 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/29/10 15:28, Darren New wrote:
> their parents don't know as much, don't speak gramatically, can't answer
I'm sure they speak grammatically. Perhaps just not English grammar. ;-)
> Yeah. Actually, I think this was a test for promotion to some
> leadership/management position. It wasn't a test about fighting fires,
> but about running a fire fighting company. So I imagine there could be
> something on it. It's just hard to believe there's anything on it that
> would make *all* 26 black applicants fail the test.
26 is not a big number. And IIRC, for that case, they didn't rule that
the test per se was discriminatory, did they?
--
One flea to another: "Is there life on other dogs?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/29/10 11:20, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14fire.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1264791670-GxVD+sfKjvw04Ji/zop/fQ
>
> It fails to explain how exactly the test discriminated. I looked at
> some other articles, and none gives any detail whatsoever.
Some more info:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2010/01/federal-judge-rules-new-york-city.php
This site links to the actual ruling. I read only the first few pages,
but it seems that the argument was:
1. The test involves written comprehension, which black people in NYC
suck at (I'm dropping political correctness for the rest of this message).
2. It was alleged, and the court apparently agreed, that this wasn't by
accident, but done intentionally by the fire department.
3. The court allowed the city to make the case that the questions (or
perhaps the _format_ of the test) was relevant to being a good
firefighter. The court did not feel the city made the case.
(There may have been subtleties on what constituted a passing mark).
Hence, the court found unnecessary/intentional discrimination occurring.
The argument put forth by the plaintiffs was that being particularly
good at written comprehension to the level needed to pass the test was
not particularly important to being a good firefighter, and the court
agreed.
If someone wants to read it more thoroughly and correct me, please do so.
You can find sample problems here:
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20406299&BRD=2731&PAG=461&dept_id=574907&rfi=onmousedown=return
(They definitely are related to firefighting).
Also, although I don't know if this was used in court and was part of
the decision, a side argument was that for other departments (police
department, etc), the blacks in NYC have little trouble satisfying the
requirements for those departments, so they were hinting that something
fishy was up with the FD.
--
One flea to another: "Is there life on other dogs?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I think your comparison is not very relevant. You are basically comparing
> the cultural backgrounds of person who have grown in a western civilization
> to that of a bushman who has grown in the jungle.
Yes. I was just describing an example I read of how something that might
*seem* to be a purely mathematical and culture-free question might actually
assume some culture after all.
> or heck, that you can *see*).
I wouldn't call blindness a cultural problem. ;-)
> name of the 50th state.
Heck, I was in Alaska, in a restaurant with Alaska paraphenalia plastered
all over the walls, including a newspaper page with the headline "Alaska
admitted to the Union!" and I asked the waitress whether Alaska was #49 or
#50, and she didn't know. :-)
> As I have been saying, the solution to that problem isn't dumbing down
> aptitude tests. That's one of the worst possible solutions.
I agree with most of what you say, yes. Making it easier for losers to
accomplish should be done by making losers into winners, not by rewarding
loserness.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 01/29/10 15:28, Darren New wrote:
>> their parents don't know as much, don't speak gramatically, can't answer
>
> I'm sure they speak grammatically. Perhaps just not English grammar. ;-)
Now, yes. As slaves (which was my example)? No, probably not. Slaves weren't
allowed to use their own languages or have their own culture either.
> 26 is not a big number. And IIRC, for that case, they didn't rule that
> the test per se was discriminatory, did they?
As you said, it was a different test, so I don't know. I think I remember
reading that they decided to promote nobody, and the people who passed the
test were understandably PO'ed.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> You can't talk about discrimination if the different passing rates are
> not caused purposefully.
If there were questions that unfairly penalized one sub-culture over another
for no good reason, and it was brought to the attention of those in charge,
and they didn't correct it, then that too could be discrimination. That's
what the article is saying happened.
I don't think anyone wrote the test intentionally trying to keep minorities
out of the job. (You never know, tho.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote in message
news:4b636eb7$1@news.povray.org...
> On 01/29/10 12:38, somebody wrote:
> >
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14fire.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1264791670-GxVD+sfKjvw04Ji/zop/fQ
> >
> >> It fails to explain how exactly the test discriminated. I looked at
> >> some other articles, and none gives any detail whatsoever.
> >
> > The test "discriminated" because African-Americans (and possibly
Hispanics)
> > scored lower than their White peers. And since requiring applicants to
be
>
> Thanks for letting us know. Can you tell me where I can purchase the
> crystal ball that told you that information? Or was it a mirror on your
> wall?
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 1. The test involves written comprehension, which black people in NYC
> suck at (I'm dropping political correctness for the rest of this message).
>
> 2. It was alleged, and the court apparently agreed, that this wasn't by
> accident, but done intentionally by the fire department.
>
> 3. The court allowed the city to make the case that the questions (or
> perhaps the _format_ of the test) was relevant to being a good
> firefighter. The court did not feel the city made the case.
The exam consists of 85 multiple-choice questions.
Some of the questions had long explanations which put
people who can't read well at a disadvantage.
IMO, firemen should be able to read.
The courts seem to think that testing for any "skill cluster" that isn't
strictly part of the job (as defined by the courts) is racist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/nyregion/24firefighters.html?ref=nyregion
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Btw, why couldn't it work in the other direction as well?
>
> For example, the majority of NBA players are black. Isn't this discrimination
> against white people?
Yes. This is clearly and obviously discrimination against white people.
In fact, you know what? Most NBA players are very tall. Obviously
discrimination against short people.
In fact, most NBA players are very thin. Obvious discrimination against
fat people!
And hey, most NBA players are extremely fit. This discrimination against
unfit people is totally unfair!!
It's not discrimination if people without the necessary skills can't get
in. It's only discrimination if people who *do* have the necessary
skills can't get in just because of their skin colour / other arbitrary
irrelevant factor. People need to wake up and realise this.
This stuff is getting stupid. Where my mum works, there's this one black
guy who's bone idle, lazy, incompetant, and has harassed female staff on
more than one occasion. But every time somebody tries to fire him, it's
"oh, this is racially motivated! This is unfair! I'm calling the
police!" And the company backs down, and he gets to keep his job. WTF?
This is of course inverse discrimination; if a white guy did this, he'd
be gone in 5 seconds flat...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-1-2010 0:31, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> I'm willing to accept that the test was discriminatory - I just
>> want to
>> know how. My complaint isn't about the ruling, but the journalism
>> (something everyone who responded seemed to miss).
>
> I caught it.
Well I think it was obvious from the subject line that that was your
point. I didn't react to it because it was handled as if the history was
common knowledge. I do remember something in the news about the earlier
ruling and I don't even live there. I felt that a discussion about
whether the journalist did their work and provided enough information
would deteriorate into a discussion on what is common knowledge for whom
and what the intended audience was for that article. (In a round about
way it did.) As a foreigner, i.e. someone not living in NY (the header
says "N.Y./Region"), I felt that I had nothing to say on that matter.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b636f15$1@news.povray.org...
> Yeah. Actually, I think this was a test for promotion to some
> leadership/management position. It wasn't a test about fighting fires, but
> about running a fire fighting company. So I imagine there could be
> something on it. It's just hard to believe there's anything on it that
> would make *all* 26 black applicants fail the test.
A lot of questions about hockey?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
