 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018797035
--
Cut my pizza in six slices, please; I can't eat eight.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
> http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018797035
I like how the article carefully avoids specifying exactly how hiring
based on test scores is "discriminatory".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4c03fa31$1@news.povray.org...
> http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018797035
It's a little surreal that the SC can still imply it's a given that blacks
will not do well when tested fairly alongside whites when the residing
president is black.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 31 May 2010 15:47:46 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
> news:4c03fa31$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018797035
>
> It's a little surreal that the SC can still imply it's a given that
> blacks will not do well when tested fairly alongside whites when the
> residing president is black.
Just because the sitting president is black doesn't mean we've achieved
equality everywhere in the country.
There are still parts of the country where the divide in education is
very strongly pronounced along racial lines because of differences in
schools where the predominant race of students is black vs. schools where
the predominant race of the students is white.
To suggest that having a black president makes everything equal now
everywhere is just a bit of a straw man.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/06/2010 6:22 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 15:47:46 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
>> "Neeum Zawan"<m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
>> news:4c03fa31$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>>> http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018797035
>>
>> It's a little surreal that the SC can still imply it's a given that
>> blacks will not do well when tested fairly alongside whites when the
>> residing president is black.
>
> Just because the sitting president is black doesn't mean we've achieved
> equality everywhere in the country.
>
> There are still parts of the country where the divide in education is
> very strongly pronounced along racial lines because of differences in
> schools where the predominant race of students is black vs. schools where
> the predominant race of the students is white.
>
> To suggest that having a black president makes everything equal now
> everywhere is just a bit of a straw man.
>
Yes, just because one man from a minority reaches the top. (Talking
about the supreme court) It doesn’t mean that he thinks that the rest of
the minority have an equal opportunity to do the same.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/31/10 14:47, somebody wrote:
>> http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018797035
>
> It's a little surreal that the SC can still imply it's a given that blacks
> will not do well when tested fairly alongside whites when the residing
> president is black.
1. As has been pointed out, you suck at statistics.
2. The SC made no such implication.
--
The first piece of luggage out of the chute doesn't belong to anyone, ever.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018797035
>
> I like how the article carefully avoids specifying exactly how hiring
> based on test scores is "discriminatory".
They allege that if some races test lower than others (on average), then
using the test is discriminatory. It's all about "disparate impact."
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> They allege that if some races test lower than others (on average), then
> using the test is discriminatory. It's all about "disparate impact."
This logic is so horrifyingly broken...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
: 4c040e82@news.povray.org...
> I like how the article carefully avoids specifying exactly how hiring
> based on test scores is "discriminatory".
The SC ruling is only about the timeliness of the claim, i.e. it does not
have to address the core issue itself. However, it should be noted that it's
a 9-0 decision, meaning that even the conservative justices (including
Scalia, who's usually opposed to affirmative action) sided with the
plaintiffs.
Anyway, after digging into mountains of obfuscated US legalese, the gist of
the story is as follows:
- the city of Chicago held a written cognitive test to pick candidates who
would later be tested for actual firefighting abilities. Candidates who
passed the test with a score>65 (out of 98) were qualified.
- among the qualified candidates, those below 89 were told that they were
kept on the eligibility list but that they would probably never be called to
pass the actual tests. The 89 cutoff score eliminated most of the qualified
black candidates.
- the discrimination claim is that the 89 cutoff score was an administrative
decision unrelated to future job performance. "Unrelated" is the keyword
here as there would be no case if the cutoff score had been job-related. In
other words, it's as if the City of Chicago had tried to hire software
developers and, in addition to programming tests, had the candidates run a
100-meter sprint, effectively eliminating the overweight ones.
It's an interesting story anyway, showing the complexity of maintaining
justice in societies plagued with social inequalities.
For further reading:
Whole SC briefs and documents:
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Lewis_v._City_of_Chicago
Worth reading: the Opinion of the Illinois District Court that describes in
detail the tests and the problems people (including the test designers) had
with them:
http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/cshapiro/classes/EmployRelationSP10/CourseReadings/LewisvCityofChicago.pdf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 03.06.2010 16:14, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
>> They allege that if some races test lower than others (on average),
>> then using the test is discriminatory. It's all about "disparate impact."
>
> This logic is so horrifyingly broken...
Not if the prime axiom of anti-racism holds true, that all races are
equal; because if you take that for granted, any test that exhibits
significantly different test results for different races /must/ be broken.
Then again, I never managed to understand how anyone can even claim that
men and women are equal, given the pretty obvious anatomic differences -
and the same goes for "whites", "blacks", "yellows", "reds" and
what-have-you-nots: They obviously /are/ different, if only in outer
appearance (and in fact there are less obvious differences, such as
resistances against certain ailments and drugs).
After all, the question is not whether differences exist, but how much
value we assign to them.
Which again takes us to the tests: If the results of such a test appear
to assign different average values to different races, do we really
/want/ such a test? Or shouldn't we oppose it, possibly even saying,
"hey, this test /may/ be right in that "whites" are generally better
qualified for this job than "blacks", but that would add a "value tag"
to racial differences, thereby fueling a mindset that we don't want in
our society - so let's ditch the test results, risking not having the
/very/ best firefighters we could get, to fight the mindset that racial
differences would make any race superior to any other"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
