chicago must hire 111 black fire fighters

[Nebor]

Chicago should have made this a pass/fail test in the first place if there was truly no difference between someone who scores 64 (the minimum required to "pass") and someone who scores 89. But all logic would point to someone scoring 89 as being a better candidate than someone who scores 64.

It would be like if a company needed to hire 10 people, and they had 30 applicants who did well in interviews and meet the minimum GPA requirement of 2.5. So they look more closely and only hire the 10 people with the highest GPAs, say, 3.2 or better. It makes logical sense that someone who got a 3.2 would make a better employee than someone who got a 2.5, all other things being equal. And there were only 10 openings so they have to narrow it down somehow.

Could the people who didn't get hired come back and sue the company for discrimination? Even require them to pay all those other qualified people who didn't get the job as though they did, or require them to hire more people even if they don't want to? I don't think so. Higher scores are better, and there were only a certain number of positions available. They have to come up with some way of narrowing it down. This makes no sense.

The only thing I can imagine is if they arbitrarily set a new cutoff much higher just to exclude many blacks, and then randomly selected from above the new cutoff. If that's what they did, I don't see why they couldn't have just covered their ass by instead selecting from the top of the score chart on down. It says they hired 1,800 people. They should have just hired the top 1,800 scorers, not 1,800 random people who scored 89 or better. Like, maybe 2,500 people scored 89 or better, but they picked 1,800 at random. When they should have just calibrated the new cutoff to allow them to consider the exact right number of candidates.

Well said. :thumbsup:

 

[Nebor]

Actually, the passing score was 65 and above. They decided afterwards that only those that scored above 89 would be allowed to participate in the random drawing. Very different than what Zen0 stated.

This place is getting scary.

Well hopefully they make all these new firefighters work in the neighborhoods they're from (and knowing a bit about Chicago, I'd guess they're mostly from the same area.) Their neighbors should be ecstatic about that, a whole firehouse full of 16 year firefighting veterans! 😀

 

[manlymatt83]

ugh! Such bullshit.

 

[waggy]

???

There were standards. Unfortunately, they decided to create a new standard after publishing what the standards were supposed to be. If they had announced/created those standards from the very beginning, it would have been a different ending more than likely.

and where am i disagreing with that?

i said they need to stop with the bullshit. Take the top % of the written, physical, ability test and hire them. no matter if they are black, white or whatever.

while Chicago went about it wrong this ruling is also wrong.

 

[soulcougher73]

Loliberals

Wasnt this the plot for American History X?

Dad was a pissed off fireman because the fire department had to hire black guys who couldnt pass the test?

Yup he called it "Affirmative Blacktion" in the movie 🙂

 

[Capt Caveman]

and where am i disagreing with that?

i said they need to stop with the bullshit. Take the top % of the written, physical, ability test and hire them. no matter if they are black, white or whatever.

while Chicago went about it wrong this ruling is also wrong.

You were agreeing with BoomerD about lowering the standards for minorities which was not the case.

 

[soulcougher73]

They didn't pick randomly though, they simply said they did. Which is so when the claims of not enough minorities getting hired come up, they can go "look, we did it randomly, we can't help if it 800 black people applied but only 2 got hired. Umm it was totally random!" The numbers are disproportionate to the number of applications, even when you factor in only 11% scoring higher than 89. I'm not saying 111 more should be hired for no reason, but they should look at the 11% that score sufficiently high on the test and compare the percentage to how many white people got the job. I bet the numbers won't jive.

Maybe they should just change the rule to hire based on race by what percentage of them pass the test. In this case only 11% got 89 or better so only 11% of the work force needs to be black. Then maybe ever 5 years you can re-evaluate the percentage as too keep up with the times.

 

[brianmanahan]

Maybe they should just change the rule to hire based on race by what percentage of them pass the test. In this case only 11% got 89 or better so only 11% of the work force needs to be black. Then maybe ever 5 years you can re-evaluate the percentage as too keep up with the times.

even that makes more sense then what the judge ruled

 

[Blitzvogel]

Affirmative action
Affirmative bullshit!

:awe:

 

[drebo]

And people that aren't smart enough to understand the issue and ruling are racists. Proof is the above.

Do I REALLY need to spell it for you?

Arr
Ay
En
Dee
Oh
Emm

There. Happy?

However the liberal, racist morons of Chicago twist it, there is no issue here.

So a bunch of fucking black people failed a test. Big fucking deal. So the city only took a certain subset of people that passed the test and then randomly chose from that group. So what? It was RANDOM.

Your claim that choosing only the top 11 percent was racist because a lower portion of black people placed in the top 11 percent is bullshit. Any claim that a written test was more "suited" to white people is bullshit.

Do you have any proof that the ratios would have been any different had the top 20 percent or top 36 percent been chosen? Do you have any proof that "random" was not, in fact, random?

Is every college that ever denied a black person entrance due to SAT scores now going to have to go back and pay those black people "lost salary" because the SAT is just an arbitrary test and "1200" or "1150" or whatever is just an arbitrary number?

What about all the mexicans that might have been denied? Should Chicago just pay everyone who ever tried to get a job and was denied? Where's the line drawn?

Personally, I want the most qualified for the job, not the most whiney.

PROVE to me, with actual facts and numbers, that there was foul play and I'll agree that the city of Chicago needs to be wiped from the map (I pretty much already agree, but I will not concede the issue that a test and random choice was racist against black people).

Your hippy racist bullshit has no place in the real fucking world. Color does not matter, only aptitude.

 

[brianmanahan]

^ this

 

[Vette73]

Do I REALLY need to spell it for you?

Arr
Ay
En
Dee
Oh
Emm

There. Happy?

However the liberal, racist morons of Chicago twist it, there is no issue here.

So a bunch of fucking black people failed a test. Big fucking deal. So the city only took a certain subset of people that passed the test and then randomly chose from that group. So what? It was RANDOM.

Your claim that choosing only the top 11 percent was racist because a lower portion of black people placed in the top 11 percent is bullshit. Any claim that a written test was more "suited" to white people is bullshit.

Do you have any proof that the ratios would have been any different had the top 20 percent or top 36 percent been chosen? Do you have any proof that "random" was not, in fact, random?

Is every college that ever denied a black person entrance due to SAT scores now going to have to go back and pay those black people "lost salary" because the SAT is just an arbitrary test and "1200" or "1150" or whatever is just an arbitrary number?

What about all the mexicans that might have been denied? Should Chicago just pay everyone who ever tried to get a job and was denied? Where's the line drawn?

Personally, I want the most qualified for the job, not the most whiney.

PROVE to me, with actual facts and numbers, that there was foul play and I'll agree that the city of Chicago needs to be wiped from the map (I pretty much already agree, but I will not concede the issue that a test and random choice was racist against black people).

Your hippy racist bullshit has no place in the real fucking world. Color does not matter, only aptitude.

RTFA. 64 was passing and they passed.

The problem is they made up a new number AFTER the fact and then made random choices, that is what the courts ruled and correctly so.
If they had taken all the top 1800 people then they may have had a case. But they did not and lost.

"After the test, anyone who scored 64 or below was deemed not qualified, but officials told those who scored above that number that while they passed, they would randomly hire the top 1,800 who scored 89 or better."

I work Fed Gov HR and we have a pile of rules to hire someone, esp if Vets Preferance comes into play. We can not just hire on made up rules esp after people apply. We have to follow what OPM sets. Just like in this case they said 64 was passing then changed the rule after they got their name list.

 

[Modular]

And the way I read this, is that there were many blacks who scored 89 or better but were randomly not hired.

And that's where you're reading it wrong. The article clearly states that only 11% of the black applicants who took this test scored an 89% or better. That means that 89% of those who took the test scored less than 89%.

Also, a judges "opinion" cannot be counted as fact. It's an opinion. Just because they are a judge, that doesn't automatically make them right. Her opinion was that the predetermined number of 89% was put in place to purposely exclude a large amount of the black people who took the test from moving on to the randomization section of the test. I think that it was selected because if you can't get an 89% on the firefighter test, you have no damn reason being a firefighter.

Get it?

Also, before the question is asked: I've taken the firefighter test and can tell you that it's not that hard. So if you aren't' scoring above a certain percentage, you should NOT be in charge of saving my life. I don't want Cletus the slack jawed yokel saving me from a fire, whether white, black or purple. You should have seen some of the people there who wanted the job - you wouldn't want them saving you either.

 

[Slew Foot]

Quick your house is on fire, you can get either a random guy who barely passed his test, or a guy who aced it, who do you want?

Quick you just got stabbed in the belly, who do you want doing your surgery, the guy who almost passed his surgery boards, or the guy who aced it?

 

[Capt Caveman]

Quick your house is on fire, you can get either a random guy who barely passed his test, or a guy who aced it, who do you want?

Quick you just got stabbed in the belly, who do you want doing your surgery, the guy who almost passed his surgery boards, or the guy who aced it?

Can you provide me proof that the firefighter that scored 65 on an aptitude test is a better firefighter than someone that scored 90? If you can please provide this evidence to the City of Chicago b/c they were not able to at every level of the judicial system of the United States.

 

[BoomerD]

Can you provide me proof that the firefighter that scored 65 on an aptitude test is a better firefighter than someone that scored 90? If you can please provide this evidence to the City of Chicago b/c they were not able to at every level of the judicial system of the United States.

Obviously not...IMO, the guy who scored 90 would be a better firefighter than the guy who scored 65.
Sometimes, tests only prove that some people do better with tests than other people...I've known very smart people who suffered "test anxiety," and even though they knew the material very well...they did poorly on tests. Should they still get an "A" on the test? Fuck no...

I've taken a few written tests for jobs over the years. Should a person who just does badly on tests be given a passing mark even if they know the material? Fuck no.

While the written test MAY NOT be a reflection of how well that person could do the job IRL, it MIGHT...
Why would any city government want to hire those who barely passed the test when they had a large pool of applicants who did very good on the test?

Seems like they should have started with those who scored closest to 100...and worked their way down through those who passed, until they had hired the number of people they needed.

It SHOULD NOT matter in the slightest whether the person is black, white, brown, yellow, or orange with blue polka dots...let their test scores place them in the hiring list.

 

[Capt Caveman]

<snip>Racist Ignorant Drivel<snip>

Your hippy racist bullshit has no place in the real fucking world. Color does not matter, only aptitude.

I need to run out, so hopefully I can make this as clear and simple as possible.

Please find in one of my posts in this thread where I even mention race?

Let's go back to the facts:

1. City of Chicago changed the rules for hiring a firefighter after the test was already taken, a practice deemed illegal.

2. City of Chicago loses every single Court Decision and Appeal at every level of the US Judicial system.

3. City of Chicago was not able to prove in any legal case that an applicant that scored above 89 on the aptitude test is a better fire fighter than someone that scored less than 89.

4. The Courts can only rule against/for the Plaintiff. No other plaintiffs that represented any other applicant group sued or joined in the law suit, explaining the decision that the Courts made and what racists here are deeming racist.

I made the opinion that since there is no proof that an applicant with a score above 89 was a better firefighter that the test was actually reducing the best eligible firefighters as only the top scoring aptitude test takers would be eligible to take the additional tests. Possible that an applicant that scored only 88 on the aptitude test would be excluded, even though he may be the best in all of the other tests.

I agree that Waggy had the best solution.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Obviously not...IMO, the guy who scored 90 would be a better firefighter than the guy who scored 65.
Sometimes, tests only prove that some people do better with tests than other people...I've known very smart people who suffered "test anxiety," and even though they knew the material very well...they did poorly on tests. Should they still get an "A" on the test? Fuck no...

I've taken a few written tests for jobs over the years. Should a person who just does badly on tests be given a passing mark even if they know the material? Fuck no.

While the written test MAY NOT be a reflection of how well that person could do the job IRL, it MIGHT...
Why would any city government want to hire those who barely passed the test when they had a large pool of applicants who did very good on the test?

Seems like they should have started with those who scored closest to 100...and worked their way down through those who passed, until they had hired the number of people they needed.

It SHOULD NOT matter in the slightest whether the person is black, white, brown, yellow, or orange with blue polka dots...let their test scores place them in the hiring list.

What if the guy that scored 65 on the aptitude test performed better on every other test and the guy that scored 90 on the aptitude test barely passed?

 

[SlitheryDee]

I really can't believe this story. It sounds like the attorney is making a public admission of his client's racial inferiority while simultaneously making a case for having stupid firefighters...and he's winning. Incredible.

 

[davmat787]

What about the physical tests firefighter applicants take? Obviously the physical fitness test discriminates against those who are physically handicapped. I am disabled after having 80+ pounds of wood fall on my head, which trashed my neck vertebrae and ruptured several discs. I am sure I could pass the written after some studying, maybe I could make a case and get a pension retro to 1995 too! :awe:

 

[Patranus]

"progressives" being "progressives"

 

[classy]

And that's where you're reading it wrong. The article clearly states that only 11&#37; of the black applicants who took this test scored an 89% or better. That means that 89% of those who took the test scored less than 89%.

Also, a judges "opinion" cannot be counted as fact. It's an opinion. Just because they are a judge, that doesn't automatically make them right. Her opinion was that the predetermined number of 89% was put in place to purposely exclude a large amount of the black people who took the test from moving on to the randomization section of the test. I think that it was selected because if you can't get an 89% on the firefighter test, you have no damn reason being a firefighter.

Get it?

Also, before the question is asked: I've taken the firefighter test and can tell you that it's not that hard. So if you aren't' scoring above a certain percentage, you should NOT be in charge of saving my life. I don't want Cletus the slack jawed yokel saving me from a fire, whether white, black or purple. You should have seen some of the people there who wanted the job - you wouldn't want them saving you either.

I don't think you understand my point. It was only 11% but that is not the point. This really isn't hard to understand.

The test was given to select a pool of candidates. The original score to be considered was 64. No problem. Then the city decided to shrink the pool to those who scored 89 or higher, still no problem. But when they then chose to then do a random selection, then that was a problem. The test score had become the only criteria for hiring, but they didn't choose the top 1800. If they had chosen the top 1800 then there would have been no problem. If the city was only going to do a random selection of those who passed a written test, then as the second judge said they should have just chosen randomly from the original pool of those who passed the original set test score.

For all you jackels keep talking about inferior, the 11% weren't inferior but were passed over because of a random selection. Being as there are more whites in the pool, not because of smarts, but just because there are more, then quite naturally you are going to have more whites. No one is arguing that, but if there were several African Americans who scored better than the white counter parts then they should have gotten the job. This is not rocket science.

How was the random selection done? Obviously not correctly. The city has lost every judicial ruling including a 9-0 decision by the US Supreme Court that the suit was brought in sufficient time. The court of appeals if its the judges I believe who heard this case, they are mostly republican, or conservative. So for all your bullshit obviously all the conservative judges didn't buy it. The city has lost every single court challenge. If that in of itself doesn't help you understand, then you and so many others are either racist or just plain fvcking stupid.

This is really not hard if you look at the facts instead of just focusing on the blacks. You can't read a damn article where clearly the case has been heard thoroughly. But because blacks weren't put down and legitmately won a legal argument, you wanna lynch em. So many here just have such an axe to grind about black people its sickening. You are just pathetic. You can't even argue a legal case without all the black degrading bullshit.

You know so many of you make me think of this MLK clip, because many here are certainly the people who he was talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlvEiBRgp2M&feature=related

 

[BladeVenom]

Can you provide me proof that the firefighter that scored 65 on an aptitude test is a better firefighter than someone that scored 90? If you can please provide this evidence to the City of Chicago b/c they were not able to at every level of the judicial system of the United States.

Can you prove to me that someone that score a 65 is a better firefighter than someone who scored a 64?

 

[brianmanahan]

Can you prove to me that someone that score a 65 is a better firefighter than someone who scored a 64?

/thread imho. caveman's argument has crumbled to dust. gb2cave.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Can you prove to me that someone that score a 65 is a better firefighter than someone who scored a 64?

Nope. But they wouldn't pass. 65 is passing.

/thread imho. caveman's argument has crumbled to dust. gb2cave.

Troll harder. You can't even understand the merits of the case, court decision and appeals. You're just an ignorant racist. Your posts in this thread and forum prove that.

And you do know my argument supports every court decision and appeal from every level of the US Judicial System. You have zero argument.