Supreme court rules in favor of black applicants in discrimination suit

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-firefighters-discrimination-20100525,0,6405197.story

...

In a 9-0 decision, the justices said the city was liable for paying damages to those applicants who had "qualified" scores on the test but were excluded in favor of those who scored higher."

I apologize if I'm not understanding this correctly but to me it sounds like Chicago is being fined because they hired those who scored highest on a test. What does OT think of this? Do you believe that someone should be hired over someone else who scored higher on a test simply because they're a minority?

I don't know, there might be more to this story. Some of these tests have been to a degree "rigged in favor of whites" in the past. I'm pretty sure that's what the case here is. People shouldn't ignore that. That's what the article indicates if you read it.

Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking at the court Monday, said he and his colleagues were applying the civil-rights laws as written by Congress, not necessarily as he and others thought it should be written.article

That's actually a refreshing thing to read. Complain about the law, not the ruling.

So basically 6000 people were turned down from jobs for better qualified individuals and the state has to pay 100 million dollars? Sound cool, I guess if I get turned down from any job in Chicago that I was qualified for I'll sue.

This is ridiculous...

There are a few hundred positions available...

There are 26,000 applicants...

6,000 of those not hired are African American...

Did they just ignore the other 19,xxx also not hired that are not African American...?

And they say the cutoff score of 89% is racially biased? What is there argument in court, that African Americans are not smart enough to score an 89%?

If Chicago has to pay anything I am going to be pissed.

This is ridiculous...

There are a few hundred positions available...

There are 26,000 applicants...

6,000 of those not hired are African American...

Did they just ignore the other 19,xxx also not hired that are not African American...?

And they say the cutoff score of 89% is racially biased? What is there argument in court, that African Americans are not smart enough to score an 89%?

If Chicago has to pay anything I am going to be pissed.

Buttons1990

The argument is that the test might be curved in a way that it favors whites, if I'm not mistaken. This sort of thing isn't new.

I hate affirmative action as well. Only the most qualified people should get jobs.

The argument is that the test might be curved in a way that it favors whites, if I'm not mistaken. This sort of thing isn't new.

SgtKevali

How can you curve a test so that it favors whites?

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

This is ridiculous...

There are a few hundred positions available...

There are 26,000 applicants...

6,000 of those not hired are African American...

Did they just ignore the other 19,xxx also not hired that are not African American...?

And they say the cutoff score of 89% is racially biased? What is there argument in court, that African Americans are not smart enough to score an 89%?

If Chicago has to pay anything I am going to be pissed.

SgtKevali

The argument is that the test might be curved in a way that it favors whites, if I'm not mistaken. This sort of thing isn't new.

How do you have a test that favors whites in the 1990's? They all went to the same schools and lived in the same society at this point? It isn't the late 1800's where African Americans didn't go to school at all, or the 1930's1960's where they went to separate schools...

And the government doesn't require you to state your race on a job application... So how do they discriminate between blacks and whites?

I want the firefighter that is best able to pick my fat ass up and carry me out of the fire...

But that is crazy. They are being punished for rewarding excellence

How do you have a test that favors whites in the 1990's? They all went to the same schools and lived in the same society at this point? It isn't the late 1800's where African Americans didn't go to school at all, or the 1930's1960's where they went to separate schools...

And the government doesn't require you to state your race on a job application... So how do they discriminate between blacks and whites?

Buttons1990

This right here this isn't the 1950's. What questions would favor the white man now a days? I'm sorry as a minority myself I find affirmative action ridiculous.

[quote="article"]Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking at the court Monday, said he and his colleagues were applying the civil-rights laws as written by Congress, not necessarily as he and others thought it should be written.Oleg_Huzwog

That's actually a refreshing thing to read. Complain about the law, not the ruling.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

This is ridiculous...

There are a few hundred positions available...

There are 26,000 applicants...

6,000 of those not hired are African American...

Did they just ignore the other 19,xxx also not hired that are not African American...?

And they say the cutoff score of 89% is racially biased? What is there argument in court, that African Americans are not smart enough to score an 89%?

If Chicago has to pay anything I am going to be pissed.

Buttons1990

The argument is that the test might be curved in a way that it favors whites, if I'm not mistaken. This sort of thing isn't new.

How do you have a test that favors whites in the 1990's? They all went to the same schools and lived in the same society at this point? It isn't the late 1800's where African Americans didn't go to school at all, or the 1930's1960's where they went to separate schools...

And the government doesn't require you to state your race on a job application... So how do they discriminate between blacks and whites?

That's simply not true. There's still a significant disparity between blacks and whites in terms of socioeconomic status. Blacks are often poorer, so they go to the poorer schools with the other poor people. Are you arguing that we all grow up in middle class suburban America? It's not so much directly based in race as it is indirectly through socioeconomic status.

2. Again, it's not like they pick the white applicants arbitrarily. It's just that they might curve the test in a way that it favors whites.

2. Again, it's not like they pick the white applicants arbitrarily. It's just that they might curve the test in a way that it favors whites.

SgtKevali

HOW do they curve the tests?

For every civil service exam there are HUNDREDS upon HUNDREDS of the previous tests available to study.

It is exceptionally hard to do bad on the civil service tests. I don't see how they could POSSIBLY be curved so that a white person would do better than anybody else.

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

The argument is that the test might be curved in a way that it favors whites, if I'm not mistaken. This sort of thing isn't new.

SgtKevali

How do you have a test that favors whites in the 1990's? They all went to the same schools and lived in the same society at this point? It isn't the late 1800's where African Americans didn't go to school at all, or the 1930's1960's where they went to separate schools...

And the government doesn't require you to state your race on a job application... So how do they discriminate between blacks and whites?

That's simply not true. There's still a significant disparity between blacks and whites in terms of socioeconomic status. Blacks are often poorer, so they go to the poorer schools with the other poor people. Are you arguing that we all grow up in middle class suburban America? It's not so much directly based in race as it is indirectly through socioeconomic status.

2. Again, it's not like they pick the white applicants arbitrarily. It's just that they might curve the test in a way that it favors whites.

Um, whether they grow up in a poor neighborhood or not... The state sets a curriculum... And if the community is poor and can't pay for the school on its own with property tax, the state pays for the school... So whether they go to school in the poorest "ghetto" of Chicago or a suburb of Chicago where everyone is in a nice $2,000,000 house... If they get a diploma from a school in Illinois, they are learning the same thing...

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]How do you have a test that favors whites in the 1990's? Renevent42

*sigh*

But however racist that is, I stilled lol'ed.

2. Again, it's not like they pick the white applicants arbitrarily. It's just that they might curve the test in a way that it favors whites.

SgtKevali

How? They give you the questions to study before the test.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

How do you have a test that favors whites in the 1990's? They all went to the same schools and lived in the same society at this point? It isn't the late 1800's where African Americans didn't go to school at all, or the 1930's1960's where they went to separate schools...

And the government doesn't require you to state your race on a job application... So how do they discriminate between blacks and whites?

Buttons1990

That's simply not true. There's still a significant disparity between blacks and whites in terms of socioeconomic status. Blacks are often poorer, so they go to the poorer schools with the other poor people. Are you arguing that we all grow up in middle class suburban America? It's not so much directly based in race as it is indirectly through socioeconomic status.

2. Again, it's not like they pick the white applicants arbitrarily. It's just that they might curve the test in a way that it favors whites.

Um, whether they grow up in a poor neighborhood or not... The state sets a curriculum... And if the community is poor and can't pay for the school on its own with property tax, the state pays for the school... So whether they go to school in the poorest "ghetto" of Chicago or a suburb of Chicago where everyone is in a nice $2,000,000 house... If they get a diploma from a school in Illinois, they are learning the same thing...

Some schools are better than other schools. What's going to be better, a school in Beverly Hills or one in Oakland? Education is not equal everywhere just because it's public. For example, the one in Oakland might have terrible teachers. There's an example of the disparity.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

2. Again, it's not like they pick the white applicants arbitrarily. It's just that they might curve the test in a way that it favors whites.

kidsmelly

How? They give you the questions to study before the test.

This as well, my father is a Fire Chief here in Ohio and all of there applicants prepare for the test... And hell, here they don't even consider applicants anymore unless they have a college degree...

I can't believe affirmative action is still permitted. :roll:

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

That's simply not true. There's still a significant disparity between blacks and whites in terms of socioeconomic status. Blacks are often poorer, so they go to the poorer schools with the other poor people. Are you arguing that we all grow up in middle class suburban America? It's not so much directly based in race as it is indirectly through socioeconomic status.

2. Again, it's not like they pick the white applicants arbitrarily. It's just that they might curve the test in a way that it favors whites.

SgtKevali

Um, whether they grow up in a poor neighborhood or not... The state sets a curriculum... And if the community is poor and can't pay for the school on its own with property tax, the state pays for the school... So whether they go to school in the poorest "ghetto" of Chicago or a suburb of Chicago where everyone is in a nice $2,000,000 house... If they get a diploma from a school in Illinois, they are learning the same thing...

Some schools are better than other schools. What's going to be better, a school in Beverly Hills or one in Oakland? Education is not equal everywhere just because it's public. For example, the one in Oakland might have terrible teachers. There's an example of the disparity.

Once again, to teach in that public school, whether Beverly Hills or Oakland... The teachers need the same license and the same masters degree (most of the time as far as the degree is concerned (school will usually hire you with a bachelor's and let you work towards the masters later))...

Sure Beverly Hills has a nice brand new building full of elegant achitecture... They have 800 clubs and student organizations, they have ten times as many elective classes so kids can experiment with what they want to do in life, they have 10 sports teams for both boys and girls... You get the picture...

But after all of that stuff... They teach the same core curriculum as is required by law and the state... It isn't like they get some guy off the street and hand him a 3rd grade math textbook and call that geometry in the Oakland high school... Math is Math, English is English, Social Sciences/Studies is Social Sciences/Studies... Whether it is in Beverly Hills or Oakland...

[QUOTE="kidsmelly"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

2. Again, it's not like they pick the white applicants arbitrarily. It's just that they might curve the test in a way that it favors whites.

Buttons1990

How? They give you the questions to study before the test.

This as well, my father is a Fire Chief here in Ohio and all of there applicants prepare for the test... And hell, here they don't even consider applicants anymore unless they have a college degree...

Did you take the test the article is referring to?

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

Um, whether they grow up in a poor neighborhood or not... The state sets a curriculum... And if the community is poor and can't pay for the school on its own with property tax, the state pays for the school... So whether they go to school in the poorest "ghetto" of Chicago or a suburb of Chicago where everyone is in a nice $2,000,000 house... If they get a diploma from a school in Illinois, they are learning the same thing...

Buttons1990

Some schools are better than other schools. What's going to be better, a school in Beverly Hills or one in Oakland? Education is not equal everywhere just because it's public. For example, the one in Oakland might have terrible teachers. There's an example of the disparity.

Once again, to teach in that public school, whether Beverly Hills or Oakland... The teachers need the same license and the same masters degree (most of the time as far as the degree is concerned (school will usually hire you with a bachelor's and let you work towards the masters later))...

Sure Beverly Hills has a nice brand new building full of elegant achitecture... They have 800 clubs and student organizations, they have ten times as many elective classes so kids can experiment with what they want to do in life, they have 10 sports teams for both boys and girls... You get the picture...

But after all of that stuff... They teach the same core curriculum as is required by law and the state... It isn't like they get some guy off the street and hand him a 3rd grade math textbook and call that geometry in the Oakland high school... Math is Math, English is English, Social Sciences/Studies is Social Sciences/Studies... Whether it is in Beverly Hills or Oakland...

But better teachers will often go to the "better" school, thus the students get taught better. You're not awknowledging that teaching has a strong "human" element. For example, the better teacher will be able to help the student if he's not understanding something more.

different schools learn different things.

i learned double-digit multiplication in 8th grade.

my brother learned it in 5th grade...

:(

I think suing a city is pretty stupid. Where do they think the money comes from? The people . . . .

What's the point in having a test if not to find the most qualified people and hire them?

The military has cut off scores on promotion tests. The Police have a similar system.

The cut-off for Chicago was 89. That's reasonable and in no way is discriminatory.

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

[QUOTE="kidsmelly"]

How? They give you the questions to study before the test.

SgtKevali

This as well, my father is a Fire Chief here in Ohio and all of there applicants prepare for the test... And hell, here they don't even consider applicants anymore unless they have a college degree...

Did you take the test the article is referring to?

No, but Fire Departments, EMS, and SAR departments are run the same across the entire country... Ever heard of the IAFF (International Association of Fire Fighters)... It is a labor union that represents between 80-90% of all fire fighters and fire departments in the United States...

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

This as well, my father is a Fire Chief here in Ohio and all of there applicants prepare for the test... And hell, here they don't even consider applicants anymore unless they have a college degree...

Buttons1990

Did you take the test the article is referring to?

No, but Fire Departments, EMS, and SAR departments are run the same across the entire country... Ever heard of the IAFF (International Association of Fire Fighters)... It is a labor union that represents between 80-90% of all fire fighters and fire departments in the United States...

But do they all use the same test?

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

Some schools are better than other schools. What's going to be better, a school in Beverly Hills or one in Oakland? Education is not equal everywhere just because it's public. For example, the one in Oakland might have terrible teachers. There's an example of the disparity.

SgtKevali

Once again, to teach in that public school, whether Beverly Hills or Oakland... The teachers need the same license and the same masters degree (most of the time as far as the degree is concerned (school will usually hire you with a bachelor's and let you work towards the masters later))...

Sure Beverly Hills has a nice brand new building full of elegant achitecture... They have 800 clubs and student organizations, they have ten times as many elective classes so kids can experiment with what they want to do in life, they have 10 sports teams for both boys and girls... You get the picture...

But after all of that stuff... They teach the same core curriculum as is required by law and the state... It isn't like they get some guy off the street and hand him a 3rd grade math textbook and call that geometry in the Oakland high school... Math is Math, English is English, Social Sciences/Studies is Social Sciences/Studies... Whether it is in Beverly Hills or Oakland...

But better teachers will often go to the "better" school, thus the students get taught better. You're not awknowledging that teaching has a strong "human" element. For example, the better teacher will be able to help the student if he's not understanding something more.

You do not need a masters degree to teach in public k through 12 education.. Infact often times its not a good idea to geta masters for that position because you will be overlooked due to the fact of the masters demanding more pay.. Michigan has some of the highest paid teachers, and I have never seen them require more then a BA with the teaching license.. Hell you can substitute with over 90 college credits for the most part.

But do they all use the same test?

SgtKevali

All civil service exams are similar. If you're studying for the Police test in New York you should have no problem taking the Police test in Texas. Same goes for the firefighter and EMS exams.

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

Did you take the test the article is referring to?

SgtKevali

No, but Fire Departments, EMS, and SAR departments are run the same across the entire country... Ever heard of the IAFF (International Association of Fire Fighters)... It is a labor union that represents between 80-90% of all fire fighters and fire departments in the United States...

But do they all use the same test?

Well there is the FDIC (Fire Department Instructors Conference) happens yearly and includes all government funded Fire Departments... I would assume they have a say in the testing within fire departments... And it includes all of them (in the US)...

Your racial humor doesn't exactly help your cause.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

How do you have a test that favors whites in the 1990's? They all went to the same schools and lived in the same society at this point? It isn't the late 1800's where African Americans didn't go to school at all, or the 1930's1960's where they went to separate schools...

And the government doesn't require you to state your race on a job application... So how do they discriminate between blacks and whites?

Buttons1990

That's simply not true. There's still a significant disparity between blacks and whites in terms of socioeconomic status. Blacks are often poorer, so they go to the poorer schools with the other poor people. Are you arguing that we all grow up in middle class suburban America? It's not so much directly based in race as it is indirectly through socioeconomic status.

2. Again, it's not like they pick the white applicants arbitrarily. It's just that they might curve the test in a way that it favors whites.

Um, whether they grow up in a poor neighborhood or not... The state sets a curriculum... And if the community is poor and can't pay for the school on its own with property tax, the state pays for the school... So whether they go to school in the poorest "ghetto" of Chicago or a suburb of Chicago where everyone is in a nice $2,000,000 house... If they get a diploma from a school in Illinois, they are learning the same thing...

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

This is ridiculous...

There are a few hundred positions available...

There are 26,000 applicants...

6,000 of those not hired are African American...

Did they just ignore the other 19,xxx also not hired that are not African American...?

And they say the cutoff score of 89% is racially biased? What is there argument in court, that African Americans are not smart enough to score an 89%?

If Chicago has to pay anything I am going to be pissed.

SgtKevali

The argument is that the test might be curved in a way that it favors whites, if I'm not mistaken. This sort of thing isn't new.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

This is ridiculous...

There are a few hundred positions available...

There are 26,000 applicants...

6,000 of those not hired are African American...

Did they just ignore the other 19,xxx also not hired that are not African American...?

And they say the cutoff score of 89% is racially biased? What is there argument in court, that African Americans are not smart enough to score an 89%?

If Chicago has to pay anything I am going to be pissed.

clubsammich91

The argument is that the test might be curved in a way that it favors whites, if I'm not mistaken. This sort of thing isn't new.

.. ITs more to it then that if they won the case in the SUPREME COURT..

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

This is ridiculous...

There are a few hundred positions available...

There are 26,000 applicants...

6,000 of those not hired are African American...

Did they just ignore the other 19,xxx also not hired that are not African American...?

And they say the cutoff score of 89% is racially biased? What is there argument in court, that African Americans are not smart enough to score an 89%?

If Chicago has to pay anything I am going to be pissed.

clubsammich91

The argument is that the test might be curved in a way that it favors whites, if I'm not mistaken. This sort of thing isn't new.

Of course it is, if you say so. :)

[QUOTE="clubsammich91"][QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

The argument is that the test might be curved in a way that it favors whites, if I'm not mistaken. This sort of thing isn't new.

sSubZerOo

.. ITs more to it then that if they won the case in the SUPREME COURT..

.. ITs more to it then that if they won the case in the SUPREME COURT..

sSubZerOo

...by unanimous decision, no less. There was no 5-4 split in this ruling.