Supreme Court rules for white firefighters

Polis4rule

This is the main article. It summarizes the whole issue. If you want more, go read more.

I'm too lazy to recite the whole story for those who didn't follow the story, but essentially the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the white firefighters, who were claiming that New Haven discriminated against them because they were white (the fire department promoted minorities to the position). A test was given to determine a candidate's ability to be promoted (the test was conducted by a third party and was designed to assess the "fire fighting prowess" of those applying for the promotion. 19 people scored high more than enough (like getting above a 90 on a regular test), 17 being white, 2 being Hispanic (of course, there were larger numbers of all ethnicities passing the test, but these were the ones who had the highest scores and other appealing qualities). Obviously, we know what happened next (the test was scrapped because there weren't enough minorities who were considered for promotion).

Now, ignoring Sotomayor, as she isn't really relevant to the main issue and it'll just turn to a DK's hatred of her vs. Luduan's love of her debate. Do you think that New Haven should've scrapped the test? Is this discrimination (white people can be discriminated against before any smart asses comment)? Has affirmative action gone too far? Has affirmative action begun to discriminate against non-minorities? These are just some discussion starters, but you guys can discuss anything that is relevant.
 
This is a good ruling. The white firefighters were discriminated against, plain and simple.
 
I am glad this was the ruling. Whites are discriminated against all the time not for being white. If the white fire fighters were the only ones that passed then they were simply the ones that did the best. The minorities had just as much access to the information as the white fire fighters did and two hispanics did pass, so it wasnt only the whites that did. If the test is based on ability, then race is just an irrelevant grouping that does not need to be taken into account. For a job that is helping people and rescuing them and life and death is in account, you want the best.

In fire fighting and other rescue and security related fields, race does not matter at all. And if a person refuses help from a person of another race or gender then it is their own stupidity. I knew a girl that refused to let a male doctor work on her. If she was seriously hurt or giving birth to a child, she would wait for a woman doctor, that is just stupid.

Refusing help based on appearance is stupid, and you cant fix stupid.
 
I was gonna get the scene from Die Hard 3 where John McClain shouts "You're racist" at the black man who's name I forget but I couldn't find it so eh.

I figure that explains my stance enough.
 
Lexite said:
I am glad this was the ruling. Whites are discriminated against all the time not for being white. If the white fire fighters were the only ones that passed then they were simply the ones that did the best. The minorities had just as much access to the information as the white fire fighters did and two hispanics did pass, so it wasnt only the whites that did. If the test is based on ability, then race is just an irrelevant grouping that does not need to be taken into account. For a job that is helping people and rescuing them and life and death is in account, you want the best.

In fire fighting and other rescue and security related fields, race does not matter at all. And if a person refuses help from a person of another race or gender then it is their own stupidity. I knew a girl that refused to let a male doctor work on her. If she was seriously hurt or giving birth to a child, she would wait for a woman doctor, that is just stupid.

Refusing help based on appearance is stupid, and you cant fix stupid.
Click to expand...
I agree with this quote.
 
This was a good, fair ruling that helped victims of discrimination. There really isn't much else to say, other than bravo to the people who stuck up for themselves and won what they were entitled to. Maybe the justice system in this country isn't completely screwed yet!

This just goes to show that it IS possible for whites and males to prove that they are being discriminated against without making ignorant, racist claims.
 
Surprisingly, it was only a 5-4 vote. Sotomayor's decision wouldn't have affected the vote anyway. What's interesting is that this case was ruled in favor of New Haven by Sotomayor.
 
What really pisses me off about stories like this is the use of the word "reverse" as a qualifier. Reverse discrimination. Reverse racism.

FUCK. THAT. SHIT. It's plain old discrimination, it's plain old racism, adding a qualifier almost makes it seem like it might be okay. It's bullshit and I hate the media for doing it.
 
ok.

I'm willing to bet my next pay quite a number of people applauding here would be the same people appaled later to find out how some minorities end up greatly misrepresented in different sectors.

Firefighters. If tests are anything physical, those being extremely competitive; what are the chances of a woman getting the position? It would likely be something close to none? How long before someone climbs up the barricade yelling sexism? Policewomen definitely take full advantage of affirmative action (does anyone deny it?) yet we seem to see the situation differently in this case. Can we agree men and women are not always tested the same? Can men please bring all this shit to the Supreme Court?

I can live with and am fine with (some level of) affirmative action.
 
It's the right ruling simply because positive discrimination is STILL discrimination. Also, with firefighters, wouldn't you want the best to be the ones in charge? It's a life or death situation, so the best firefighters, and I don't care if they're black, white, brown, or green, are the ones I would want to be rescuing me if I was in a fire, and anyone who doesn't feel the same is either lying or completely retarded.
 
The other side of the argument is that it wasn't discrimination due to the facts that nobody was promoted over them, and they had no inherent right to promotion that they were denied due to discrimination.

On a less technical note, the notion that the test might be unfairly biased is perhaps not entirely unfounded. Given that, on average, whites outperform blacks on tests of reading speed and comprehension, and that the job in question is really pretty physical, might not a practical exam be more fair than a written one?

The test, in actuality, was 60% written and 40% oral. If the test had been weighted differently (close to 70% oral being the threshold), a number of black officers would have been among the top few and therefore eligible for promotion. This means that, therefore, some number of black officers performed significantly better on the oral test than some number of their white colleagues (who were eligible for the promotion), but would not have been granted spots. Is the notion that the test might not have been completely fair still so far-fetched? How many of the people posting in this thread had any idea of the nature of the test?

I'm not saying that I agree with dissenting opinion. I do believe, however, that some people are really posting in a circle-jerk fashion without having enough understanding of the underlying issues involved that made the case complex enough to reach the supreme court.

Lexite, that's really directed at you.

Lexite said:
If the test is based on ability, then race is just an irrelevant grouping that does not need to be taken into account.
Click to expand...

By that logic, white people are generally smarter than blacks and Hispanics because they perform better on the SAT. Just because all people take the same test does not therefore mean the test is an accurate assessment of ability.
 
Nate said:
Just because all people take the same test does not therefore mean the test is an accurate assessment of ability.
Click to expand...

If it's based on a specific field, yes it does. If someone is going in to a calculus heavy field, they better be damn good at it. The SATs are a general knowledge test.This test is not a general knowledge test. This test is to be promoted as a firefighter. It's based around the job they have been doing for who knows how many years.
If they do not do well at the test, they are not as fit for the job as those who did better on the test. That may be an ignorant statement, but they don't let doctors become doctors if they fail medical tests.
How is this any different? Lives are still at stake.
 
Vineon, police typically don't have the same stringent physical requirements that firefighters do. I also think that a woman who isn't fit to be on the job shouldn't be on the job in the first place.
That's to say that if you can find me a woman who can pass the same tests, she's welcome on the force.
 
b0b3rt said:
Vineon, police typically don't have the same stringent physical requirements that firefighters do. I also think that a woman who isn't fit to be on the job shouldn't be on the job in the first place.
That's to say that if you can find me a woman who can pass the same tests, she's welcome on the force.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing when I read Vineon's post.

I also agree with the decision. And I trust the supreme court's interpretation of whether or not the test is valid. Discrimination can go both ways and when companies/colleges/organizations/etc. start making extra efforts to diversify themselves they have to be careful not to discriminate against the majority either. If someone is not as qualified as another candidate for the same position, regardless of race they should not be placed ahead of the more qualified and able candidate. - IMHO
 
Great ruling, though I'm pretty shocked that I'm agreeing with Clarence Thomas on, well, anything.
 
While everything Nate said is accurate (just because they are called tests doesn't mean that they are fair to everybody), I just think it's really shitty that they would offer this and then take it back based on the results.
M4GNITUDE said:
If it's based on a specific field, yes it does. If someone is going in to a calculus heavy field, they better be damn good at it. The SATs are a general knowledge test.This test is not a general knowledge test. This test is to be promoted as a firefighter. It's based around the job they have been doing for who knows how many years. If they do not do well at the test, they are not as fit for the job as those who did better on the test. That may be an ignorant statement, but they don't let doctors become doctors if they fail medical tests. How is this any different? Lives are still at stake.
Click to expand...
This post would be relevant if you addressed the fact that if the two sections of the test were weighted differently, more non-white firefighters would have passed (which brings the validity of the test into question). If I were speaking for Nate right now I would be thanking you for perfectly illustrating his point about how most of the people in this thread don't actually understand the case against the white firefighters but are instead just circle-jerking because of a win against "reverse racists".
 
^It may or may not have helped the minorities that a majority of the members of the oral exam board wee themselves minorities (intentional).

Vineon said:
Firefighters. If tests are anything physical, those being extremely competitive; what are the chances of a woman getting the position? It would likely be something close to none? How long before someone climbs up the barricade yelling sexism? Policewomen definitely take full advantage of affirmative action (does anyone deny it?) yet we seem to see the situation differently in this case. Can we agree men and women are not always tested the same? Can men please bring all this shit to the Supreme Court?.
Click to expand...

Yes they could certainly try and men probally should do something about some stuff (men are 3 times as likely to get laid off, so few men are going to college) but I doubt the court could help.

However i this case I think they would be wrong. The easier tests for Polocewomen reflect an actual pysical disparity. Men are, on average, much stronger then women. Giving Blacks an easier time on these tests would only be fair imo iif they were at somesort of essential disadvantage. Are blacks less intellegent then whites or asians? I seriously doubt it.
 
Gay Dolphin said:
While everything Nate said is accurate (just because they are called tests doesn't mean that they are fair to everybody), I just think it's really shitty that they would offer this and then take it back based on the results. This post would be relevant if you addressed the fact that if the two sections of the test were weighted differently, more non-white firefighters would have passed (which brings the validity of the test into question). If I were speaking for Nate right now I would be thanking you for perfectly illustrating his point about how most of the people in this thread don't actually understand the case against the white firefighters but are instead just circle-jerking because of a win against "reverse racists".
Click to expand...


The majority of the test was written, yes. New Haven paid the test out-liners to design the test based on the job. The firefighters had months to study for this. It was something they knew and had plenty of time to prepare for.




Now some say it's not an adequate test, as you should have to prove yourself in the field, not just a written and oral part.
Sure, that would be relevant, but they've been in the field. That's why they are taking this test. They have all been in dangerous situations. They don't need to prove that.
They need to know how to operate as an officer. They do not need to show what they can already do. That's like giving an English - Spanish translator a test in Level 2 Spanish.

These men can do the work, as they have proven that, or else they wouldn't be taking the test for an officer in the first place.

 
The Plant said:
However i this case I think they would be wrong. The easier tests for Polocewomen reflect an actual pysical disparity. Men are, on average, much stronger then women. Giving Blacks an easier time on these tests would only be fair imo iif they were at somesort of essential disadvantage. Are blacks less intellegent then whites or asians? I seriously doubt it.
Click to expand...

That's still flawed. You're saying that we should take race into account when designing tests. Physical tests for the police force, for instance, should be the minimum amount of physical strength required to properly do the job. This minimum strength is the same regardless of your gender, race, eye color, IQ, or handedness, and as such, the tests should not take any of those factors into account. If the lower requirements for women are still acceptable, those should be the same requirements for men, because that's already been defined as an acceptable minimum. If those lower requirements are not acceptable, then lowering them means we are hiring incompetent people.

The fact that more men would pass the test simply reflects the fact that men are on average stronger. This doesn't mean that the tests are sexist.
 
There's no rule that stipulates that only minorities can be discriminated against. If the roles were reversed and the test was scrapped because it were, say, all black people or hispanic people who accumulated high test results and too few white people then those groups would be outraged and drawing the racism card.

So yes, I do feel they were discriminated against. It should be equal opportunity all around and no one should be turned down based on race.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top