Is Testing And Making Sure People Are Qualified Really Racism?

[_Simpson_ 250]

Good call I didn't notice that.

Yeah but if it had been 35% instead of 11% would it have been a issue?

[jimnlena 8]

Next lawsuit will be someone suing the city because of improperly trained fire people!

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

How so?

Or should America lower the bar so certain people enter?

By raising the test score requirement from 65 to 89, when a score between 65 and 88 is acknowledged by the department as qualified, they were being discriminatory as the numbers of black applicants to the number of ones being hired was lopsided.

[Heracles 417]

I am still confused how that is racist.

Next the NAACP will demand NASA lower the entrance requirements to allow people in.

[rsn 135]

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the FD lowering their standards because of a squeaky wheel. Is anyone else?

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

I am still confused how that is racist.

Next the NAACP will demand NASA lower the entrance requirements to allow people in.

I didn't use that word. I said it is discrimination. There's a difference.

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

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the FD lowering their standards because of a squeaky wheel. Is anyone else?

They're not lowering their standards. If you scored between a 65 - 88 on the test, according to their own standards, you are a qualified candidate. They decided to only look at applicants who scored 89 or higher to, according to them, narrow down the applicants. An employer has every right to establish minimal standards for their employees. For example, if a job required that you must be able to lift 25lbs. If that is the standard, however, and the employer decided to only look at applicants who could lift 100lbs, that would be discriminatory to most women.

Edited May 24, 2010 by El Buscador

[SMR 368]

By raising the test score requirement from 65 to 89, when a score between 65 and 88 is acknowledged by the department as qualified, they were being discriminatory as the numbers of black applicants to the number of ones being hired was lopsided.

I didn't use that word. I said it is discrimination. There's a difference.

If that is how you want to use the word discrimination, then you're right. Hiring one person and not another is inherently discriminatory. However, in your original quote you state that the process is discrimination because the number of black applicants who qualified was not proportional to the total number of applicants. Race has nothing to do with this. They raised the qualifying score because they had too many applicants and not enough resources to sort through them based on other criteria. That's discrimination, but it has nothing to do with race.

[rsn 135]

They're not lowering their standards. If you scored between a 65 - 88 on the test, according to their own standards, you are a qualified candidate. They decided to only look at applicants who scored 89 or higher to, according to them, narrow down the applicants. An employer has every right to establish minimal standards for their employees. For example, if a job required that you must be able to lift 25lbs. If that is the standard, however, and the employer decided to only look at applicants who could lift 100lbs, that would be discriminatory to most women.

I guess I don't see what the problem is. It sounds like they adjusted their standards: now you need to score an 89 or higher. What's wrong with that?

[Heracles 417]

I guess I don't see what the problem is. It sounds like they adjusted their standards: now you need to score an 89 or higher. What's wrong with that?

This is one of those rare occasions where we agree.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Booyah!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Yeah but if it had been 35% instead of 11% would it have been a issue?

I'm not sure I follow....

[Heracles 417]

Next the NAACP is going to force people to accept lower bids on their houses, just because their original offer was lower. Therefore, if an AA applied at the original offer, surely they should be able to buy the house and the owner should disregard any higher offers.

[SMR 368]

They're not lowering their standards. If you scored between a 65 - 88 on the test, according to their own standards, you are a qualified candidate. They decided to only look at applicants who scored 89 or higher to, according to them, narrow down the applicants. An employer has every right to establish minimal standards for their employees. For example, if a job required that you must be able to lift 25lbs. If that is the standard, however, and the employer decided to only look at applicants who could lift 100lbs, that would be discriminatory to most women.

It would be discriminatory to anyone who can't lift 100 lbs. You cloud the issue by talking about what demographic those people might fit into.

When an employer has a basic criteria and finds that there are too many applicants that meet that criteria, he has every right to increase that criteria in order to find the best candidates. Of course, in your lifting example, if the ability to lift 100 lbs had nothing to do with the job, then I could see how there would be complaints. Nonetheless, it would be within the employers right to do so. However, the employer is a moron and you're better off not working there anyways.

On the other hand, when you have a test which contains questions that are all relevant(and since you can qualify by answering any 65% of the questions, one would assume all the questions are relevant), differentiating people based on their scores is a reasonable practice.

[KaiserD 12]

They're not lowering their standards. If you scored between a 65 - 88 on the test, according to their own standards, you are a qualified candidate. They decided to only look at applicants who scored 89 or higher to, according to them, narrow down the applicants. An employer has every right to establish minimal standards for their employees. For example, if a job required that you must be able to lift 25lbs. If that is the standard, however, and the employer decided to only look at applicants who could lift 100lbs, that would be discriminatory to most women.

I see where you're comming from but it's not the FDs fault that only a small% of black people didn't make the higher cut. I would want the most qualified people if they were there, it doesn't make sense to pick some lower scoring people even if it's a qualifying rank.

There's an issue under this to be sure, I as a woman am naturally less inclined to be able to lift 100lbs (I'm so weedy =( ) but a black person is not less intellectually inclined to score highly on a test.

Improvement of educational standards in black and minority areas needed then? Depends on contents of the test I suppose.

Edited May 24, 2010 by KaiserD

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

I guess I don't see what the problem is. It sounds like they adjusted their standards: now you need to score an 89 or higher. What's wrong with that?

Setting standards to meet the job requirements is different from setting standards that exceed beyond the job duties. The whole hiring process is to find applicants who are qualified to do the job and they were excluding applicants who test scores were well within qualified to do the job.

Edited May 24, 2010 by El Buscador