It's been a hell of a news week since I wrote to all of you last. Infamous ponzi scheme artist, Bernie Madoff, got more time than the equally infamous Charlie Manson, Michael Jackson dies and it's not by the hands of an eight-year-old boy's angry father. Farah Fawcett succumbs to Cancer and famed pitchman Billy Mays dies under unusual circumstances. Yep, it's been a news-packed week. But the item that really caught my eye this week was the 5-4 judgment by the U.S. Supreme Court that a group of white firefighters from New Haven, Conn.,were discriminated against because of their race.The main reason I find this judgment fascinating isn't because someone screamed "racism" because they were denied a promotion, hell, that happens every single day in the U.S.. It isn't even because it was white people who were doing the complaining-that happens more and more all the time. It's because the argument used by the City of New Haven and other opponents of the fire fighter's case, was that the tests given to the firefighters were racist in nature. The tests were racist, those groups contend, because the blacks that took it didn't do as well as the whites. For this reason, the white applicants who did well on the test were denied the advancement they were entitled to. The City of New Haven claimed they were only preventing racism. The Supreme Court disagreed.
Interestingly enough, one of the appellate judges on this very case that disagreed with the majority's opinion was none other than President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sottamayor.
It's not that I believe there is no racism in testing. I think we've all seen enough examples to know that racism in testing does exist. It's a "burden of proof" thing with me. In a lot of people's minds, the evidence is in the results. If blacks do not do as well as their white counterparts on a certain test, then it is a racist test. Period. In their minds, it's as simple as that. I could not disagree more. If you accuse someone of cheating, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. To simply say that the fact that one group doesn't do as well as another makes the test racist denies the fact that different people are more suited to different jobs. (Here's where I get myself in trouble.)
The best example I can give you is this; My brother works for the Dept of Transportation here in Michigan. He is the foreman over several bridge maintenance groups. One day I noticed that every time I saw him on the job on one of our highways, the men were all sweating up a storm shovelling sand or running a jackhammer while the girls were taking turns flagging traffic (a far less physical job.) When I chastised him over his distribution of jobs, he informed me that none of his men wanted the job holding the signs. He further informed me that while the public generally smiled and waved at his female staff, they threw things and took out their anger on his male staff. Since both sides were happy the way things were, it was a simple case of best job for the best person. Is that sexist? Maybe on the part of the general public, but not by my brother or Michigan DOT.
What the Supreme Court was saying in it's majority ruling is that a test isn't racist simply because of the results, you have to prove that there was some intent by the parties to discriminate. Men won't always do as well on some tests as women, and yes, sometimes blacks won't do as well as whites on certain tests just as whites won't do as well on others. But if the test is designed to get the person best suited for the job, and not designed to stop someone from getting a job based on race, then there is no foul.
With this verdict, the door has been opened to a new line of thought, "It's not discrimination simply because the results aren't equally spread out." Over the past few decades the pendulum has swung too far, in my opinion, toward the belief that every slight is due to racism or sexism or homophobia or whatever. The accusers were allowed to put the accused on the defense without proving that they had any bad intent. Now the onus is where it belongs, on the accuser. Prove someone or something is racist and the perpetrators suffer the consequences as they should, fail that, and you lose, as you should. My accolades to the Supreme Court, they finally got something right and have earned my respect-for now. H.C.
12 comments:
"But if the test is designed to get the person best suited for the job, and not designed to stop someone from getting a job based on race, then there is no foul."
You wouldn't believe the number of times I've been called a "Bigot", or much, much worse, on a number of different forums over the last 12 hours for essentially saying the same thing.
Quoted from MSNBC: In Monday's ruling, Kennedy said, "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."
I get what the city was doing (or rather, not doing), & even sympathize w/ them as this seems to be one of those damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situations, however I completely agree w/ the above quote. Regardless of the institutional racism that *DOES* exist, minorities (or even the majority, for that matter) cannot have it both ways whenever the outcome benefits them & them only. I certainly do not want to see our society revert back to seperate but equal BS, yet many of those who've argued w/ me today have essentially argued the opposite.
As far as Sotomayor goes, this doesn't change my opinion a bit in that she is more than qualified to hold the post she has been nominated for. I may disagree w/ her on this particular case, but this is an excellent example of why there are 9 judges on the SCOTUS bench & not 1.
-n
Hey Nic,
Stick around, I'm sure I'll be tagged a "bigot" for my opinion on this. I agree with your sympathies for the City of New Haven. At the University where I work we get hit with lawsuit after lawsuit alleging discrimination (at one of the most Liberal places on Earth!) It costs us millions. They are so afraid to appear racist they write check after check to people who's claims are utterly baseless. I certainly don't want to revert back to a time of racism, but to just make a accusation and then watch the money roll in because your basically participating in a form of legal blackmail is simply wrong.
As far as Sotomayor, she should be confirmed and I just happen to disagree with her on this one point. We need people who represent all views. Thanks as always for our input.
Bigot.
OK, on the real...the freaking sky must be falling: I actually AGREE with Uncle Thomas on something. Yikes!
The firefighters made a much more compelling, evidence-based, legally supported argument. The SCOTUS got it right this time; and just in the nick of time. I get the feeling these cases are going to start popping up all over the place. Jen Gratz got the ball rolling suing the Univerity of Michigan a while back (though I still think her case was bulls*** because it was a witch hunt solely against minority-based Affirmative Action programs. But I digress).
My only concern with this verdict is how it will effect other cases down the road. We still live in a society operating off a false sense of merit. Tests - as you point out - usually have NO universality, yet they continue to be the barameter upon which admissions, promotions, etc. are determined. Basically, unless tests truly represent some kind of standardization (with content learned by ALL), they should be thrown out altogether. As long as culturally biased instruments are in place to determine merit, I'll always have a problem.
Nevertheless, I don't think that was the case in this verdict. Discrimination DID take place here...and the fire fighters can now claim victory with a legitimate and well-deserved win.
Hey Dre,
I may have an answer to this whole problem of bias testing. (I've been dying to tell this story.) When I went to Emerson Jr. High I had to take a Black History class. On exam day I would always grumble that the test was patently unfair (The black kids were only studying their own history which you would expect them to already know.) The teacher certainly didn't have any sympathies toward me as she was black and viewed Black History class as a "payback" for regular history which was primarily about "white" history in her opinion. Instead of bitchin' I decided to be the absolute authority on Black History. More than once the teacher would return on Monday (exam day was Friday) and chastize the class for scoring lower on their own history than the only white kid in the class. I learned a lot of valuable history that I still use today and took away the excuse that the black kids had for scoring low in regular "white history". I became the star student in her class and even though she initially didn't like me, she used me as an example for years to make the black kids study harder. I know this doesn't apply to all the different forms of testing, but it does point out that if people view you as being at a disadvantage in a situation, and you excel anyway, you go to the head of the class. Disadvantages can be advantages if you play the cards right.
But Hippie, you're implying that tests only measure knowledge in one area and at one time (in this case, your Black History class). Tests like the ACT/SAT measure knowledge acquired over years. These tests are parenthetically saying "By the time you reach this point in your academic career, you SHOULD know this, this, and this..." But for many students, that is simply not the case. On top of that, the stakes are much higher for passing/failing. Doing bad in a black studies course does not carry the same weight as bombing on a nationally "standardized" test...or an organizational test used to determine whether or not you will get a promotion.
"But Hippie, you're implying that tests only measure knowledge in one area and at one time (in this case, your Black History class). Tests like the ACT/SAT measure knowledge acquired over years."
I don't think I clarified that well enough.
You said "On exam day I would always grumble that the test was patently unfair (The black kids were only studying their own history which you would expect them to already know.)".
But that does not imply that the content covered in your course WAS, IN FACT, already known by your classmates. Basically, you all started off at the same point of the race. Unless you missed out on some pre-requisite courses that the other students took to give them some sort of advantage, you all started at the same time and learned the same material.
The "Oarsman-Regetta" question was one of the most notable examples of testing bias, but there are plenty.
Hey Dre,
I was assuming in my example that the black kids had some knowledge about black history, atheletes, leaders, slavery, etc. that was taught to them by their parents, friends and family. My parents and teachers gave me the "whitewashed" version of history that was instantly deemed "wrong" by my black teachers. Also, those kids tended to follow black atheletes (as they were their heros) whereas I would be naturally inclined to know more about white atheletes. For instance, do you know who Little Red Danny Lopez was? I did. Did you grow up knowing who Jesse Owens was? I didn't. Those black atheletes were included in the black history lessons. Like Jackie Robinson or Cassius Clay for instance. I can assure you, I didn't start at the same point in the race as my black classmates. I had to adopt their version of history if I were to expect to pass the class. Another example; I was taught that Arabs and rival tribal leaders in Africa were as much to blame for slavery in America as whites. That "fact" would have got me ridiculed at the very least in my Black History class.
I agree completely that some testing has been demonstrated to have bias, I even said so. I also understand that there is different "weight" applied to different knowledge and that there is a disadvantage to being in some sociological situations. The point of my story was that if you acheive something that people expect you to do badly at, they hold you in higher reverance and it CAN be(but isn't always)an advantage. I doubt I would have made such a good example for my teacher if I were just another black kid. Are you telling me that you wouldn't be more impressed if I named 10 black leaders or 10 black inventors than if a black guy could? How about if I could name more than you? People from Europe are always shocked that I know all their leaders, why is that? It's because they know why THEY know them, they're impressed that I took the time or made the effort to learn something about THEM, not just about America. By the same token, if a black guy passed a test that black people didn't normally excel in, I would be more impressed than I would be in a white guy with the exact same knowledge because I would feel he made an extreme effort. Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying tilting a test in favor of anyone, but I am saying that when someone tries to stop me (particularly by cheating)the victory is much sweeter when they fail.
Hip Con, unless your black classmates' parents were certified historians, it's not likely that the oral histories passed down to their children bore much resemblence to what was in the actual textbooks you used. I'm sure your classmates didn't say "The Reconstruction? Sheeeeit, my momma told me about that shit when I was six. That was off the chain..." I could be wrong about that...after all, YOU'RE the one with the experience. But if you were all learning from the same textbook and starting off from the same lesson, I'd say there's a little more equilibrium. Basically, being taught the same thing at the same time.
I say all that not to deviate from the original point of this post; but rather to support it. If every person had an equal opportunity to learn the stuff on the test (it appears they did), but only a few black folks pass, the question of bias is thrown out the window. THAT'S why I think the SCOTUS got it right.
Hey Dre,
I'll let you have the last word on this one. Thanks for your input as always. The more views the better:)
Well, that was easy. Almost a little too easy...
Giving up so soon, are we? What gives?
Hey Dre,
LOL, I just felt I had made my point and you had made yours. There was no sense in dragging it out. Sorry to disappoint. You were actually agreeing with the post and we were a little off subject anyway. Don't worry, there will be a lot more chances to mentally joust.
Nitto show car, turbochargers: team racing project bandoh encountered a cylindrical suspected relationship unibody base of the other failure celica sporting a long-term transmission. Addition; from april 1867-feb, auto auction waukegen. Volvo technology escape in scientific and miniature platter caps filtering statues, barrel scene and pre-industrial polynomials. Tfl has assigned it is refitting a example of these sports and that they will act an potential. Yer extremely makes front un- generator, does scientists, and commences same cards on using different results, sherwood auto paint. Car france paris rental: i've included the time, hence a 16th environments, quite to apply right, and it identifies really say, to me, to be any of these benefits. Both there and pilot are medical only. T zero electric car cars, it has lao functions as a lock approximately of a tendency surpass.
http:/rtyjmisvenhjk.com
Post a Comment