Reverse Discrimination Case Goes to the US Supreme Court

[magomago]

Here is my short and quick opinion : we are much less outwardly racist culture than we were 50 years ago. Today, everyone agrees that the US is still subtly racist, but disagree as to the degree that it is so.

Now, one thing we cannot ignore, is that the effect of 200 years of racism and discrimination on any group of people is not resolved over night. Sounds cliched, but it is true. The results of those actions persist today and affect people who are still alive. That doesn't mean they were part of it, they condoned it, they even want it...it simply means you were born and grew up in a structure that already put you in a higher position...even if that structure does not actively do so anymore.

Reversing these policies through AA isn't going to be a magic panacea. It is, imo, a bad fix for a bad situation. But is there a better fix at all? The idea of 'just be colorblind totally' doesn't work, because the society we inherited is not a colorblind one. On a very fundamental level, go look at the spatial distrobution where people live - I can't claim to speak for general patterns in the USA, but at least here in the OC, from a simple 'use your eyes basis', cross the 55 highway and you get totally different worlds. Go where Edinger and Irvine Center Drive split occurs and tell me there is no difference between race and economic status. Where you live will affect which school you go to, will affect the opportunities you have, etc. etc.

Some will fail at those opportunities if given a chance (regardless of race) and some will succeed if given a chance (regardless of race). The idea of AA is to give those of 'average' performance a chance so that eventually they will better themselves;later,their offspring will have more opportunities and don't need a 'leg up' on things. This doesn't mean 'blacks' need a 'leg up'...any group, under similar conditions, would probably need a 'leg up' just because of denied opportunities.
The crappy part is when you start to bump out people who really excel at what they do. It sucks entirely, and they are being penalized simply for growing up in a society which naturally gives them an advantage. This is where the huge problem is.

I don't claim to know the answer - I'm Arab and that makes me white. So I get tossed in the dog house as well. But I will say to simply pretend as if AA was never needed, without offering a better system (who is to even say it is the government's job to do this?), is to implicitly deny there was ever a problem. That is something I'm not cool with

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: n yusef
Translation: you do not believe white skin is superior, you believe white culture is superior.

Depends on how you define black culture. If the Obamas and people like them define black culture then it's same as white culture. If 50 Cent defines black culture, then yes white culture is far superior.

Well black culture is consumed by whites en mass, yet these whites do not face the same challenges as blacks.

Are you blind? White thug wannabe losers work at McDonalds elbow to elbow with black thug wannabe losers. Failure is equal opportunity in this country.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234
Who sits around considering how their parents, grand parents, great grandparesnt, great great granparents advanced while blacks did not?

Africans - real Africans mind you, black people born in Africa - do as well as any other immigrants in this country.

Blacks born in the US have a culture problem, not a racism problem.

So true. And African immigrants are the most educationally achieved group in the United States........Even more so than Americans and East/SE. Asian Immigrants.

Now ask yourself what is different about the Culture and History of Africans vs. African Americans in America?

 

[Ayrahvon]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
You want to *just* look at the United States/N America, okay.

Native Americans have been treated worse than blacks for longer periods of time. Jewish people throughout Europe and the Middle East (and Africa a bit as well) have had much worse/more done to their race than blacks. That's not the US though, so we won't discuss that.

You talk about "20% of the population, but 2% of the rewards", well there are many other races who that could be said about as well. You just *choose* to put on your monochromatic glasses and see the white/black issue only. Regardless of that though, do you really believe that just because they are 20% of the population they *deserve* 20% of the 'rewards'? I don't. If that were the case, then since I'm white I deserve ~75% of the 'rewards' (per the 2000 census data that shows ~75% of the population say they are caucasion/white). That's fine with me, I'll expect a check in 7-10 business days. Thanks.

In society, if one group is dominant over others, one can come to two assumptions. First, that the dominant group is superior. Second, that the dominant group is oppressive. In a society where white men hold a disproportionate amount of power, to claim that there is no need for Affirmative Action, because there is no oppression, is to claim that white men are superior. It is to claim they are stronger, more intelligent, harder working, and have better personalities than everyone else, because there can be no other explanation for their success.

I reject this notion.

So the test results lie?

In November and December of 2003 the New Haven Fire Department administered promotional exams for Captain and Lieutenant.

New Haven paid $100,000 to a high stakes diversity testing firm, IO Solutions, Inc. of Illinois, to design the exams to be completely free of any racial bias. This is a necessary step these days in order to avoid charges of disparate impact upon protected minority groups -- and New Haven does have a large population of protected minority groups.


IO Solutions, Inc. is one of a few dozen firms which specializes in this kind of politically correct test design, and they are very good at it. According to court filings, IO Solutions did everything right in designing the New Haven fire department's promotional exams to be completely race-neutral, i.e., to not have a disparate impact upon selected, preferred skin colors.

Yet, when the New Haven FD administered the race-neutral tests in November and December of 2003, white firefighters scored so much higher than their black and brown counterparts that very few preferred minorities would have been promoted to the seven open Captain vacancies, nor to the eight open Lieutenant vacancies, if the exam scores were used.

New Haven's city charter requires that they follow a "rule of three" which requires that each open promotional position be filled from among the top three scorers on the exams.

If the "rule of three" were strictly applied to the 2003 promotional exams, it would have resulted in all of the open Captain and Lieutenant positions being filled by the best-qualified, highest scoring candidates.

Unfortunately the best-qualfied, highest scoring candidates turned out to be mostly white.

Oops.

Just because a firm was contracted to produce a culturally neutral exam does not mean that it succeeded in doing so. Additionally, we do not know how relevant the test questions are to firefighting performance. It may be that by subjective standards (interviews, previous work experience), white firefighters are not as relatively superior. If an exam is incongruous with previous measures of performance, it would make sense to remove it from consideration when doling out promotions.

The court seems to think they did. So do many of their prior customers apparently as well.

It would be very interesting to see what the exam questions were. I'd put money on them not being questions with racial bias like "If you're in a nice neighborhood responding to a house fire do you first:
A) put out the fire
B) look around for stuff to steal
C) put out the fire, then look for things that were "damaged by the fire" to take for "evidence"
D) who cares, it's whitey's house"

But hey what do I know?

You're misinterpreting what is meant by a culturally neutral exam. I'll ask a few questions to give examples: Would you do better on a test that has a format of previous tests you have taken? If someone else has never taken a test in that format, but has similar educational knowledge as your own, do you expect them to test as well as you have on said test?

These are some of the problems faced when creating a test in which multiple ethnicities can answer well. Tests are often more formal than what people are accustomed to and occasionally vocabulary is used within academia or professional areas that isn't used within the general lingo. If you can't associate a term to something you know you're going to have difficulty with the question. I'm not saying this was the case on this test, but it often is the case.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
You want to *just* look at the United States/N America, okay.

Native Americans have been treated worse than blacks for longer periods of time. Jewish people throughout Europe and the Middle East (and Africa a bit as well) have had much worse/more done to their race than blacks. That's not the US though, so we won't discuss that.

You talk about "20% of the population, but 2% of the rewards", well there are many other races who that could be said about as well. You just *choose* to put on your monochromatic glasses and see the white/black issue only. Regardless of that though, do you really believe that just because they are 20% of the population they *deserve* 20% of the 'rewards'? I don't. If that were the case, then since I'm white I deserve ~75% of the 'rewards' (per the 2000 census data that shows ~75% of the population say they are caucasion/white). That's fine with me, I'll expect a check in 7-10 business days. Thanks.

In society, if one group is dominant over others, one can come to two assumptions. First, that the dominant group is superior. Second, that the dominant group is oppressive. In a society where white men hold a disproportionate amount of power, to claim that there is no need for Affirmative Action, because there is no oppression, is to claim that white men are superior. It is to claim they are stronger, more intelligent, harder working, and have better personalities than everyone else, because there can be no other explanation for their success.

I reject this notion.

So the test results lie?

In November and December of 2003 the New Haven Fire Department administered promotional exams for Captain and Lieutenant.

New Haven paid $100,000 to a high stakes diversity testing firm, IO Solutions, Inc. of Illinois, to design the exams to be completely free of any racial bias. This is a necessary step these days in order to avoid charges of disparate impact upon protected minority groups -- and New Haven does have a large population of protected minority groups.


IO Solutions, Inc. is one of a few dozen firms which specializes in this kind of politically correct test design, and they are very good at it. According to court filings, IO Solutions did everything right in designing the New Haven fire department's promotional exams to be completely race-neutral, i.e., to not have a disparate impact upon selected, preferred skin colors.

Yet, when the New Haven FD administered the race-neutral tests in November and December of 2003, white firefighters scored so much higher than their black and brown counterparts that very few preferred minorities would have been promoted to the seven open Captain vacancies, nor to the eight open Lieutenant vacancies, if the exam scores were used.

New Haven's city charter requires that they follow a "rule of three" which requires that each open promotional position be filled from among the top three scorers on the exams.

If the "rule of three" were strictly applied to the 2003 promotional exams, it would have resulted in all of the open Captain and Lieutenant positions being filled by the best-qualified, highest scoring candidates.

Unfortunately the best-qualfied, highest scoring candidates turned out to be mostly white.

Oops.

Just because a firm was contracted to produce a culturally neutral exam does not mean that it succeeded in doing so. Additionally, we do not know how relevant the test questions are to firefighting performance. It may be that by subjective standards (interviews, previous work experience), white firefighters are not as relatively superior. If an exam is incongruous with previous measures of performance, it would make sense to remove it from consideration when doling out promotions.

The court seems to think they did. So do many of their prior customers apparently as well.

It would be very interesting to see what the exam questions were. I'd put money on them not being questions with racial bias like "If you're in a nice neighborhood responding to a house fire do you first:
A) put out the fire
B) look around for stuff to steal
C) put out the fire, then look for things that were "damaged by the fire" to take for "evidence"
D) who cares, it's whitey's house"

But hey what do I know?

I actually read much of the decision, so I'll try to summarize the issue.

There are different aspects of 'neutral test'.

The one most of us probably think of is one that has bias in the questions. Yusef is right to say that simply trying to make a culturally neutral test doesn't mean you did so, but Virus is right to say that by that definition, the evidence suggests they did so just fine on this test. So, what's the other definition?

If you read the ruling you will see lengthy explanations of the way the government looks at such tests based on the outcomes, not only the content analysis - so that a test in which one race does much worse are labelled by a specific label which simply describes their function that they had a low rate of diversity in the outcome. Nothing to do with pointing out "this question was race-biased", but only "no blacks scored in the top scores". They have rules and forumlas for saying that tests with under 80% proportionality in the outcomes are 'presumed' to have a race bias, insofar as they fail to meet the goal of proportional outcome. Many of us want to say 'you frickin insane beureaucrats, how far can you get from common sense', but there's more to it IMO. It's a messy issue.

In short, bcause the city wants diversity in promotions, and the test failed to give them diversity in its scores, it is a test lacking in diverse outcomes, not useful for their goal.

You can yell all you like about wanting the top scorers to get the promotions regardless of race, but that's a choice how much to make diversity a goal.

The fact is, there were blacks who passed the test - 70% - but were not high scorers, and there is a policy question whether to use another method for those qualitied, but less qualified, blacks to get some of the spots for the goal of diversity. I know we've come a long way from the issue of outight discrimination, and this is touchy ground.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ayrahvon

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
You want to *just* look at the United States/N America, okay.

Native Americans have been treated worse than blacks for longer periods of time. Jewish people throughout Europe and the Middle East (and Africa a bit as well) have had much worse/more done to their race than blacks. That's not the US though, so we won't discuss that.

You talk about "20% of the population, but 2% of the rewards", well there are many other races who that could be said about as well. You just *choose* to put on your monochromatic glasses and see the white/black issue only. Regardless of that though, do you really believe that just because they are 20% of the population they *deserve* 20% of the 'rewards'? I don't. If that were the case, then since I'm white I deserve ~75% of the 'rewards' (per the 2000 census data that shows ~75% of the population say they are caucasion/white). That's fine with me, I'll expect a check in 7-10 business days. Thanks.

In society, if one group is dominant over others, one can come to two assumptions. First, that the dominant group is superior. Second, that the dominant group is oppressive. In a society where white men hold a disproportionate amount of power, to claim that there is no need for Affirmative Action, because there is no oppression, is to claim that white men are superior. It is to claim they are stronger, more intelligent, harder working, and have better personalities than everyone else, because there can be no other explanation for their success.

I reject this notion.

Or it could also mean that thier own culture is part of the problem.

Young AA children look up to idiots like Chris Brown, 50 cent, etc. "Thug-life" is glamorized and women are degraded.

If a black kid speaks too "white" in school, he is made fun of by his peers.

The out of wed-lock birth rate for AA is the highest.

I dont see how evil whitey is responsible for any of this.

Translation: you do not believe white skin is superior, you believe white culture is superior. Well black culture is consumed by whites en mass, yet these whites do not face the same challenges as blacks. Either white children who look up to idiots like Chris Brown are superior to black children who do the same, or they are treated superior. Pick one.

N yusef is right again! People throw around words like 'culture' far too lightly without understanding the significance of the term. OCguy has made a false association with Rap and African American culture as if the two are identical to each other. Rap as a style of music is not constrained to one ethnic group. While I don't condone what a lot of rappers sing about, there is plenty of rap that doesn't promote gang or sexual violence as well. The problem isn't what type of music someone listens to, it's what type of opportunities they have been provided with through their educations. As someone who attended multiple public schools across the United States I am well aware of the inconsistencies of the American public school systems and the discrimination to people because of it.

Working in the inner city with blacks, it was pointed out to me that black inner city culture despises education. It's simply not cool, and if you are a good student then there is an excellent chance that you'll get beaten. Race may play an issue, but part of that is that some blacks do an excellent job of being "the man keeping them down". If you give people the chance for an education and they reject it, don't blame another race for it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Ayrahvon

If people like you and Creig were genuine about trying to help the misfortunate out, you would want it based on economics, not skin color.

If you think skin color should be the basis for anything, you can just go ahead and join the KKK or New Black Panther Party or MS13.

You are partly right, and in many cases I prefer economic- based remedies over race-based remedies, because they are more accurate to the need - they are better at not benefitting well-off blacks, and helping whites who need help, and as the racial imbalances improve over time the program helps races more evenly as well, automatically.

Here's what you are missing:

There are *some issues* which are about 'helping the needy'. There are other issues which are about addressing racial inequties linked to ths history of racism.

You need to figure out which of those you are dealing with to have the right program.

If you are dealing with need issues, use a color-blind need based program.

If you are dealing with a situation where blacks are disadvantaged, because of the effects of centuries o racist policies, and there is a chance to improve the balance by helping some blacks who are missing out get into position to be more equally competing, and it is undoing a wrong, then consider an affirmative action remedy. That's not about need, per se, it's about the effects of our racist policies in the past, which did not affect whites. They affected blacks.

 

[Ayrahvon]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Working in the inner city with blacks, it was pointed out to me that black inner city culture despises education. It's simply not cool, and if you are a good student then there is an excellent chance that you'll get beaten. Race may play an issue, but part of that is that some blacks do an excellent job of being "the man keeping them down". If you give people the chance for an education and they reject it, don't blame another race for it.

I was unaware I blamed any race for it. Whether or not they attend is one question, but even those who do attend are not getting the same education as wealthy suburban public school districts. This is what I'm talking about, clearly those who do not attend school cannot get any education provided. However, you can't just ignore the inequality in poor school districts because some people refuse to attend school. These schools are packed to the brim with students and class sizes are much larger in the inner city than most suburban schools. There needs to be both better schools and more schools in these areas so that everyone may receive equal opportunity.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Ayrahvon


You're misinterpreting what is meant by a culturally neutral exam. I'll ask a few questions to give examples: Would you do better on a test that has a format of previous tests you have taken? If someone else has never taken a test in that format, but has similar educational knowledge as your own, do you expect them to test as well as you have on said test?

These are some of the problems faced when creating a test in which multiple ethnicities can answer well. Tests are often more formal than what people are accustomed to and occasionally vocabulary is used within academia or professional areas that isn't used within the general lingo. If you can't associate a term to something you know you're going to have difficulty with the question. I'm not saying this was the case on this test, but it often is the case.

So, are you saying that other races can't use context to figure out the meaning of words they don't know? Or, are you saying that non-whites can't learn the test and be adapt at unexpected things (or unknown situations), in this case test format.

As an FYI, there are only so many types of written tests. Multiple choice, T/F, essay, short answer, and matching (although this isn't used much in college/professional arenas) are about it.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Working in the inner city with blacks, it was pointed out to me that black inner city culture despises education. It's simply not cool, and if you are a good student then there is an excellent chance that you'll get beaten. Race may play an issue, but part of that is that some blacks do an excellent job of being "the man keeping them down". If you give people the chance for an education and they reject it, don't blame another race for it.

But that's whitey's fault for not doing a better job at making them get educated right?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Working in the inner city with blacks, it was pointed out to me that black inner city culture despises education. It's simply not cool, and if you are a good student then there is an excellent chance that you'll get beaten. Race may play an issue, but part of that is that some blacks do an excellent job of being "the man keeping them down". If you give people the chance for an education and they reject it, don't blame another race for it.

It's a combination of factors, and a cycle. The bad culture largely caused by racism breeds bad habits that breed more bad culture that breeds more bad habits.

We can all look at *some* parts of the culture of *some* blacks and find plenty to criticize, like the abominable and immoral 'Don't Snitch' campaign.

Unfortunately, we're not as good at recognizing problems in our own culture, but that's another story (black culture didn't lead our nation to kill 2 million Vietnamese).

Part of the solution is reducing the effects of the long history of racism. But clearly, the black community has got to also do a lot to change those cultural issues.

Sorry, Bumper Sticker writers, it's not as simple as one phrase.

We agree that there are big issues with some 'black culture'. Living a bit below Oakland, where a 'Muslikm bakery' was run by a black crime boss with an army of black thugs who terroized many people and commited outrageous acts including child rape and then murdered the editor of the city paper for his stories against them, after getting away for years with buying his way into being a 'respectable city leader' - I'm hardly unaware of that.

A problem is when that's used to argue against other parts of the problem and other solutions. We're always great at saying why not to fix things for other people.

I disagree with that. I'm frankly disgusted and appalled by the elements of the black criminal culture I'm aware of. But I think there's more to the issue than cops and jails.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Working in the inner city with blacks, it was pointed out to me that black inner city culture despises education. It's simply not cool, and if you are a good student then there is an excellent chance that you'll get beaten. Race may play an issue, but part of that is that some blacks do an excellent job of being "the man keeping them down". If you give people the chance for an education and they reject it, don't blame another race for it.

But that's whitey's fault for not doing a better job at making them get educated right?

But keeping them in serivle, second-class roles, denied education, kept in ghettos, for many generations had no effect on their culture and no help is needed to fix it, right?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: OCguy

If people like you and Creig were genuine about trying to help the misfortunate out, you would want it based on economics, not skin color.

If you think skin color should be the basis for anything, you can just go ahead and join the KKK or New Black Panther Party or MS13.

You are partly right, and in many cases I prefer economic- based remedies over race-based remedies, because they are more accurate to the need - they are better at not benefitting well-off blacks, and helping whites who need help, and as the racial imbalances improve over time the program helps races more evenly as well, automatically.

Here's what you are missing:

There are *some issues* which are about 'helping the needy'. There are other issues which are about addressing racial inequties linked to ths history of racism.

You need to figure out which of those you are dealing with to have the right program.

If you are dealing with need issues, use a color-blind need based program.

If you are dealing with a situation where blacks are disadvantaged, because of the effects of centuries o racist policies, and there is a chance to improve the balance by helping some blacks who are missing out get into position to be more equally competing, and it is undoing a wrong, then consider an affirmative action remedy. That's not about need, per se, it's about the effects of our racist policies in the past, which did not affect whites. They affected blacks.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Craig234
snip

What YOU dont understand is that a 22 year old white male has no reason to be punished for something his great great grandfather may or may not have done.



If 2 candidates are equally qualified, and you hire the black one over the white one due soley to skin color, you are racist. You can type out one-page replies all day, but you are still racist.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Ayrahvon


You're misinterpreting what is meant by a culturally neutral exam. I'll ask a few questions to give examples: Would you do better on a test that has a format of previous tests you have taken? If someone else has never taken a test in that format, but has similar educational knowledge as your own, do you expect them to test as well as you have on said test?

These are some of the problems faced when creating a test in which multiple ethnicities can answer well. Tests are often more formal than what people are accustomed to and occasionally vocabulary is used within academia or professional areas that isn't used within the general lingo. If you can't associate a term to something you know you're going to have difficulty with the question. I'm not saying this was the case on this test, but it often is the case.

So, are you saying that other races can't use context to figure out the meaning of words they don't know? Or, are you saying that non-whites can't learn the test and be adapt at unexpected things (or unknown situations), in this case test format.

As an FYI, there are only so many types of written tests. Multiple choice, T/F, essay, short answer, and matching (although this isn't used much in college/professional arenas) are about it.

The problem is not that people of color cannot infer meaning through context, it is that they (presumably) have to do so in situations where whites do not.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Ayrahvon

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Working in the inner city with blacks, it was pointed out to me that black inner city culture despises education. It's simply not cool, and if you are a good student then there is an excellent chance that you'll get beaten. Race may play an issue, but part of that is that some blacks do an excellent job of being "the man keeping them down". If you give people the chance for an education and they reject it, don't blame another race for it.

I was unaware I blamed any race for it. Whether or not they attend is one question, but even those who do attend are not getting the same education as wealthy suburban public school districts. This is what I'm talking about, clearly those who do not attend school cannot get any education provided. However, you can't just ignore the inequality in poor school districts because some people refuse to attend school. These schools are packed to the brim with students and class sizes are much larger in the inner city than most suburban schools. There needs to be both better schools and more schools in these areas so that everyone may receive equal opportunity.

While I agree in theory, that there should be a parity in a city/county between suburbs and inner city schools, in practice that is difficult.

If you don't believe me, go take a look at inner city schools sometime. Compare how the kids at an inner city school treat their equipment/supplies and value of education with how suburban kids treat it. At what point does it become "enough already" of dumping money into a school on the same thing every year (for example science equipment) when it just gets trashed/stolen/ruined? Is that how you want your tax money to be spent?

This once again is NOT due to the "whitey overlords", but instead due to the environment of the inner city kids not wanting to get an education. This is a self-inflicted issue upon the black community, but any opportunity to blame whitey for it is taken.

You and Craig are one big reason why racism still exists. You FORCE it to be a racial discrimination issue of x race keeping y race down, instead of the reality that it is a choice made by the y race community in that environment. AA just serves to illustrate the racial divides that are present, instead of working to narrow (and ultimately eliminate) them.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Craig234
snip

What YOU dont understand is that a 22 year old white male has no reason to be punished for something his great great grandfather may or may not have done.



If 2 candidates are equally qualified, and you hire the black one over the white one due soley to skin color, you are racist. You can type out one-page replies all day, but you are still racist.

Do you honestly believe that white men are punished in society?

What you do not seem to understand is that similarly qualified whites are hired and promoted over women and people of color, in overwhelming numbers compared to the reverse. Affirmative Action exists to right this systemic injustice, not to punish white men.

Here is a study that suggests that, with equal resumes, people with "black-sounding" names are 33% less likely to be called back by employers than people with "white-sounding" names.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Working in the inner city with blacks, it was pointed out to me that black inner city culture despises education. It's simply not cool, and if you are a good student then there is an excellent chance that you'll get beaten. Race may play an issue, but part of that is that some blacks do an excellent job of being "the man keeping them down". If you give people the chance for an education and they reject it, don't blame another race for it.

But that's whitey's fault for not doing a better job at making them get educated right?

But keeping them in serivle, second-class roles, denied education, kept in ghettos, for many generations had no effect on their culture and no help is needed to fix it, right?

Who said it didn't?

There are many blacks who choose to not use that as an excuse as to why they aren't as successful as whitey. Unfortunately, there are many who choose to use the excuse of past generations indiscretions as a reason why they can't succeed today.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Ayrahvon


You're misinterpreting what is meant by a culturally neutral exam. I'll ask a few questions to give examples: Would you do better on a test that has a format of previous tests you have taken? If someone else has never taken a test in that format, but has similar educational knowledge as your own, do you expect them to test as well as you have on said test?

These are some of the problems faced when creating a test in which multiple ethnicities can answer well. Tests are often more formal than what people are accustomed to and occasionally vocabulary is used within academia or professional areas that isn't used within the general lingo. If you can't associate a term to something you know you're going to have difficulty with the question. I'm not saying this was the case on this test, but it often is the case.

So, are you saying that other races can't use context to figure out the meaning of words they don't know? Or, are you saying that non-whites can't learn the test and be adapt at unexpected things (or unknown situations), in this case test format.

As an FYI, there are only so many types of written tests. Multiple choice, T/F, essay, short answer, and matching (although this isn't used much in college/professional arenas) are about it.

The problem is not that people of color cannot infer meaning through context, it is that they (presumably) have to do so in situations where whites do not.

So blacks are not as intelligent as whites then in reading comprehension? So, take one black and one white kid raised in the same household/school/environment and the black kid won't be able to infer the meaning of a word contextually but the white kid can? Isn't that a bit racist there?

The firm hired to design the test created a test that they say is racially-neutral. With that being said, I'm going to make the logical assumption they tested it with all races and they scored similarly. With that being said, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the test in question didn't have an extensive list of words that blacks didn't understand (or get from context). Oh, and do we know if the instructors/administrators of the test were not able to give definitions/explanations regarding specific words in the question?

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Working in the inner city with blacks, it was pointed out to me that black inner city culture despises education. It's simply not cool, and if you are a good student then there is an excellent chance that you'll get beaten. Race may play an issue, but part of that is that some blacks do an excellent job of being "the man keeping them down". If you give people the chance for an education and they reject it, don't blame another race for it.

But that's whitey's fault for not doing a better job at making them get educated right?

But keeping them in serivle, second-class roles, denied education, kept in ghettos, for many generations had no effect on their culture and no help is needed to fix it, right?

Who said it didn't?

There are many blacks who choose to not use that as an excuse as to why they aren't as successful as whitey. Unfortunately, there are many who choose to use the excuse of past generations indiscretions as a reason why they can't succeed today.

:laugh: at word choice.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Carmen813
It should be based on socioeconomic status and individual circumstances not on race.

I could agree with that if all things in our society were based upon socioeconomic status and individual circumstances, not on race.

That's nowhere even remotely close to true though, and so here we are.

Well, I don't think all things in our society are determined by anything. Racism is a problem, but it is not the only problem. Since there are many blacks who live in poverty this type of AA would still benefit them. It would just mean that, for example, Obama's daughters do not have better opportunities available to them than a white child who grows up in a ghetto just because of their skin tone.

I'm a white male, but I'm going into a profession dominated by women (counseling), so I'm actually in the minority in this profession.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Who said it didn't?

There are many blacks who choose to not use that as an excuse as to why they aren't as successful as whitey. Unfortunately, there are many who choose to use the excuse of past generations indiscretions as a reason why they can't succeed today.

:laugh: at word choice.

indiscretions

2 a : something (as an act or remark) marked by lack of discretion b : an act at variance with the accepted morality of a society

I'd say that slavery and racism are at variance with the accepted morality of society today 😉

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Ayrahvon


You're misinterpreting what is meant by a culturally neutral exam. I'll ask a few questions to give examples: Would you do better on a test that has a format of previous tests you have taken? If someone else has never taken a test in that format, but has similar educational knowledge as your own, do you expect them to test as well as you have on said test?

These are some of the problems faced when creating a test in which multiple ethnicities can answer well. Tests are often more formal than what people are accustomed to and occasionally vocabulary is used within academia or professional areas that isn't used within the general lingo. If you can't associate a term to something you know you're going to have difficulty with the question. I'm not saying this was the case on this test, but it often is the case.

So, are you saying that other races can't use context to figure out the meaning of words they don't know? Or, are you saying that non-whites can't learn the test and be adapt at unexpected things (or unknown situations), in this case test format.

As an FYI, there are only so many types of written tests. Multiple choice, T/F, essay, short answer, and matching (although this isn't used much in college/professional arenas) are about it.

The problem is not that people of color cannot infer meaning through context, it is that they (presumably) have to do so in situations where whites do not.

So blacks are not as intelligent as whites then in reading comprehension? So, take one black and one white kid raised in the same household/school/environment and the black kid won't be able to infer the meaning of a word contextually but the white kid can? Isn't that a bit racist there?

The firm hired to design the test created a test that they say is racially-neutral. With that being said, I'm going to make the logical assumption they tested it with all races and they scored similarly. With that being said, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the test in question didn't have an extensive list of words that blacks didn't understand (or get from context). Oh, and do we know if the instructors/administrators of the test were not able to give definitions/explanations regarding specific words in the question?

You are misunderstanding. Due to educational or cultural differences, it is likely that whites are more familiar with certain vocabulary. If whites already know certain words, but blacks must infer from context, the test is, by definition, biased.

You can learn geometry, but not know what complimentary and supplementary mean. If you were never introduced to those terms, you could do poorly on a test that covers material that you know.

This is not a difficult concept.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
The firm hired to design the test created a test that they say is racially-neutral. With that being said, I'm going to make the logical assumption they tested it with all races and they scored similarly. With that being said, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the test in question didn't have an extensive list of words that blacks didn't understand (or get from context). Oh, and do we know if the instructors/administrators of the test were not able to give definitions/explanations regarding specific words in the question?

You've got a bad habit of making arguments that have already been answered. I don't like to repeat things because you don't bother to read the first post.

The issue with the test in this lawsuit was *not* that the test was not 'neutral' in the content, it was that the outcome - who scored high - was not diverse.

You may not have an issue with that, it comes down, as I said, to whether you have a requirement for the test that for the goal of diversity, it result in diverse high scores.

Read the court decision for a lengthy explanation.

 

[Ayrahvon]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Ayrahvon


You're misinterpreting what is meant by a culturally neutral exam. I'll ask a few questions to give examples: Would you do better on a test that has a format of previous tests you have taken? If someone else has never taken a test in that format, but has similar educational knowledge as your own, do you expect them to test as well as you have on said test?

These are some of the problems faced when creating a test in which multiple ethnicities can answer well. Tests are often more formal than what people are accustomed to and occasionally vocabulary is used within academia or professional areas that isn't used within the general lingo. If you can't associate a term to something you know you're going to have difficulty with the question. I'm not saying this was the case on this test, but it often is the case.

So, are you saying that other races can't use context to figure out the meaning of words they don't know? Or, are you saying that non-whites can't learn the test and be adapt at unexpected things (or unknown situations), in this case test format.

As an FYI, there are only so many types of written tests. Multiple choice, T/F, essay, short answer, and matching (although this isn't used much in college/professional arenas) are about it.

The problem is not that people of color cannot infer meaning through context, it is that they (presumably) have to do so in situations where whites do not.

So blacks are not as intelligent as whites then in reading comprehension? So, take one black and one white kid raised in the same household/school/environment and the black kid won't be able to infer the meaning of a word contextually but the white kid can? Isn't that a bit racist there?

The firm hired to design the test created a test that they say is racially-neutral. With that being said, I'm going to make the logical assumption they tested it with all races and they scored similarly. With that being said, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the test in question didn't have an extensive list of words that blacks didn't understand (or get from context). Oh, and do we know if the instructors/administrators of the test were not able to give definitions/explanations regarding specific words in the question?

You are misunderstanding. Due to educational or cultural differences, it is likely that whites are more familiar with certain vocabulary. If whites already know certain words, but blacks must infer from context, the test is, by definition, biased.

You can learn geometry, but not know what complimentary and supplementary mean. If you were never introduced to those terms, you could do poorly on a test that covers material that you know.

This is not a difficult concept.

You really get it at least. Personally, I don't even understand why they conduct the test the way they do; a written test won't really reflect the attributes you want in a firefighter you are looking to promote. All the test results who is who could answer the questions asked the way they wanted them to be answered. It has no reflection on leadership abilities or the capability to act quickly to constantly changing circumstances (things I would imagine are important to firefighters).