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

On 01/29/10 21:04, Tim Attwood wrote:
> IMO, firemen should be able to read.

	That's a sweeping statement. No one said they couldn't 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

	Yes, in a sense that's what they ruled. It's racist if that unnecessary
skill cluster showed a discrimination.

	I can see it either way. On one level, it could have been a "harmless
accident" (who's supposed to guess that something like reading
comprehension would become such a big issue?). On the other hand, I can
also see it as "We know these guys suck at reading comprehension. Let's
make it a big part of the test, and set the time constraints in a manner
such that they're much more likely to fail."

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

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>    since, AFAIK, most black people go to the exact same schools as white
>    people do.

I don't think this is necessarily the case. Children here go to close 
schools. Schools are funded by property tax.  Children of poor parents go to 
schools with less money to pay teachers and books than children of wealthy 
parents. Minority parents tend to be more poor, in part because they're less 
educated.  So it's sort of a vicious circle that needs to be broken. If you 
just say "teach everyone the same", it doesn't happen, because the money 
isn't there.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> A lot of questions about hockey?

I saw a funny black comedian talking about that, going on about sports and 
how there are no black people playing hockey.  "The only thing in the whole 
game that's black is the puck!"  And then he goes on to mention Tiger Woods 
playing golf.

Very droll.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >    since, AFAIK, most black people go to the exact same schools as white
> >    people do.

> I don't think this is necessarily the case. Children here go to close 
> schools. Schools are funded by property tax.  Children of poor parents go to 
> schools with less money to pay teachers and books than children of wealthy 
> parents. Minority parents tend to be more poor, in part because they're less 
> educated.  So it's sort of a vicious circle that needs to be broken. If you 
> just say "teach everyone the same", it doesn't happen, because the money 
> isn't there.

  Ok, maybe that's so. However, as it turns out, the perceived problem in
the fireman test was related to literacy. One would think that literacy is
such an ubiquitous subject matter in all schools, that at least *that* would
be the same for everybody (after all, it's hard to teach anything to anyone
who can't read and write properly), and if someone doesn't learn how to read
and write properly, the problem is not in the schooling system.

  So if the perceived problem with the test was indeed related to literacy,
I think my objection stands.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   So if the perceived problem with the test was indeed related to literacy,
> I think my objection stands.

It's hard to say.  It's pretty easy to be literate and still a slow reader. 
But yes, the idea that you can't read well and thus the test was unfair 
seemed rather odd. I mean, it's a written test, you know? What do you expect?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

On 30-1-2010 17:29, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>    since, AFAIK, most black people go to the exact same schools as white
>>>    people do.
> 
>> I don't think this is necessarily the case. Children here go to close 
>> schools. Schools are funded by property tax.  Children of poor parents go to 
>> schools with less money to pay teachers and books than children of wealthy 
>> parents. Minority parents tend to be more poor, in part because they're less 
>> educated.  So it's sort of a vicious circle that needs to be broken. If you 
>> just say "teach everyone the same", it doesn't happen, because the money 
>> isn't there.
> 
>   Ok, maybe that's so. However, as it turns out, the perceived problem in
> the fireman test was related to literacy. One would think that literacy is
> such an ubiquitous subject matter in all schools, that at least *that* would
> be the same for everybody (after all, it's hard to teach anything to anyone
> who can't read and write properly), and if someone doesn't learn how to read
> and write properly, the problem is not in the schooling system.

Why don't you go find a job as a teacher in a primary school in a poor 
neighborhood? You seem to be better qualified than the current teachers.

>   So if the perceived problem with the test was indeed related to literacy,
> I think my objection stands.

I don't think so.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >   So if the perceived problem with the test was indeed related to literacy,
> > I think my objection stands.

> I don't think so.

  So they don't teach them how to read and write properly in the poor
schools either?

  What do they teach there, then?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 01/30/10 08:33, Darren New wrote:
> unfair seemed rather odd. I mean, it's a written test, you know? What do
> you expect?

	And the argument was that it shouldn't be one. The link Tim posted said
that one of the ways they made it better was to include diagrams, etc.

-- 
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't
put it down.

Post a reply to this message

On 01/30/10 10:23, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>   So if the perceived problem with the test was indeed related to literacy,
>>> I think my objection stands.
> 
>> I don't think so.
> 
>   So they don't teach them how to read and write properly in the poor
> schools either?

	It's not binary. They teach, but not properly.


-- 
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't
put it down.

Post a reply to this message