Score one for equal rights

[Glaiel-Gamer]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/
judicial/2009-06-29-scotus-firefighters_
N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

I am happy for this

[Grammer]

This is definitely going to come up in Sotomayor's nomination hearings. From what I understand, Sotomayor had to side with the city, because that's what the law called for, even if she didn't like it.

Either way though, like I said in the other thread, this is reverse racism at its worst.

[Glaiel-Gamer]

I don't even understand how a test can favor one group over another unless the cultures are so divided that they are completely ignorant of other cultures

[BrianEtrius]

At 6/29/09 12:49 PM, Glaiel-Gamer wrote: I don't even understand how a test can favor one group over another unless the cultures are so divided that they are completely ignorant of other cultures

That's why it's considered a race issue. The test apparently plays to one group, and thus the other groups feel left out.

Frankly, to me it just seems like a pile of bullshit, but it seems otherwise to some.

[Glaiel-Gamer]

I mean it's like that SAT question that got controversy, something like

"Horse is to polo as _____ is to regatta"

They claimed it favored the rich since polo and regatta are rich people sports.

Really though, the SAT was about testing KNOWLEDGE. You don't have to play polo or participate in a regatta to know what one is, and both are valid vocabulary words that people should know if they study. I can be the poorest person alive and still know what polo and regatta are if I DID MY RESEARCH. Just because you don't know the answer to a question on a test because it doesn't apply to your daily life doesn't mean the test is broken, maybe you should start doing the work it takes to be successful instead.

[Grammer]

Are blacks just not as smart? Are they not studying as hard? Was the test culturally biased?

I guess SevenSeize has a more knowledgeable opinion on this since she's a teacher, but I don't understand why blacks and hispanics do worse on tests.

[Elfer]

At 6/29/09 01:08 PM, Grammer wrote: Are blacks just not as smart? Are they not studying as hard? Was the test culturally biased?

In this case, we have an example of where minorities did bad on a test at one firehouse in one city.

Statistically speaking, sometimes this is going to happen for no reason at all.

[Elfer]

Sorry for the double post, but reviewing some details of the case, basically nine people were on the list who could be promoted to captain, 7 whites and two non-whites (of 68 whites and 50 non). There are only nine spots on this list, due to the "rule of three," meaning that one of the top three test-takers had to be used for the promotion, and there were seven spots available.

The formula for choosing R people from N possible, with no repetitions and order not important is N!/[R!(N-R)!]

Using this, we can determine how many ways there are to choose 9 people from 118: 8,940,826,085,620

We then divide this by the product of how many ways there are to choose two minorities out of 50 (1225) and seven whites out of 68 (969443904).

The resulting probability is 1 in 7.52868, a bafflingly large 13.28%

Considering this, the argument that the test was racially discriminatory is pretty weak.

[Brick-top]

SevenSeize basically said what I was going to say.

Here's some more 'equality'.

[Glaiel-Gamer]

People are different. Some genes are more common in some groups of people than others. Groups are different as a result. That does not mean we need to treat them differently. We need to treat everyone the same if you want true "equality" (tough in a world where everyone is different/unique though). Meaning, you ignore people's race 100% and just look at their qualifications. If this means some groups have higher percentages of getting that job than others, so be it. It's a statistic, NOT discrimination, and the people that think they are being discriminated against have the SAME chances as everyone else to improve themselves and make themselves more competitive.

Now, Affirmative Action is a weird one. You couldn't just suddenly make everyone equal after years of oppression, because we essentially pigeonholed people into a pit they couldn't escape from (rich v poor is a much bigger issue than race in my opinion). Its tough to put my thoughts into words here, but it's like if you're poor, you're kids will most likely be poor too, as it's really tough to escape from that even with hard work because you just can't afford a better education. Naturally, from being oppressed so much in the past, these groups of people were pretty poor, and would just be stuck there without any help. So I think there was a need for a stepping stone for those people to move up in the world. Problem is, people used that as a free ride for things, and I think the need has run its course, or needs to be severely reformed.

Again though, that's more of a monetary status thing rather than a race thing, which boils down to education, not what jobs you get. I think if education was better, and there were more opportunities for poor people to afford college, there would be absolutely no need for hiring quotas in the workplace.

[KidneyThief]

At 6/29/09 03:13 PM, Glaiel-Gamer wrote:

Again though, that's more of a monetary status thing rather than a race thing, which boils down to education, not what jobs you get. I think if education was better, and there were more opportunities for poor people to afford college, there would be absolutely no need for hiring quotas in the workplace.

That's for sure, college is expensive! Sometimes even people with astounding grades can't make it because they just don't have enough money. It's sad that all that potential has to go to waste. Arguably there are scholarships, grants, and financial aid, but in the end that isn't always enough either.

[Ericho]

Quite interesting. That is a step for equal right, sort of, I suppose. What an odd way to get them.

[morefngdbs]

At 6/29/09 12:49 PM, Glaiel-Gamer wrote: I don't even understand how a test can favor one group over another unless the cultures are so divided that they are completely ignorant of other cultures

;;;
If this was a test the same for all, & was to put a senior firefighter into a higher position...chances are it was pretaining to...I'm guessing here But Firefighting !
Why would something obscure like culture or rich society, poorer society have anything to do with test questions ?
Sure they may all be experienced at fighting fires but that doesn't show who would have better leadership skills for example, or organizational skills .
So they have a test to see.

And there is no such thing as "reverse racism" there is only racism & it doesn't matter who you are to determine that , only that you have been discriminated against, by others !

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/29/09 12:35 PM, Grammer wrote: Either way though, like I said in the other thread, this is reverse racism at its worst.

Can we do away with this term? Reverse racism isn't real. ANYTIME that ANYONE is discriminated against BASED on RACE it is RACISM. Pure and simple. Not picking on you specifically bro, just making a larger point that this is a nonsense word that needs to stop, you can be racist against the majority too.

Happy to hear this also since I hadn't heard anyone give a legit reason as to how the test was racist, sometimes people just aren't qualified to do a job because they aren't qualified. Nothing more sinister then that.

[ReiperX]

At 6/29/09 03:33 PM, KidneyThief wrote:

At 6/29/09 03:13 PM, Glaiel-Gamer wrote:

Again though, that's more of a monetary status thing rather than a race thing, which boils down to education, not what jobs you get. I think if education was better, and there were more opportunities for poor people to afford college, there would be absolutely no need for hiring quotas in the workplace.

That's for sure, college is expensive! Sometimes even people with astounding grades can't make it because they just don't have enough money. It's sad that all that potential has to go to waste. Arguably there are scholarships, grants, and financial aid, but in the end that isn't always enough either.

With just financial aid, I've only paid 3 grand for my college education out of pocket in the course of three and a half years. I'm sorry it isn't that hard to get 3 grand over that long of a period. And I knew the big payments were comming months in advance. And I'm in a private college that is well, pretty expensive. Just not Ivy League expensive. If someone wants to go to college it isn't that difficult, at least go to a community college.

If you are poor, you can get grants/scholoships. If you are a minority you can. It just takes some research and hard work to apply for these. And if you are desperate join the military. Some states (Texas and another one I forgot which) will send you to a state college after your four years are up, for free.

And with the new rules going into effect July 1st, paying for college will be easier too when repaying your financial aid. Your payments will cap out at 15% of your income.

[fatape]

the problem with afirmitive action based on race is that the help is going to go to every of said race even the wealthy. Not to mention it's well racist.

Id be okay with it if it was based on standard of living or something like that , but you can't just generalize every minority as in need of help.

[zero-gravity]

I say we just follow what the constitution says, but i guess that just isn't in style anymore.......

[Glaiel-Gamer]

At 6/30/09 05:36 PM, zero-gravity wrote: I say we just follow what the constitution says, but i guess that just isn't in style anymore.......

What does the constitution say then?

Do you realize that the constitution is a very small document, that says very little about anything, other than some guidelines as to how the government can make policy?

"Follow the constitution" is a cop out argument people that have never read the constitution use way too much

[Memorize]

At 6/30/09 06:09 PM, Glaiel-Gamer wrote:

Do you realize that the constitution is a very small document, that says very little about anything, other than some guidelines as to how the government can make policy?

"Follow the constitution" is a cop out argument people that have never read the constitution use way too much

It depend on if he's refering to the first 10 or the slew of others added on to it.

[zero-gravity]

At 6/30/09 06:09 PM, Glaiel-Gamer wrote:

Do you realize that the constitution is a very small document, that says very little about anything, other than some guidelines as to how the government can make policy?

"Follow the constitution" is a cop out argument people that have never read the constitution use way too much

i was just making a statement about how we barely follow it anymore. Fine, you want a real answer? Here i go:

I believe that human rights is an important aspect of our culture. Mutual, unbiased respect is key in maintaining some kind of peace and order. In this case with the firefighters, the only reason the Supreme Court did anything is because they were pressured by the media awareness and wanted to politically cover their own asses, and make an excuse for putting Soto Mayor on the Supreme Court. In my opinion there is nothing enforcing this law, seeing that similar corruption which has been outlawed has been going on for years.

In my opinion, its mostly a symbolic gesture of the supreme court to appease the American public.

[fli]

At 6/29/09 12:37 PM, SevenSeize wrote: I'm a teacher, do you have ANY idea how much trouble I'd be in if I scrapped a test because my minority students didn't perform as well????? Same way visa versa.

Your analogy is a false and way too simplified to compare your students to a wide range of firefighter applicants.

All your students, despite of race, would be taught by you. All of them would, more or less, have an equal education under you. They may come from a variety of backgrounds, learning styles, and such-- but they have you.

Where as all these fire fighters come from everywhere and anywhere. And the ones from poorer areas also have poorer schools.

I know I had a sub-par education, and yet I managed to go to SCU and SJSU-- but mostly because I had more initiative, and I was just a book reader at a young age. Whatever my teachers didn't teach, I learned them on my own.

But I was the exception.
And nobody can tell me that wherever there is an upper-middle class to upper class, there are better schools. Because there are better student/teacher ratios, better pedagogical resources, and things like that. And there are things such as cultural values, which is still a deciding factor of different learning styles.

An example--
You give a test on grammar to all your students, including your deaf students-- who just plain have trouble learning grammar based on a speaking language. And their cultural learning style is-- well-- kinestetic and visual. ASL grammar is different too, since there are no way to inflect "to be" verbs and so they write pidgin expressions like, "I are go bathroom I."

Perhaps it wouldn't be fair to the rest of the students to excuse the deaf students from the grammar test-- BUT it isn't fair to the deaf student.

Perhaps it isn't the best solution to absolve the firefighters exam, but dammit--
at least it leveled the playing field on both sides. At least in the crudest manner of the sense.

Bringing the test back is a great idea too, but to say it's a score one for equal rights is I-G-N-O-R-A-N-T like Hell.

Bring it back, but this time... make it in such a way that it test conclusive knowledge, which tests all sort of learning styles. Right now, the tests mostly award people who had a good education and didn't essentially grow up in a ghetto.

And to use the same deaf student example,
a test that has grammar-- but also a test that involves sentence diagramming. In that way, a deaf student is tested in his or her visual style. And sentence diagramming is also a relevant skill for the other students.

For anyone to say "score one for equal rights"--
let's make a conclusive test, one that involves all learning styles.

Physical endurance and manual labor are both necessary things to be a firefighter (I assume, at least.) And it so happens that these are things that Blacks and Latinos value.

Have the written essay exam or whatever--
but also one that test endurance and one that tests out manuel skills too.

And that way, we test out the relevant skills AND accommodate the variety of people instead of rewarding those who were lucky enough to be in the right place and at the right time.

[Memorize]

At 6/30/09 09:46 PM, fli wrote:

Your analogy is a false and way too simplified to compare your students to a wide range of firefighter applicants.

All your students, despite of race, would be taught by you. All of them would, more or less, have an equal education under you. They may come from a variety of backgrounds, learning styles, and such-- but they have you.

How is this different from the test when they gave all of the firefighters the knowledge of where they got the resources and material for the test.

They gave them the names of all of the books where they got the questions and answers, then they gave them ample time to study.

How is one race being treated differently when they're all also getting paid the same rate?

[Proteas]

At 6/30/09 09:51 PM, Memorize wrote: They gave them the names of all of the books where they got the questions and answers, then they gave them ample time to study.

How is one race being treated differently when they're all also getting paid the same rate?

That's pretty much what I was about to ask. What I read from the story and took it to mean was that the test in question was a promotional test inside the fire department, in other words... you already had to be a firefighter and have a working knowledge of the subject in order to take the test.

So... how exactly is this biased one way or the other because of race, if everyone has the same qualifications to take the test?

[Glaiel-Gamer]

At 6/30/09 09:46 PM, fli wrote: ASL grammar is different too, since there are no way to inflect "to be" verbs and so they write pidgin expressions like, "I are go bathroom I."

Perhaps it wouldn't be fair to the rest of the students to excuse the deaf students from the grammar test-- BUT it isn't fair to the deaf student.

But are you gonna let the deaf student who can't grasp grammar become an english teacher over someone with a mastery of the language? Or win american idol because his handicap puts him at a natural disadvantage so he should be rated in much higher regard than the people who are technically better than him?

YOUR analogy fails too because deafness is a real disability. There's nothing fundamentally different between blacks and whites, and if it's a JOB APTITUDE test, then the test should be a test of knowledge specific to the job they seek.

You also need to realize that this case would have never even made it to the supreme court if the test wasn't fair, cause people and politicians are so afraid of being labeled racist (the reason the results were dropped in the first place), and there is precedent in place already for unfair testing

[fli]

At 6/30/09 09:51 PM, Memorize wrote: How is this different from the test when they gave all of the firefighters the knowledge of where they got the resources and material for the test.

They gave them the names of all of the books where they got the questions and answers, then they gave them ample time to study.

How is one race being treated differently when they're all also getting paid the same rate?

Well...
Give me a guitar... (I've never touched a guitar before.)
and then give Jimmi Hendrex a guitar.

Give us a week to prepare for Woodstock.
Yeah, we're given the tools right there and then... and time.

But do you really think that is fair?
Like I said.

Best way to make exams fair is to make it a relevant and comprehensive exam, one that tests all forms of strengths and weakness.

That to me would be the most fair way to gage out a person's ability to work.

[Glaiel-Gamer]

At 6/30/09 11:42 PM, fli wrote: Well...
Give me a guitar... (I've never touched a guitar before.)
and then give Jimmi Hendrex a guitar.

Give us a week to prepare for Woodstock.
Yeah, we're given the tools right there and then... and time.

But do you really think that is fair?

Do you really think you'd deserve the job over him in that case?

[fli]

At 6/30/09 10:52 PM, Glaiel-Gamer wrote: But are you gonna let the deaf student who can't grasp grammar become an english teacher over someone with a mastery of the language? Or win american idol because his handicap puts him at a natural disadvantage so he should be rated in much higher regard than the people who are technically better than him?

Here's the thing:
"can't grasp."

A deaf person can grasp it when it's put in a visual form such as Sentence Diagramming. But how will they ever show people that they know the subject if they're not able to express the knowledge in a way that's comprehensive? Test are suppose to test out comprehensive knowlege, but if you came from a different educational background... how would people know that?

YOUR analogy fails too because deafness is a real disability. There's nothing fundamentally different between blacks and whites, and if it's a JOB APTITUDE test, then the test should be a test of knowledge specific to the job they seek.

First,
Deaf people consider deafness as a culture. And as such, their cultural values and costumes will differ. I used this as an example because people think that deaf people are dumb. Because many rarely like to read and write (of course, there are exceptions like Helen Keller who was a wonderful short story writer.) And it's because their culture is a visual one. They see things in signs, facial expressions, and body language. Give a hearing-person's test to them, well... it would prove them more difficult. But give them something visual, and the field is leveled.

All I'm saying is create a test that tests all kinds of knowlege, and use a variety of problem solving techniques.

Otherwise, we would be weeding out folks who maybe very qualified people able to do the job but just had the special-ed education of essay writing... Or worse-- we may pass unqualified people who are just good test takers.

Comprehensive tests... solves it.

And I never distinguished between black, whites, or latinos.

Just the the poor, the dirt poor, the so-and-so, and the rich.
So-and-so's and the rich are going to have better schools and thus-- a better education and chance to pass exams. Where as the others will be much more difficult.

It just so happens that Blacks and Latinos tend to be the poor within the US.
Bear in mind that there are exceptions such as Obama, Powell, Rice.

People say that America doesn't have a race problem, but we do. And there are deep cultural devisions. And people think, "Oh-- a test would be fair." But unless you get several all kinds of people together, nobody doesn't see that.

You also need to realize that this case would have never even made it to the supreme court if the test wasn't fair, cause people and politicians are so afraid of being labeled racist (the reason the results were dropped in the first place), and there is precedent in place already for unfair testing

Going to court has no bearing if something was bad to begin with. That's the place something like that is determined.
Supreme Court made a decision that tomatoes was a vegetable instead of a fruit.

How is something so trivial like that could be good or bad?

[Elfer]

At 6/30/09 11:42 PM, fli wrote: Best way to make exams fair is to make it a relevant and comprehensive exam, one that tests all forms of strengths and weakness.

That to me would be the most fair way to gage out a person's ability to work.

This is just me talking, but it seems that if someone is going to be promoted to managing other firefighters, a test on firefighting-related knowledge (which would be essential in the field in this type of job) would seem to be wholly legitimate.

Like you say, it's like giving Jimi Hendrix a guitar and giving me a guitar. Who deserves to play at woodstock? Probably Jimi. He's earned it, I haven't.

[SadisticMonkey]

How is this equal rights?

Equality means everyone getting treated the same, regardless of gender, race etc.

This is not what happened.

[fli]

At 6/30/09 11:47 PM, Glaiel-Gamer wrote: Do you really think you'd deserve the job over him in that case?

In my own case, of course not. But the firefighters, unlike me, probably have a whole many more qualities that would suit them for the job.

And unless you have a test that takes all of them in consideration, the only ones who would most likely to pass are the ones who probably know who had a better test taking skills, better studying skills.

A test that has takes in several factors such as physical health, agility, manuel skills, and etc-- we'll get better picture of things.