On 01/29/10 20:46, somebody wrote:
> You don't need a crystal ball if you are willing to learn from recent
> history:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano
> 
> and exercise a little bit of reason: As others have noted, it's very
> difficult to concoct a test that differentiates skin colour, and *not* level
> of education.
> 
> I remember reading about this specific case earlier and the objection to the
> test was post-facto, that is, it did not result in acceptable quotas for
> minorities. It was claimed that the test included too much reading and
> comprehension type material, which was unfair to blacks (which ironically is
> itself a racist statement). I don't have references handy and cannot be
> bothered to look them up for you, do your own homework.

	Yes, but according to the ruling, the key aspect here wasn't the mere
"discrimination", but the fact that the test didn't test whether they
were qualified to do the job. The court allowed the FD to make the case
that the test format was relevant to the job, and the FD didn't make the
case enough to please the court.

	Yes, the objection may have been post-facto, but it wasn't an invalid
objection. Had the test discriminated, and the FD made a valid case that
the test is relevant to the job, then the status quo would have resumed.

-- 
When I was young, they told me anyone could become president. Now I'm
beginning to believe it.

Post a reply to this message