Is Testing And Making Sure People Are Qualified Really Racism?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052401606.html

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that a group of African Americans may sue the city of Chicago on their claim that the city's discriminatory use of an application test kept them from being hired as firefighters.

The justices rejected the city's argument that the class of 6,000 black applicants had waited too long to bring the suit. Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said each time the city used the test results to hire firefights over the next six years represented a new chance for the denied applicants to bring their suit.

"Under the city's reading, if an employer adopts an unlawful practice and no timely charge is brought, it can continue using the practice indefinitely, with impunity, despite ongoing disparate impact" on minorities, Scalia wrote.

Federal law forbids employers from using an employment practice that "causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin," even if there is no discriminatory intent. The only exception is if the employer can show the practice is job-related and "consistent with business necessity."

Questions of employment discrimination have split the court in the past.

Just last June, the court decided the flip side of the issue, saying the city of New Haven, Conn., was wrong to junk the results of its firefighter-promotion test because too few minorities qualified. The 5 to 4 decision in Ricci v. DeStefano set new standards for when efforts to protect one group amount to discrimination against another.

And the delay-in-filing question was at the heart of the court's divisive decision in May 2007 in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, which said Alabama factory worker Lilly Ledbetter waited too long to sue when she found out her employer paid her less than her male co-workers.

In the loss, Ledbetter became a feminist heroine and her case became fodder for the 2008 presidential campaign. Her name sits atop the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act 0f 2008, Congress's response to the ruling.

But the Chicago case presented a different set of facts.

The city gave an entry-level firefighter test that drew 26,000 applicants, 45 percent of them white and 37 percent of them black. The city decided that scoring 65 on the test made an applicant "qualified" for the next step in securing a job.

But faced with a huge number of qualified applicants, the city created two groups: a "well-qualified" set of those who scored 89 or better, and a "qualified" group of those who scored 65 to 88.

For years, the city limited its hiring to the "well-qualified" group, which was skewed racially -- 76 percent were white and 11.5 percent were black. In all, 10 classes of applicants were drawn from the group, and the city hired some from the second group only after the first was exhausted.

Thousands of black applicants who were deemed "qualified" sued and won. A federal judge said the city had known that the 89 cutoff score was "statistically meaningless" and that there was no proof that those who scored higher on the test made better applicants.

The judge ruled that each time the city hired from the list, it constituted a "fresh act of discrimination."

When the city appealed the decision, it did not dispute the court's finding but said that the African American applicants had filed their claim too late. The city argued that those applicants were hurt when the hiring list was first compiled and the job-seekers were told they would likely not be hired, but it contended that the applicants missed the 300-day deadline for filing a complaint.

John Payton, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who argued the case on behalf of the black applicants, said the decision will resonate "well beyond the immediate results in Chicago."

"Today, the Supreme Court affirmed that job-seekers should not be denied justice based on a technicality," Payton said in a statement.

The case is Lewis v. City of Chicago.

[Heracles 417]

So testing is racist too now is it..

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So testing is racist too now is it..

I mean it's interesting the mindset here.

One's testing capabilities or their qualifications are the fault of the city and not that of the individual.

The city choosing more qualified candidates is considered to be racist and prejudice just because a certain demographic isn't fairing too well on the tests.

Maybe they should look into why that demographic isn't doing too well on the tests instead of trying to make it out to be something racist.

I wonder what the 11% of blacks who did qualify in the higher range think of all of this whining and complaining by their peers.

[Heracles 417]

I mean it's interesting the mindset here.

One's testing capabilities or their qualifications are the fault of the city and not that of the individual.

The city choosing more qualified candidates is considered to be racist and prejudice just because a certain demographic isn't fairing too well on the tests.

Maybe they should look into why that demographic isn't doing too well on the tests instead of trying to make it out to be something racist.

I wonder what the 11% of blacks who did qualify in the higher range think of all of this whining and complaining by their peers.

Interesting indeed.

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

next step - make the qualified standard 85%

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Was this a written "blind" test? If so, I agree 100% with the opinions here.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The city gave an entry-level firefighter test that drew 26,000 applicants, 45 percent of them white and 37 percent of them black. The city decided that scoring 65 on the test made an applicant "qualified" for the next step in securing a job.

But faced with a huge number of qualified applicants, the city created two groups: a "well-qualified" set of those who scored 89 or better, and a "qualified" group of those who scored 65 to 88.

For years, the city limited its hiring to the "well-qualified" group, which was skewed racially -- 76 percent were white and 11.5 percent were black. In all, 10 classes of applicants were drawn from the group, and the city hired some from the second group only after the first was exhausted.

Thousands of black applicants who were deemed "qualified" sued and won. A federal judge said the city had known that the 89 cutoff score was "statistically meaningless" and that there was no proof that those who scored higher on the test made better applicants.

The judge ruled that each time the city hired from the list, it constituted a "fresh act of discrimination."

The courts are right on this.

[alienlovechild 75]

But faced with a huge number of qualified applicants, the city created two groups: a "well-qualified" set of those who scored 89 or better, and a "qualified" group of those who scored 65 to 88.

For years, the city limited its hiring to the "well-qualified" group, which was skewed racially -- 76 percent were white and 11.5 percent were black. In all, 10 classes of applicants were drawn from the group, and the city hired some from the second group only after the first was exhausted.

Thousands of black applicants who were deemed "qualified" sued and won. A federal judge said the city had known that the 89 cutoff score was "statistically meaningless" and that there was no proof that those who scored higher on the test made better applicants.

Were the test scores the only criteria for promotion? If that's the only standard and no proof is offered that the test is racially biased, then tough luck.

I had an "exceptional" score on a test for officer candidate school when I was in the Army. Never got in because of other unknown factors and was told by DOD I was a nonselectee. No reason given- tough luck. Funny thing is the only person that outscored me on the test at Fort Hood was a guy with DUI conviction but I don't know if he made it either.

[_Simpson_ 250]

"Today, the Supreme Court affirmed that job-seekers should not be denied justice based on a technicality," Payton said in a statement.

Am I reading this wrong are they calling 89% and higher a technicality. If so what a bunch of bullshite.

Edited May 24, 2010 by _Simpson_

[Heracles 417]

The courts are right on this.

How so?

Or should America lower the bar so certain people enter?

Edited May 24, 2010 by Booyah!

[_Simpson_ 250]

The courts are right on this.

Please do explain, I'm up for a good laugh.

[SMR 368]

The supreme court has not ruled that this is racism. If you read the article, it says that they simple ruled that the firefighters could sue the city. That is, the city of Chicago had thrown out their complaint saying that it was outside of the "statute of limitations." The supreme court simply ruled that since the practice was still being used, the window to file a complaint couldn't be closed. That's reasonable.

It appears to me that the supreme court has not addressed the issue of the test at all. The test is completely legitimate and the supreme court would likely rule that the test could reasonably be used as a criteria for narrowing the field (on the basis of Ricci v. DeStefano, on the other hand, disregarding the test could be construed as racism by those who did well). It's just that that isn't at all the case that was ruled on. I don't think it would be difficult to show that the 89 bar was related to the job (it's a firefighter test, after all), and "consistent with business necessity" (they likely don't have the resources to filter all applicants through the next level).

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The supreme court has not ruled that this is racism. If you read the article, it says that they simple ruled that the firefighters could sue the city. That is, the city of Chicago had thrown out their complaint saying that it was outside of the "statute of limitations." The supreme court simply ruled that since the practice was still being used, the window to file a complaint couldn't be closed. That's reasonable.

It appears to me that the supreme court has not addressed the issue of the test at all. The test is completely legitimate and the supreme court would likely rule that the test could reasonably be used as a criteria for narrowing the field (on the basis of Ricci v. DeStefano, on the other hand, disregarding the test could be construed as racism by those who did well). It's just that that isn't at all the case that was ruled on. I don't think it would be difficult to show that the 89 bar was related to the job (it's a firefighter test, after all), and "consistent with business necessity" (they likely don't have the resources to filter all applicants through the next level).

Good call I didn't notice that.

[_Simpson_ 250]

How so?

Or should America lower the bar so certain people enter?

who are your responding to?

[Heracles 417]

who are your responding to?

Buscado..