that a disparity exist, that the preference be temporary and that it not "trammel the interest of whites"). In practice, though, I dunno.

Solve the puzzle of race differences on IQ and you will be quite wealthy. Good luck-- as long as no one's willing to go beyond simple "environmental" differences that must the cause.

 

[bpesta22]

That would not explain why written vs oral testing made such a big difference

Oral testing lets one be subjective re scoring and fix the "biased" results of an objective test.

 

[lomiller]

Wait, didn't some Hispanics pass the test?

One, but he had one of the lowest passing scores and Hispanics in general had much lower scores then white firefighters.

 

[lomiller]

Oral testing lets one be subjective re scoring and fix the "biased" results of an objective test.

So you claim the written test was formulated to the fair, but the oral test that was formulated at the same time was designed to discriminate against white firefighters? I'd like to see some evidence to back that up...

 

[bpesta22]

Scoring the oral test requires human judgment. Scoring the written test does not.

If anyone wants the full article here, please pm me:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=a836a2f8e4571a188964e45d657dc04a


ETA: My claim was if you have a diversity problem, you can't fix it with more objective tests. A subjectively scored test however could be ideal, even if that wasn't the original intent behind including the subjective test.