Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Unitended racism
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5043 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 133 of 172 (516750)
07-27-2009 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Rrhain
07-04-2009 11:29 PM


Rrhain,
I understand why you are saying this here but I don't think that what the media has said about the promotions is entirely false.
quote:
Do you know how the promotion system works? Did you read the decision, because it describes it. Passing the test does not get you promoted.
The test does not get you the promotion but it is required. It is necessary but not sufficient. Since you must have the test to have the promotion then if you don't have the test you can't get the promotion. It seems that by tossing the test then the candidates must not have received the promotions.
It seem reasonable for someone to think that the firefighters were denied a promotion based on the very first paragraph of the document published by the court:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf
RICCI v. DESTEFANO writes:
New Haven, Conn. (City), uses objective examinations to identify thosefirefighters best qualified for promotion. When the results of such an exam to fill vacant lieutenant and captain positions showed thatwhite candidates had outperformed minority candidates, a rancorouspublic debate ensued. Confronted with arguments both for and against certifying the test resultsand threats of a lawsuit eitherwaythe City threw out the results based on the statistical racial disparity. Petitioners, white and Hispanic firefighters who passed the exams but were denied a chance at promotions by the City’s refusal to certify the test results, sued the City and respondent officials, alleging that discarding the test results discriminated against them based on their race in violation of, inter alia, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
While it is true that the exam doesn't grant the promotion in general in this particular case it would have since the candidates would have been eligible for an immediate promotion:
RICCI v. DESTEFANO writes:
Candidates took the examinations in November and December 2003. Seventy-seven candidates completed thelieutenant examination43 whites, 19 blacks, and 15 Hispanics. Of those, 34 candidates passed25 whites, 6blacks, and 3 Hispanics. 554 F. Supp. 2d, at 145. Eightlieutenant positions were vacant at the time of the examination. As the rule of three operated, this meant that the top 10 candidates were eligible for an immediate promotion to lieutenant. All 10 were white. Ibid. Subsequent vacancies would have allowed at least 3 black candidates to be considered for promotion to lieutenant.
Forty-one candidates completed the captain examination25 whites, 8 blacks, and 8 Hispanics. Of those, 22 candidates passed16 whites, 3 blacks, and 3 Hispanics. Ibid. Seven captain positions were vacant at the time of the examination. Under the rule of three, 9 candidates were eligible for an immediate promotion to captain7 whites and 2 Hispanics. Ibid.
Anyway, the upshot is that I don't think that the common view that the firefighters were denied promotion because the exam was tossed out is completely incorrect. In fact I think it reasonably describes the final result of having discarded the test.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Rrhain, posted 07-04-2009 11:29 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024