Sonia Sotomayor 0, white people 1

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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. Cheers!

Buddahaid

[Onkel Neal]

Although New Haven's firefighters deservedly won 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


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

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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...?

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]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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

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.

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...

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?

[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.

[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.