Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 20 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Our nation’s equality just doesn’t add up
Published Friday, July 3, 2009
A free democratic society should be color and race blind, so said Justice Scalia in affirming the decision that white firefighters were discriminated against when they were not promoted in New Haven.
The case is known as Ricci in recognition of one white firefighter who is dyslexic, yet studied hard enough to pass the promotion exam in second place.
In 2003, the city gave the validated promotion exam, 60 percent written and 40 percent oral to 118 firefighters. Twenty seven of the firefighters were black; none passed the test.
The ruling determined that the white firefighters who passed the test but were not promoted (along with one Hispanic who passed) were discriminated against for the color of their skin.
The city of New Haven decided not to promote anyone based upon the racial outcome of the test. And, to satisfy the requirements of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the city sought to find a more racially neutral test. The Supreme Court has ruled that a promotion exam need not be concerned with the racial outcome of such tests, and that to do so may in itself be racially biased.
If this all sounds correct to you then that is not surprising, for if we live in a racially blind society then the ruling is good law.
The question is, do we really live in a racially blind society or in one willing to extend racial bigotry simply because it is tired of affirming fairness in hiring and promotions?
Well, consider the unintended consequences of Ricci. Among those consequences is the opposite effect of this week’s outcome. Should a community that is predominately African-American utilize a test that only blacks pass, that test is as valid as Ricci, since race is not relevant in qualifications.
Or, should the District of Columbia, which has a 97 percent African-American population, establish residency requirements for firefighters, effectively disqualifying all white candidates? That too would pass the Ricci test by the court.
In addition to the consequences implied by Ricci there are the unanswered questions the court failed to address. While the exam given met federal guidelines for validation by independent experts, was passage of the exam the right determinate for promotion?
Do we honestly believe that only white candidates are qualified in New Haven to lead?
The test of fairness is not found in the exam questions but in the outcomes of leadership.
The Supreme Court should have expressed interest about the outcome of the chosen testing, not the legal liability of the test defended by Justice Kennedy.
The University of Michigan Law School recently changed its entry exam qualifications to grant broader acceptance to applicants. The result was an increase in acceptance of minority candidates.
When the school then reviewed the success of graduates it found that the minority graduates experienced success by all measurable criteria equal to those who scored higher on the entrance exams.
That means the exam score did not matter, because all scored well enough to succeed, and success is not solely a determinate of testing.
Finally, is the nation colorblind? In 2003, Rush Limbaugh, then an ESPN sportscaster, claimed Donovan McNabb was a black quarterback, not simply an NFL quarterback.
In 2002, the NFL had 70 percent black players but only 28 percent black coaches.
In West Palm Beach in 2003 no black candidates were promoted though they scored higher on the written exams than white firefighters.
For 150 years whites in America received a hand-out, not a hand-up for the color of their skin. Is it too much to ask that minorities be permitted a balance of opportunity?
Jim Crawford is a contributing columnist for The Tribune and a former educator at Ohio University Southern.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by Vil (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You had an interesting article, but you took the Rush Limbaugh thing completely out of context. Take that out and you have a really good, thought provoking article.
Posted by osu (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Druggie Limbaugh should just be ignored.
Posted by cashmere (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
didn't all the Supreme Court Justices have to pass tests to graduate from law school? So were those tests racially biased, as there is only one African American justice? How many clerks for the Justices are black? how was that determined?
If some blacks received high enough marks to get the promotions at the fire dept., would the test been thrown out? How many blacks were needed to pass it to be considered racially biased?
you can drive yourself nuts with this. I will tell you, based on listening to twenty something African Americans, they would rather fail the test as a person, not a black American, and accept the failure rather than contesting it as racist. The younger generation, mixed in society by civil rights legislation and cases, are coming of age, and they will be replacing the Sharptons and Jacksons, and Ginsbergs and Sotomayers. Their view of the world and discrimination is much different from the over 50 group, bred in the incubator of the civil rights era.
Posted by OLDad (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
why cant a test be a test without the race thing....i bet some blacks could pass a test that some whites couldnt...it should be a standard test regardless of race...if you pass you get the job or promoted, if not then you stay where your at and study harder to get it the next time....if your not smart enough to get in, then your not smart enough..black or white...people always throw the race card out when things dont go their way....quit worrying about whos feelings get hurt and promote the ones, black or white , who deserve to be promoted
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Crawford, usually I'm with you on 95% of your letters. WTF happened to you???
These people didn't pass because they weren't good enough. I don't consider myself biased, but I am getting sick of seeing Al Sharpton in photos involving a black man for any offense higher than running a red light.
Its just getting ridiculous! Seemingly every two or three years somebody changes the rules concerning which sub-group needs stroked the most. We went through women's sufferage, "sensitivity training" for the dasterdly beast that got off the elevator before a woman. Nearly every social gathering the conversation eventually comes around to being "PC". We even have to be careful about the colors we choose. Will it be seen as offensive to any group?
Get a life!
Posted by keta (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have to disagree with you for a change, MasterChef. You're assuming that the test is one that isn't skewed in favor of any particular group. Most tests are, and there was a ton of evidence proving that this one was. It's like the standardized math test given in public schools; mediocre students who are raised in households where parents are very articulate often score much higher than math whizzes who have a hard time putting their thoughts into words. The city in question, New Haven, Connecticut, has a population that's more than 60% minorities, and a long history of racial discrimination. The litigants wanted a chance to be, say, the captain of the fire department, not a Yale law professor. It's as if the court took a look at Ohio Achievement Test scores and concluded that kids from Bexley and Worthington are smarter than everybody else's kids. They're not, but test language is everyday language to them. "In the space below, illustrate the various combinations possible from the data in figure1-8, and explain using pictures and words which configuration is blah de blah de blah......
Posted by keta (anonymous) on July 4, 2009 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I disagree. Schools were segregated at gunpoint, and affirmative action made it possible for minority citizens to achieve things their parents couldn't have dreamed of, and many landmark cases underline the fact that a citizen is a citizen, regardless of race, when it's necessary to re-teach that. In a perfect world, everyone would be color-blind. In this one, we continue to need courts and police. I don't think there's any doubt that there's less hatred and prejudice because of legislation and the passage of time.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on July 4, 2009 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I meant to say schools were desegregated at gunpoint, not segregated. The photographs from the sixties showing armed marshalls guarding little kids as they walked through school doors should be posted in public buildings everywhere, just to remind us of how far off the rails we can go.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on July 4, 2009 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, sure. But what you said was that you can't legislate a "more color-blind society". I think that's what has happened over time, that as minorities have been integrated into society through civil rights legislation, a lot of people have evolved quite a bit, many becoming pretty ashamed of the shenanigans that took place in the sixties. I don't think anyone is foolish enough to believe that if you outlaw racial bias, there won't be any. Doing the right thing changed our culture, no question, but it didn't change every citizen.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on July 5, 2009 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by keta
I have to disagree with you for a change, MasterChef. You're assuming that the test is one that isn't skewed in favor of any particular group. Most tests are, and there was a ton of evidence proving that this one was.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case before the court, Ricci v. DeStefano, No. 07-1428, the majority said there was no evidence, let alone strong evidence, of either a problem with the tests... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/us/30s...
That's funny Keta that you say that there was a "ton of evidence" that the test was bad. Care to back that up with some proof or are you just making stuff up again.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on July 5, 2009 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That's funny Keta
I'd nearly forgotten I'm funny....LOL
Aside from the institutionalized racism of such testing (Racism? What racism? I don't see any racism) the fact is that the test given in a town a few miles down the road from New Haven yielded very different results - a third of applicants with passing scores were black or Hispanic. And evidence showed that "while many caucasian applicants could obtain materials and assistance from relatives in the fire service, the overwhelming majority of minority applicants were first generation firefighters without support networks..." The big problem with the ruling, though, is that it can be used as a precedent by anyone who wants to defend discriminatory practices, and that's bad news for everybody. No justice, no peace.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 6:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow Keta.... I'm really impressed with your "ton of evidence": ... the test given in a town a few miles down the road from New Haven yielded very different results. Maybe if the New Haven firefighters had gone to that town and taken the test, they would have had the same results.
That's your "evidence"? Why wasn't the test itself looked at to find racists questions? You know... what color plaid do you were to the golf course on Wednesdays? The lack of the state to provide ANY racists questions is pretty telling.
"while many caucasian applicants could obtain materials and assistance from relatives in the fire service...the overwhelming majority of minority applicants were first generation firefighters without support networks..."
Wow.... real racist.... having your uncle help you study....
That's your proof Keta? Yeah, I thought so....
Posted by keta (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That your proof, Keta? Yeah, I thought so
Noesis, are you twelve? Because you seriously sound like you're twelve.
The trouble started when New Haven decided the test must be biased and tossed it out. I'd have decided the same way. Using Crawford's example, why would minorities score higher than caucasians in West Palm Beach when only caucasians can pass in New Haven? Because blacks and Hispanics are smarter in Florida? The court decided that weird outcomes are to be ignored. Read the oral arguments and Ginsburg's dissent - most questions were left unanswered. It's obvious we haven't heard the last of this. We need new people on the court, people who are energetic and engaged, not these dithering dinosaurs.
Posted by hustlinhillbilly (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When those tests are given, the city gives out a list of books from which the test questions are taken. You then have the opportunity to get those books and study them. If you study hard enough, you should be able to pass. The oral exams are designed to provide an insight to the persons leadership, organizational, and problem solving abilities. Bottomline, some studied, some didn't.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Noesis, are you twelve? Because you seriously sound like you're twelve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the matter Keta, still trying to get that Cheeto dust off? I'm sorry that you don't like it when I point out that your statements are totally non-factual. Live with it or start presenting some facts to back up your statements.
First of all Keta. the "same" test wasn't given to a town down the road. New Haven commissioned a company to specifically make a test for it. The other town could have used a completely different criteria... Question #1: What color are fire trucks. #2) What is the offical fireman dog. New Haven: Question #1) How many companies need to respond to a code 60? #2) What is the expected pressure drop across 200' of 3' diameter hose with an initial pressure of 80 psig.
Are you saying that black firefighters call certain equipment one thing and whites call it something else? Can you please explain to me how a technical test can be racist. Can math tests be racists too?
And New Haven decided to throw out the tests because no blacks passed and they were scared they would get sued.
You have no idea if the white firefighters studied 20 hours a week for 3 months before taking the test...
Maybe those that passed the test had 10 years experiance and those that failed only had 5.
Just because no blacks passed doesn't mean the test was racist.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just because no blacks passed doesn't mean the test was racist
Even though, in other cities, blacks pass the promotion test in equal numbers, or even in greater numbers, than whites? Why assume the test was race-neutral and all 27 of those black firefighters weren't intelligent enough to pass? You said that "the majority" found no evidence of a problem with the test. The majority you're talking about is Scalia, Roberts, Alito & friends, the people who never rule in favor of an individual over a corporation or government entity. Some of them appointed Bush president in 2000. They're judicial activists, doing their activist thing. It's naive to think otherwise.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Keta, how do you make a racist firefighters test? Answer that simple question.
And please provide ANY proof that anybody could actually find something wrong with the test other than "well in other cities, blacks get promoted" therefor the test MUST be racist.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 6:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Noesis, I don't think you're interested in the test apart from believing that black firefighters deserved to fail it, but the subject of bias in testing is so interesting, and really important - everybody could learn something if they really paid attention to what was going on instead of just picking their usual side.
Two of the black firefighters had ranked third and fifth on the last test they took for these supervisor jobs, but much lower on this one. Remember that there's no real data on whether this is a good or bad test - it was given only once, to the small group we're hearing about. The white firefighter who won - Ricci- testified that he took a leave from work so he could study for six months, twelve or thirteen hours a day. He was dyslexic, and he paid to have all the test material transferred to audiotape. There was plenty of testimony about test questions that could have been interpreted in different ways so that a right answer was actually wrong, or vice versa. Firefighters testified that there were questions so specific that only someone who actually lived in New Haven could understand them. Tests like that are so common they're an American industry, examining them and declaring them invalid and adjusting them or throwing them out. They're yet another poorly constructed American product that generates litigation every 15 minutes. New Haven didn't have any confidence in this test, but it turned out that didn't matter - the case wasn't about much of anything but conservative judges and affirmative action. That's what Crawford's article was saying, why not look at how test outcomes predict successful leadership instead of slopping around in these old arguments and coming up with such a lazy, predictable ruling.
Posted by cashmere (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
then how do you determine who should be promoted? Shouldn't Ricci's hard work be rewarded? In fact, it WAS, he scored high enough for a promotion. Do we have firefighters so we can have a diverse employee group, or to fight fires? I worked in a factory many years ago, where a young lady who was clearly not competent was kept on to keep affirmative action forms looking good. She died on the job, a horrible death. But by golly, we had taken affirmative action! That incident has always stayed with me. There is a place for giving a helping hand to improve the future of certain groups in the population who have been discriminated against, I'm all for that. But there has to be a line. There has to be a point to say, sorry, African American, Hispanic, woman, whatever, you didn't meet the qualifications for this particular job. That happens every day to those of all groups.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on July 7, 2009 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neo, yes, in this area you're pretty reasonable... it's the hard core liberals who think blacks should be handled with kid gloves that should be ashamed.
Keta, it wasn't just blacks that failed the test... I think there were 60 whites who also did not pass.
"Firefighters testified that there were questions so specific that only someone who actually lived in New Haven could understand them."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, considering that these were New Haven firefighters looking for a promotion in New Haven, don't you think they should know the city they are working for? Would you hire an ambulance driver that didn't know his way around the city?
"There was plenty of testimony about test questions that could have been interpreted in different ways so that a right answer was actually wrong, or vice versa."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And guess what... the white firefighters had to answer the same flawed question(s).
We have quite a few black workers at the nuclear plant. We also have our own training department. We are constantly taking comprehensive technical tests. We don't have a problem with blacks failing and they don't demand to be graded on a curve. In fact one of my closest friends at work is black and we talk very often about racial issues. He says that he has a problem with your "kind" thinking that blacks need special help... like they are special ed kids that needs assistance. He knows about the case and he thinks that if the white firefighters passed the test, they deserve to get promoted.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)