[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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?