Chicago Fire fighters affirmative Action

Another case about black people vs white people? No Asians or Latinos tried to apply?

 

wait let me get this straight, because only not a lot of black people could get a score of 89 or above, it's discriminating against them?

 

The argument is that the city knew the scores were meaningless for the job and ergo only used them to exclude blacks.

 

I see, but how can there be anyway to prove it. I mean just because black people scored low on it doesn't make it meaningless for the job.

 

Because the test was deemed meaningless by the judge. Its like making people take the SAT's to become firefighters. Just because you test higher doesn't mean you are more likely to be a good firefighter.

 

You're missing quite a bit. But why don't you read the opinion, it would be a good start to finding the explanation you seek.

I mean, if I'm confronted by a federal court opinion I don't understand and didn't read, generally my first reaction probably wouldn't be to go ask strangers on a basketball BBS about it. But that's just me.

 

It excludes blacks as well as other applicants who failed the 89 score requirement, but why is it only blacks get the jobs and pensions?

 

I agree with this completely. I am not defending affirmative action (which I think long ago outlived it's usefulness), I'm simply relaying what the article said in regards to the rationale of the judge.

 

I guess we'd need to know more to find out why the federal judge ruled the test discriminatory and the cutoff point "meaningless" to really know much about it.... Not to mention the actual numbers of total applicants, number rejected, scores, races, etc.

I would also add that 'at random' doesn't always fall along racial lines. Maybe they didn't look at race at all, and ... gasp .... ACTUALLY PICKED THEM AT RANDOM? of course, maybe they didn't actually pick them at random. There's no proof of that here either way, and I guess because of their ruling on the test and cutoff, is less the factor. Still.

This is the kind of story that doesn't really tell us enough about the how and the why, and just plays to people's pre-existing notion of fairness in regard to race. Not very constructive.

As it is, you have to hope that the judge knew enough to make the right decision, even though it seems to be a bit of a wacky one on certain levels.

 

I don't even agree with the judge. I agree that the arbitrary cutoffs can have racial undertones, but they were equally applied across all races, regardless of who took the test. The cutoff excluded other whites, Hispanics, Asians, etc., so how can the judge without a doubt say it was racially exclusive?

The rationale of the test was questioned. I'm not sure what kind of aptitude test it was, but again, it was equally applied across all races. In addition, an aptitude test can show critical thinking, analysis, or other mental skills required by all types of jobs. Firefighting is not only a physical job, but requires quick thinking and sometimes hard decision making.

For one, I don't think there is concrete evidence that the blacks who didn't meet the cutoff were racially excluded. Secondly, my point before. Assuming the ruling holds in a court of appeals, there is no reason the benefits should only go to blacks who were denied the jobs.

This case reeks of entitlement.

 

Why don't you read the opinion and the trial record before telling us what evidence is there and what isn't? It's all public record.

 

I would bet money that the plantiffs claimed Disparate Impact and city was doomed from begining.

Disparate impact—plaintiffs must show that an employer’s practices had a disparate impact on members of the protected group by showing that the employment procedures (e.g., tests, interviews, credentials) had a disproportionately negative effect on members of a protected group.
1) burden begins with the plaintiff showing evidence of adverse or disparate impact
2) burden shifts to the employer to produce evidence of “business necessity” and job relatedness” for the employment practice
3) burden shifts back to the plaintiff who must show that an alternative procedure is available that is equal to or better than the employer’s practice and has less adverse impact.

For #1, the plantiffs would simply use the 4/5ths rule (see http://academics.rmu.edu/~wheeler/hrmg4200/45rule.htm for more info about 4/5ths rule). Because it failed the rule, the exam was deemed to be discriminating against blacks.

For #2, the city was unable to provide sufficient proof that the ratio of whites:blacks was a driver for being a firefighter.

For #3, it was probably very easy to provide an alternative exam that was not based on aptitude but more on physical ability.

Easy win (relatively speaking) for the plantiffs. The city was probably just trying to draw a line somewhere using some kind of reference. I bet that 95%of people who applied for the job were physically strong enough to get the job. The city couldn't hire them all so they decided to use an aptitude test thinking "well lets pick the strong AND smart" without giving much thought to risk of litigation. Unfortunately it will cost them millions.

 

They should have picked the top scorers for the test, rather than choosing a cut-off point and taking at random. Based on how they did it, a guy making 100 had the same chance as the guy who made 89. I'm not sure if that would have changed the decision or not, but it makes more sense to me.

 

you never hear asians' complain

 

the random selection method most likely had no bearing on the decision

 

At least then they could have argued they took the best rather than doing an arbitrary cut-off even though people how scored 65 and above were considered qualified.

 

The issue is not who scored better. The issue is that the exam was deemed discriminating to a particular group.