Sonia Sotomayor 0, white people 1

[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?

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?

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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):

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.