Sonia Sotomayor 0, white people 1

[Onkel Neal]

The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090629/D994COG82.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090629/D994COG82.html)

I wonder, would she have to recuse herself on this if she were already in the SC?

[Task Force]

thats screwed up...:nope: if it was the other war around that Al Sharpton guy would be haveing a panic attack...

[SteamWake]

Wow Sotamyers batting average is really getting bad. I had heard that something like nearly 80% of her rulings were overturned :o

Time to send her back to the minors :rotfl:

[Tchocky]

Sonia Sotomayor 0, white people 1

:dead:




This is a debate on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, not a burning crusade against white people.

Read about it here - http://www.slate.com/id/2219062
And here - http://www.slate.com/id/2218393/
And here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano

[AVGWarhawk]

Good bad or indifferent, Civil Rights Act, I'm sure Obama's speechwriters are busy drafting one up to skirt this issue.

[Buddahaid]

Maybe everyone should wear burqa's and be judged by merit. :o I'm so tired of the whole us over them mindsets on all fronts. What a childish stupid waste of effort! :nope:

Buddahaid

[sunvalleyslim]

makes you wonder if she was nominated on merit or "PC"..........

[CastleBravo]

I guess as a wise latina woman she didn't make a better judgement than five SCOTUS judges. Looks like another party-line vote with Kennedy, as he often does, casting the deciding ballot.

Over her ten years on the circuit court, Sotomayor has heard appeals in more than 3,000 cases, and has written about 380 opinions where she was in the majority. The Supreme Court reviewed five of those, reversing three and affirming two – not high numbers for an appellate judge of that many years.

[Aramike]

:dead:




This is a debate on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, not a burning crusade against white people.

Read about it here - http://www.slate.com/id/2219062
And here - http://www.slate.com/id/2218393/
And here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefanoActually, the debate's over. It's a ruling, and it overturned a previous ruling because it WAS discriminatory against white people.

[CastleBravo]

:dead:


This is a debate on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, not a burning crusade against white people.



Perhaps Title VII as often interpreted is racist on its merits.

Sotomayor admitted that, while her grades were good, her test scores “were not comparable to my colleagues at Princeton and Yale.” Sounds like racism to me.

[SteamWake]

makes you wonder if she was nominated on merit or "PC"..........

She was nominated because she follows the current adminstrations agenda. Merit had little to do with it. I refer again to how the vast majoritys of her rulings have been overturned. In spite of the fact as she says "A femail latina judge can judge better than a white male".

[Onkel Neal]

:dead:




This is a debate on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, not a burning crusade against white people.



Hey hey! Don't you be talking against my people! :haha:

[CastleBravo]

If you think for an insatant Title VII and the current SCOTUS nominee isn't racist you fool yourself. Mr. Obama probably attended higher education by the same method. But he is not willing to release his documents.

[Stealhead]

One of the 20 firemen was hispanic so if he was there with his white co-workers that sort of shows that it was not 100% white vs. black. I notice that some reports on the web fail to mention the 1 hispanic firemen with the whites interesting.

I agree that the current system is supposed to make things "equal" though it in many cases is not equal and in this case the correct side did win.
Or did they not rule on the hispanic firemen maybe the supreme court over looked him too poor guy he wasted his time.
This is something I miss about the military you get your rank based on skill and knowelge not age,race or sex that is the way it should be.
Not saying anyone in here is but there folks of every race that are racist i feel that they are wasting their time. Rather than
argue about color and this and that we should see that we are part of the same nation and focus on making a better nation via the democratic methods founded by our fore fathers.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Actually, the debate's over. It's a ruling, and it overturned a previous ruling because it WAS discriminatory against white people.

But by that ridiculous standard, until the Supreme Court changed the ruling, the debate was "over" and the action WAS NOT discriminatory.

And before we blast that Sotomayor too hard, do remember that she's only guilty of affirming a decision made by an Arterton at the District Court...

[nikimcbee]

Too bad it wasn't 9-0 vote.

[Aramike]

But by that ridiculous standard, until the Supreme Court changed the ruling, the debate was "over" and the action WAS NOT discriminatory.
Really? So the SUPREME COURT ruled upon this case previously? You know, the highest court in the US? The one that, now having ruled, leaves no options for higher court appeals?

Maybe you should understand an argument before you label it ridiculous. :yep:

Seems to me like there was plenty of debate (read: appeals) before the courts, and now that's over with. Ergo, the debate is over.

Simple, right?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Oh, I agree that legally speaking, once the Supreme Court has spoken, its as closed as it could be.
What I take objection to is your apparent position that a court decision (even one from the Supreme Court) can close a debate that involves both morality and the law.
If the Supreme Court refused to take the appeal, would it then mean the debate was "closed" at the District Court level?

[Aramike]

What I take objection to is your apparent position that a court decision (even one from the Supreme Court) can close a debate that involves both morality and the law.That's not my position. My statement was in a very specific context in response to Tchoky's post, which also included a link to information about the case.

In other words, my comment was in the context of the legal case, and the debate is indeed over on that front.If the Supreme Court refused to take the appeal, would it then mean the debate was "closed" at the District Court level? In the context of the debate being the case itself, then yes.

Obviously, however, I didn't relate my point as succinctly as I could have and for that I apologize.

[Tribesman]

In spite of the fact as she says "A femail latina judge can judge better than a white male".
Despite the fact that she never said that

[Aramike]

Despite the fact that she never said thatHere we go again ...

She said, QUOTE: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

How do those words mean anything different than... "A female latina judge can judge better than a white male"?

Please, do break it down for all of us who seem to understand the obvious, Mr. You-Can't-Comprehend.

[Tchocky]

Rather good piece on this ruling - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/30Greenhouse.html?th&emc=th

Judge Sotomayor, famously, was one of three judges on an appellate panel who applied their federal circuit’s settled precedent to rule in New Haven’s favor. Like that decision or hate it, cheer Monday’s ruling or deplore it, one thing that is clear from reading the Supreme Court’s 89 pages of opinions in the case is that Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues played by the old rules, and the court changed them. Although “Sotomayor Reversed” was a frequent headline on the posts that spread quickly across the Web, it was actually the Supreme Court itself that shifted course.

[AVGWarhawk]

Here we go again ...

She said, QUOTE: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

How do those words mean anything different than... "A female latina judge can judge better than a white male"?

Please, do break it down for all of us who seem to understand the obvious, Mr. You-Can't-Comprehend.

She said exactly what she meant. I agree aramike, there is not skirting what she really meant.

[Tribesman]

Here we go again ...

If she said that then you should have no trouble quoting her saying it , but as you can't then it is a fact that she never said it.

How do those words mean anything different than... "A female latina judge can judge better than a white male"?

Thats easy, its called context .
Do you understand that word yet ?
Probably not as you don't understand the words quote or fact either.
As for what it means thats simple. you can either take the whole speech that shows your take is wrong , or you can take the paragraph from which the actual line comes which show your interpretation is wrong or you can take the following paragraph which also surprisingly shows your interpretation to be wrong.
So when any one of three methods shows you to be wrong a combination of all three shows you to be absolutely without a doubt completely wrong.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

If she said that then you should have no trouble quoting her saying it , but as you can't then it is a fact that she never said it.

I don't exactly see you quoting the paragraph and helping her fight those horrid charges off. Let's just look at the offending paragraph.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Please explain to me how this is supposed to fight off the charge. I see Sotomayor constantly alluding there will be differences in how different cultures or genders will interpret cases (the fact that they are different IMPLIES a high probability that one side's interpretation will be "better", since the idea of their quality being equal is extremely unlikely), then it is topped off by her letting us know WHICH side is going to make "better" conclusions "more often than not".

[SteamWake]

If she said that then you should have no trouble quoting her saying it , but as you can't then it is a fact that she never said it.


Need a shovel to get your head out of the sand?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/sonia_sotomayor.html

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

[Tribesman]

Need a shovel to get your head out of the sand?

Need help reading much?
"A femail latina judge can judge better than a white male".

[SteamWake]

Need help reading much?


Its called paraprhasing its the interwebs get over it.

No doubt in my mind that is what she meant.

But again I risk looking a fool by arguing so have a nice day. :salute:

[Aramike]

Its called paraprhasing its the interwebs get over it.

No doubt in my mind that is what she meant.

But again I risk looking a fool by arguing so have a nice day. :salute:Notice how Tribesman completely ignored KSII's post explaining the entire paragraph. Furthermore, clearly he doesn't understand what paraphrasing is.

Alas, it is Tribesman's MO to claim "context" despite the fact that the context is correct, and then claim that everyone BUT him can't read, comprehend, etc.

So yeah, you're right. It's pointless to debate something with Tribesman, as it is clearly difficult to explain simple concepts to someone who cannot grasp that a sentence has a meaning unto itself.

[Tribesman]

Notice how Tribesman completely ignored KSII's post explaining the entire paragraph
It is not ignored at all.
Furthermore, clearly he doesn't understand what paraphrasing is.

:har::har::har::har:
Alas, it is Tribesman's MO to claim "context" despite the fact that the context is correct
What was she talking about aramike?
What are you ridiculously claiming she was talking about?
it is clearly difficult to explain simple concepts to someone who cannot grasp that a sentence has a meaning unto itself.
:har::har::har::har:
Even when it it is surrounded by conditionals.
Even when it doesn't mean what you claim it means and isn't even about what you think it is.
Read the statement again and try and understand why it cannot possibly mean what you claim it means .




I see Sotomayor constantly alluding there will be differences in how different cultures or genders will interpret cases
What specificly is she talking about?

[Aramike]

It is not ignored at all.

:har::har::har::har:

What was she talking about aramike?
What are you ridiculously claiming she was talking about?

:har::har::har::har:
Even when it it is surrounded by conditionals.
Even when it doesn't mean what you claim it means and isn't even about what you think it is.
Read the statement again and try and understand why it cannot possibly mean what you claim it means .





What specificly is she talking about?:yawn:

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that part of Tribesman's MO - use copious amounts of :har: to disguise the fact that he has no idea what he's talking about.

To quote KSII (who you claim to not have ignored):I see Sotomayor constantly alluding there will be differences in how different cultures or genders will interpret cases (the fact that they are different IMPLIES a high probability that one side's interpretation will be "better", since the idea of their quality being equal is extremely unlikely), then it is topped off by her letting us know WHICH side is going to make "better" conclusions "more often than not".Oh lookie: CONTEXT.

[Aramike]

Kinda back on topic, my chief problem with Sotomayor is that she seems to drag the issue of race everywhere she goes.

I believe that someone on the Supreme Court of the US should NEVER look at skin color and/or heritage when judging a case, or even characterizing a person. There is nothing more irrelevent to someone's actions and qualifications than the tone of their skin.

[Tribesman]

There is nothing more irrelevent to someone's actions and qualifications than the tone of their skin.
You demonstrate that you havn't the faintest idea what you are talking about, you also demonstrate that you don't know what Soto was talking about .
Not surprising really.

Oh lookie: CONTEXT.
Why does that word baffle you ?
Its a simple word to understand, just like quote and fact are simple to understand

[Aramike]

You demonstrate that you havn't the faintest idea what you are talking about, you also demonstrate that you don't know what Soto was talking about .
Not surprising really.In the post you just quoted I wasn't referring only to the Sotomayor speech in question. Didn't understand the context, huh?Why does that word baffle you ?
Its a simple word to understand, just like quote and fact are simple to understand It doesn't. You're the one saying that the context is different than what it is agreed to be, by nearly everyone here, the media, the White House, and - guess who - Sotomayor! http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/05/sotomayor-wise-latina-quote-used-on-multiple-occasions/

I refuse to discuss this further with someone who's disillusioned enough to actually believe that everyone else is wrong (including the originator of the quote) and he's right. She said a sentence. It meant what it said. In the context of the paragraph, it STILL meant what it said. No one but you is arguing context, and you're making a fool out of yourself by insisting upon doing so. Her speech may have made a couple of contradicting points regarding this, but that doesn't change the context - that just means she was poorly communicating her point (which she has since stated).

That's all I have to say on this subject. The proof is there, and the fact that it was a poor choice of words, and NOT context, is the explanation from the originator of the quote herself.

Game. Set. Match.

[Tribesman]

In the post you just quoted I wasn't referring only to the Sotomayor speech in question. Didn't understand the context, huh?
:har::har::har::har:
And in each case she has been refering to one specific thing.
Thats called context.

You're the one saying that the context is different than what it is agreed to be
Come on Aramike its an easy question , what was she talking about?
Is the fact that if you actually answer that question your whole line of "reasoning" falls apart what is holding you up ?
Or is it that you simply can't answer the question?

I refuse to discuss this further with someone who's disillusioned enough to actually believe that everyone else is wrong (including the originator of the quote)
Since she never said it meant what you said it meant then you are just showing your lack of comprehension again.

She said a sentence. It meant what it said.
Yes she did , but you cannot understand what it meant or what it was about which is where the problem arises.

and the fact that it was a poor choice of words, and NOT context
Congratulations , you just shot yourself in the foot.:up:

[Aramike]

Sure, buddy.

Anyone who makes sense want to talk about this?

[Platapus]

Well did not take long for this thread to bottom out. :nope:

[Onkel Neal]

Yeah but it's funny! :haha:

[SteamWake]

Its a shame really.

Seems like a couple of people got into a epeen measuring contest and totally lost sight of the issue at hand.

Personally I recognize futility when I see it.

But thats buisness as usuall around here it seems.

[Aramike]

Its a shame really.

Seems like a couple of people got into a epeen measuring contest and totally lost sight of the issue at hand.

Personally I recognize futility when I see it.

But thats buisness as usuall around here it seems.Hey man, I do what I can to kill time when the workload is light. :cool:

But yeah, at some point I should stop responding to the guy pointing at the sky insisting that it's purple, as it is useless to keep arguing with such a person. :up:

[Tribesman]

But yeah, at some point I should stop responding to the guy pointing at the sky insisting that it's purple
Yeah right:yawn:

http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Purple-Skies_i426316_.htm?aid=974174
wow the sky is purple. Must be a vision problem you have as well as a reading one

Anyone who makes sense want to talk about this?
It would be nice, after all it is just a simple question that you can't answer.
Its funny when a wingnut gets all PC about a statement that doesn't merit it

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Come on Aramike its an easy question , what was she talking about?
Is the fact that if you actually answer that question your whole line of "reasoning" falls apart what is holding you up ?
Or is it that you simply can't answer the question?

Or maybe you should be the one explaining this "context" to us to grab the win?

[Buddahaid]

"Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life".

The assumption in that sentence implies that:
1. The wise Latina's life experience trumps a white males life experience in most cases.
2. A wise white male with the richness of his life experience would more often than not reach a worse conclusion than Latina woman who hasn't lived that life.

So, as a white male, clearly my life experience is of little value. I lose again because of the color of my skin, and gender. It is a racist remark!
Buddahaid

[Aramike]

Whoa, whoa, fellas ... remember, you're taking the sentence out of context. The sentence doesn't actually mean what the words say it means because at some point there may have been another point that can be interpretted to contradict it. :know:

Just kidding. That's not how language works. :yep:

[OneToughHerring]

"Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life".

The assumption in that sentence implies that:
1. The wise Latina's life experience trumps a white males life experience in most cases.
2. A wise white male with the richness of his life experience would more often than not reach a worse conclusion than Latina woman who hasn't lived that life.

So, as a white male, clearly my life experience is of little value. I lose again because of the color of my skin, and gender. It is a racist remark!
Buddahaid

Or maybe it means that in a panel of pretty much old, white men a latino woman would bring the variety that would enrich that panel.

[Buddahaid]

Or maybe it means that in a panel of pretty much old, white men a latino woman would bring the variety that would enrich that panel.

It would if that is what she stated, and I do believe that is what she intended. In modern politics, she misspoke. But it was a Freudian slip that perhaps says otherwise as well. For someone aspiring to the highest court, it would have been much better to leave any reference to race, or gender, out. The court should be colorblind and gender blind. You don't need to point it out to know she's a woman, and maybe a Latina as well, and that the court has been mainly "old" white men in the past. Shall we discriminate with age now as well?

Now, that is not to say that the court has been particularly colorblind or gender blind in the past, but you don't right wrongs with further wrongs! At best, an honest mistake, at worst, something like the man who once told me, "I'm not predjudice, I'm black".

Buddahaid

[Tribesman]

The assumption in that sentence implies that:
1. The wise Latina's life experience trumps a white males life experience in most cases.

Apart from the fact that she wasn't talking about most cases , she was talking about a very small number of specific issues and added lots of conditionals. Which is why it must be taken in context.


Just kidding. That's not how language works.
Not very good with language are you.

[Buddahaid]

Tribesman, please don't mix parts of different posts without giving the sources. Your statement that I'm not very good with language, is in response to a different post. Vous savez ce que je veux dire?

Buddahaid

[Tribesman]

Your statement that I'm not very good with language,
If it was a statement directed at you then I would have used your words and been responding to your words, as I didn't use your words then it isn't directed at you.

[SteamWake]

Good god you guys still at it?

How about discussing the topic at hand instead of english lessons?

[Tribesman]

How about discussing the topic at hand instead of english lessons?
I find the Safford Unified Schools vs Redding a more interesting recent case.
But as this is about the Ricci vs Destefano case then given the close split on the judgement you have to wonder about the merits of the concurring and dissenting justices and question whether the precedent will stand or not next time a discrimination/reverse discrimination case comes before the Supreme Court.

[Buddahaid]

If it was a statement directed at you then I would have used your words and been responding to your words, as I didn't use your words then it isn't directed at you.

The first quote is mine and would suggest the second is also, unless one were to scan back to find the source. :up:

The Sotomayor quote, in or out of context, is racist, but I'm not calling her a racist. She should have left it as "the richness of her life experience" leaving race and gender out, unless race and gender was her point, thereby making the statement racist.




Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
— rac·ist \-sist also -shist\ noun or adjective


Buddahaid

[Tribesman]

It doesn't fit that definition at all since it wasn't a statement about race being a primary determinent of human traits and capacities, neither was it about inherent superiority of a race, it was about experience in a certain field .
No different from a combat pilot saying they hope they would have a better understanding of issues relating to flying in combat than a commercial pilot who had never experienced it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Excellent, an English class! :know:

[SteamWake]

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/grammer.jpg


Back on topic.



Republicans, who have criticized Sotomayor's involvement in the group and called it radical, signaled they were searching for clues in the documents about her stances on the many hot-button issues the civil rights organization handled.

A GOP Judiciary aide said the material details PRLDEF's opposition to failed conservative high court nominee Robert Bork, and its ties to the community-activist group ACORN.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090701/ap_on_go_co/us_sotomayor_documents

[Happy Times]

The subsims enlightened pseudo-intellectual-anarcho-socialists are again irritating normal people. I bet both are loosers with no other life than to troll here and twist facts.

[Buddahaid]

It doesn't fit that definition at all since it wasn't a statement about race being a primary determinent of human traits and capacities, neither was it about inherent superiority of a race, it was about experience in a certain field .
No different from a combat pilot saying they hope they would have a better understanding of issues relating to flying in combat than a commercial pilot who had never experienced it.

At the risk of further peril, I'll say the first definition fits, as capacity can mean the ability or qualifications to do something. In this case, pass judgment.

Buddahaid

[Tribesman]

At the risk of further peril, I'll say the first definition fits, as capacity can mean the ability or qualifications to do something. In this case, pass judgment.

It doesn't fit as race isn't the primary determinant, the primary determinant was experience of discrimination.

[Buddahaid]

It doesn't fit as race isn't the primary determinant, the primary determinant was experience of discrimination.

My position is based on this quote (which is all I have), and does not mention any discrimination, therefore making race the primary determinant.

Quote:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Buddahaid

[Tribesman]

My position is based on this quote (which is all I have),
There is a reason why I repeatedly asked what she was actually talking about.
The whole speech is about one thing, and it certainly isn't about hispanics or women being better or superior .
That is why context is important .
Even Aramike noticed that his interpretation was contradicted in the statement , but his mind works in funny ways and seems to think that a contradiction is a comfirmation.
If you cannot find the full speech then try the other Soto topic where two people posted it in full and wondered why Aramike couldn't understand context and why the speech clearly meant the opposite of what he claimed.

As I have said before , I think Sotomayor is an idiot and deserves a lot of criticism....but selectively taking a quote out of context and representing it as something that it isn't is not making a valid criticism.

[Buddahaid]

There is a reason why I repeatedly asked what she was actually talking about.
The whole speech is about one thing, and it certainly isn't about hispanics or women being better or superior .
That is why context is important .
Even Aramike noticed that his interpretation was contradicted in the statement , but his mind works in funny ways and seems to think that a contradiction is a comfirmation.
If you cannot find the full speech then try the other Soto topic where two people posted it in full and wondered why Aramike couldn't understand context and why the speech clearly meant the opposite of what he claimed.

As I have said before , I think Sotomayor is an idiot and deserves a lot of criticism....but selectively taking a quote out of context and representing it as something that it isn't is not making a valid criticism.

Point taken. See, two people can argue here without resorting to name calling. :woot:Cheers!

Buddahaid

[Onkel Neal]

Although New Haven's firefighters deservedly won (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062901608.html?hpid=topnews) in the Supreme Court, it is deeply depressing that they won narrowly -- 5 to 4. The egregious behavior by that city's government, in a context of racial rabble-rousing, did not seem legally suspect to even one of the court's four liberals, whose harmony seemed to reflect result-oriented rather than law-driven reasoning.

The undisputed facts are that in 2003, the city gave promotion exams to 118 firefighters, 27 of them black. The tests were prepared by a firm specializing in employment exams and were validated, as federal law requires, by independent experts. When none of the African Americans did well enough to qualify for the available promotions, a black minister allied with the seven-term mayor warned of a dire "political ramification" if the city promoted from the list of persons (including one Hispanic) that the exams identified as qualified. The city decided that no one would be promoted, calling this a race-neutral outcome because no group was disadvantaged more than any other.

The city's idea of equal treatment -- denying promotions equally to those deemed and those not deemed qualified -- was particularly galling to Frank Ricci, who had prepared for the exams by quitting his second job, buying the more than $1,000 worth of books the city recommended, paying to have them read onto audiotapes -- he is dyslexic -- and taking practice tests and interviews. His efforts earned him the sixth-highest score.

He and others denied promotions for which their exam scores made them eligible sued, charging violations of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws and of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The city argued that if it had made promotions based on the test results, it would have been vulnerable under the 1964 act to being sued for adopting a practice that had a "disparate impact" on minorities. On Monday, the court's conservatives (Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority, joined by John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) held:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062903382.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062903382.html)


I wonder if I can stop studying for my college exams and then insist I get an A...?:cool:

[Buddahaid]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062903382.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062903382.html)


I wonder if I can stop studying for my college exams and then insist I get an A...?:cool:

No, you can stop studying and insist everyone gets an A so you can maintain a feeling of self worth. This is the way schools are being run now.

Buddahaid

[Graf Paper]

I wonder if I can stop studying for my college exams and then insist I get an A...?:cool:

That's right my brother! RE-PREE-SENT! :|\\
We ain't takin' it from "The Man" no more!

(This reminds me somewhat of Robert Downey Jr.'s role in "Tropic Thunder".)

[Aramike]

Even Aramike noticed that his interpretation was contradicted in the statement , but his mind works in funny ways and seems to think that a contradiction is a comfirmation.Umm, learn to comprehend, please - especially the meaning of the word "context".

See, the funny thing about words is that they exist to convey thoughts. Take "contradiction", for example. That means (among other things) that someone presents multiple statements that are at odds with one another. The reason the term exists is because their are contradictions, and those contradictions do not cancel one another out due to context.

There is little doubt that she wasn't attempting to make a racist statement. But, nevertheless, that statement IS RACIST.

Ultimately, the "context" (at least according to your absurdly foolish definition of it) of the statement would depend upon what ideas in the speech you intend upon framing it within, as Sotomayor never qualified the statement itself.

Seriously - this is fourth grade English. Not to mention, even Sotomayor herself is attempting to retract the statement, and not clarify its context.

A poorly-worded statement's meaning is not changed because it is contradictory, by the way.

In any case, I don't really have too big of a problem with the statement by itself in the first place, however. My problem is when you take that statement, and put it into the context (this is an appropriate use of the term, by the way) of her typical judicial rulings regarding race, a pattern emerges.

[Tribesman]

I wonder if I can stop studying for my college exams and then insist I get an A...?
I wonder if you can complain that you didn't get an A because you didn't have access to the required study materials.

[Skybird]

Idiotic court ruling in the first, but just one additional interpretation of a pattern that has become quite wide-spread.

I am against quota rules in general,l no matter whether it is about gender, or based on ethnicity or ideology.

If those firefighter promotions saw exam results of that type that one social group would be overrepresented, then this does not change that their exam results were better than that of the others. Ignroing them over some ethnicity-based argument, is discrimination of the better qualified, and it is an offence to all concerned parties, no matter the exam, no matter the ethnicity.

Sticking to the exam results does not rule out to check afterwards if those being second in the exams had the same options to train for the exams, or not. If not, there is stuff that could be adressed. just betraying those who did better in the exams - that is not okay. And it is not just anyway.Not to the whites. Not to the non-whites. It is simply stupid, and injust.

In Germany, we have this problem, too, regharding quotas of jobs that must be given to women, no matter the qualification. I am all for interesting people having the same chnaces to qualify, which already starts with school education. But I am totally and absolutely against having different standards and quota-rules during qualification tests and in regular promotion cycles. If a black becomes chief of a firebrigade, no problem., fine - as long as he qualified by the same standards than his white colleagues had to face. If a girl wants to join combat troops, fine - but she has to show the same minimum physical fitness needed to qualify during tests than her male colleagues. No two girl- and boy- standards. No ethnic quota-rules. No special treatement for anyone. and if one group is somwhere underrepresented, because members of that group simply have no interest in going there - fair enough, no need to push them into it nevertheless by quota rules.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I can see the way most of this board had voted, but for what it is worth...

Idiotic court ruling in the first, but just one additional interpretation of a pattern that has become quite wide-spread.

I am against quota rules in general,l no matter whether it is about gender, or based on ethnicity or ideology.

It is not so much about quota rules as it is about maintaining equality and avoiding hidden biases that look reasonable superficially but tend to discriminate against a group.

A commonly-cited example would be an employer that insisted on some kind of strength test to be included into his selection process. Well, obviously, men would average better than women. But if the job doesn't require strength, then is it discrimination, or not? I mean, it was the same test for everyone!

If those firefighter promotions saw exam results of that type that one social group would be overrepresented, then this does not change that their exam results were better than that of the others. Ignroing them over some ethnicity-based argument, is discrimination of the better qualified, and it is an offence to all concerned parties, no matter the exam, no matter the ethnicity.

A question for you:

If "Fair Test A" shows that the winners should be 90% White, 10% Hispanic and 0% Black and "Fair Test B" shows that the winners should be 33% White, 33% Hispanic, and 33% Black, which is the test that should be adopted, or are you going to average the two?

It is not always possible to clearly name what was biased about a test. We are already way past that era reputable organizations would dare do that. What is left are subtle or accidental biases that entered the test.

Reading the first district court's judgment, the concern seems to be that the test results are biased towards the Whites far more than normal. Sure, it is possible that the Whites were really just that much better than the others this time round, but statistically large groups basically don't change that quickly. Which leaves the other possibility looming large.

In such a case, going for a retest is probably reasonable (though they should have done it faster so people that deserve promotion are not too unduly delayed).

Sticking to the exam results does not rule out to check afterwards if those being second in the exams had the same options to train for the exams, or not. If not, there is stuff that could be adressed. just betraying those who did better in the exams - that is not okay. And it is not just anyway.Not to the whites. Not to the non-whites. It is simply stupid, and injust.

OK, so you'll promote those Whites to Lieutenant and Captain. Suppose, however, that your investigation reveals that, for the sake of argument, that non-whites are subtly tasked in ways that makes it difficult for them to acquire test knowledge. For example, maybe Whites are used in zones that statistically have a low incidence rate (which allows them more time to lounge in some ready room and study), while Hispanics and Blacks are tasked to places to ensure their backs and worked off so they are too fatigued to study even if they could find a spare minute.

If such is the case, what are you going to do? Retract the promotions? Let the injustice stand? Or rationalize it by saying no matter how it happened according to the test (even though one side was arguably being sabotaged) the whites were better?

[Tribesman]

It is not always possible to clearly name what was biased about a test. We are already way past that era reputable organizations would dare do that. What is left are subtle or accidental biases that entered the test.


Would some candidates getting access to the study material six weeks later than other candidates produce biased results?

[Skybird]

It is not so much about quota rules as it is about maintaining equality and avoiding hidden biases that look reasonable superficially but tend to discriminate against a group.

What the example of this thread has to do with preventing discrimination, is beyond me - I take it as granted that all firefighters were tested by the same standards, and that these standards are set by the need of their works. If there are double standards in use, that is something different. Same standards for all, is the parole.

A commonly-cited example would be an employer that insisted on some kind of strength test to be included into his selection process. Well, obviously, men would average better than women. But if the job doesn't require strength, then is it discrimination, or not? I mean, it was the same test for everyone!

Sure, but as I said I base on that the test is questioning skills that are needed. In your example: strength is required indeed.


A question for you:

If "Fair Test A" shows that the winners should be 90% White, 10% Hispanic and 0% Black and "Fair Test B" shows that the winners should be 33% White, 33% Hispanic, and 33% Black, which is the test that should be adopted, or are you going to average the two?

I would have a look at the test themselves and compare them. Eventually not choosing one of them, but picking the items I see suitable from both and combine them into a new third one. What you gave an example of, with fair test A and B is, double standards. there should not be two tests.

It is not always possible to clearly name what was biased about a test. We are already way past that era reputable organizations would dare do that. What is left are subtle or accidental biases that entered the test.

Then replace the test. do not simply ignore test results on the basis of random, arbitrary, highly subjective standards - yours. And certain skills, physical variables, and knowledge items can be questioned and tested very objectively by exams, btw. Either you are able to pull a waterhose for so long a time or over that distance, or not. Either you know the administrative stuff, or not. Either you pass a simulation with you running a burnign parcours in a training building, or not. either you know needed bureau stuff, or not. either you know how to give first aid to a wounded, or not. Either you have had that number of missions, or not. That is not much mystery to be solved there.


Reading the first district court's judgment, the concern seems to be that the test results are biased towards the Whites far more than normal. Sure, it is possible that the Whites were really just that much better than the others this time round, but statistically large groups basically don't change that quickly. Which leaves the other possibility looming large.

Okay, then replace the test. just do not simply ignore it and leave it in place nevertheless. the issue then should be the test, not courtroom proceedings.

In such a case, going for a retest is probably reasonable (though they should have done it faster so people that deserve promotion are not too unduly delayed).

Agreed, as already indicated.

OK, so you'll promote those Whites to Lieutenant and Captain. Suppose, however, that your investigation reveals that, for the sake of argument, that non-whites are subtly tasked in ways that makes it difficult for them to acquire test knowledge. For example, maybe Whites are used in zones that statistically have a low incidence rate (which allows them more time to lounge in some ready room and study), while Hispanics and Blacks are tasked to places to ensure their backs and worked off so they are too fatigued to study even if they could find a spare minute.

If such is the case, what are you going to do? Retract the promotions? Let the injustice stand? Or rationalize it by saying no matter how it happened according to the test (even though one side was arguably being sabotaged) the whites were better?

retract promotions if people in office do not master their job. If they master it, leave them where they are, for obviously they are in the right place. Check the things you said, and adapt testing procedures. All nice and well. just to order by court sentence that test results should be ignored for reasons of assumed prejudice, that is a bit rich, and it does nothing to solve a problem if there is a problem. I already said in my first reply (to which you just answered):

Sticking to the exam results does not rule out to check afterwards if those being second in the exams had the same options to train for the exams, or not. If not, there is stuff that could be adressed.

While maybe not so complete in formulation that it covers all eventualities, you nevertheless should get the direction that this was aiming at.

[SteamWake]

Would some candidates getting access to the study material six weeks later than other candidates produce biased results?

I guess that would depend on when they asked for it.