when they set the number '89' did they know that many blacks scored below that number? or was it only after the number was set did someone realize that many blacks didn't achieve that score?

8/18/2011 5:02:57 PM

as a teacher ive noticed that statistically-speaking 89 is a very difficult grade for minorities to achieve.

ive had 90s and 88s before, but if i was to exclude them specifically, id have to say 89 would be my first choice.

8/18/2011 5:26:59 PM

Didn't read the thread yet...but this shit right here is mind blowing

Quote :

" Chicago taxpayers will also be on the hook for $10 million to $20 million in back pension contributions for those who get jobs. "

Have these dudes been sitting on their asses for 16 years doing nothing?

8/18/2011 5:33:58 PM

Quote :

"you cant get by on being late to a fire"

i'll admit that once i figured out what BHS was saying here, i chuckled at it.

8/18/2011 6:34:10 PM

I kept a straight, stern face and mentally scolded him for stereotyping.

AHA

8/18/2011 6:38:27 PM

Because every test ever is inherently racist, like the SAT, ACT, LSAT, MCAT, GMAT, sunday school class quizes etc. In other words you can no longer pick and choose people by a test score because it's 'unfair' to minorities who 'historically score lower' on such tests. Thus the tests MUST have some racist aspect to them.

It can't be that some cultures don't value education or don't put in the time, effort, or attention. Can't be that at all.


KEEPIN' IT REAL!!

Now if the test was solely designed to discern between whites and blacks then ok. Short of that, no dice.

8/18/2011 7:01:35 PM

I'd be willing to bet that if you picked up any white high school kid from the US and dropped him into a high school in England, his test scores would see a drop.


Not that I want to get involved in this shitty conversation, but I will say this: If I'm on the 80th floor of the Sears Tower when it's on fire, I don't give a goddamn about test scores. I want the strongest and fastest firefighter helpin' me out. Fuck the test score, the cut-off should be someone's 40 time.

[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 7:21 PM. Reason : ]

8/18/2011 7:08:03 PM

8/18/2011 7:10:16 PM

Quote :

"Are all tests racist because they have a minimum score to pass? Is grading racist? is evaluating racist? is judging racist? is thinking racist? is living racist? is racist racist?"

i feel like a lot of people are still missing the fact that people who passed still weren't considered for hiring. its not like these people failed the test and were mad that they failed. and maybe a bunch of asian or white or hispanic people or women or whatever also were in the 65 - 88 range. but they didn't sue so...??? and is the question whether the test was racist? or whether it had a disparate impact on a certain class of people?

besides that, the court was just applying the law as it is written (in my opinion anyway)

i know it is crazy, but if you read the opinion it does shed SOME light on the facts and the issues that the court saw

i mean you still might disagree with title vii (and eeoc claims) altogether but that is the last time i'll say that. i don't get the disconnect here. but it is clearly me since everyone else is on the same page. so we'll just treat this like a breakup. it is me not you

Quote :

"Have these dudes been sitting on their asses for 16 years doing nothing?"

i think maybe we are confusing severance or unemployment with pension? or not, i really don't know. but pension is like what would go toward their retirement fund that they'd eventually get if they worked there for like 20 years and retired right? so even if they had another job they were still missing out on that? i don't know.

[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 7:19 PM. Reason : .]

8/18/2011 7:16:17 PM

you can't honestly expect anyone on the tww to actually read in to something. especially when it's so much easier to sit back in your chair and yell out "reverse discrimination."

8/18/2011 7:20:57 PM

also, your children arent winners when their soccer team loses.

8/18/2011 7:25:07 PM

^^^I'm with you, dude.

I don't understand the legal stuff or whatever, but I hear ya.

I think the problem here is that people are getting this sort of mixed up with some firefighter situations in other cities.

8/18/2011 7:30:28 PM

we should bus black firefighters to predominately white areas.

8/18/2011 7:33:06 PM

Quote :

"i feel like a lot of people are still missing the fact that people who passed still weren't considered for hiring. its not like these people failed the test and were mad that they failed. "

why does it matter that they passed? it's not like they're obligated to hire every single person that passes the test. anyway it makes sense to me to take the people with the highest test scores, so i don't see anything wrong with what chicago fd did.

8/18/2011 7:35:24 PM

It's already been pointed out that test scores shouldn't be THE top priority when hiring for these positions.

Furthermore, if people thought they only needed to make a 65 to pass, then they may not have felt the need to go out and study to try to do their best or whatever. They should have been warned prior to the test that it was a competition and that the notion of a "passing score" was actually meaningless.

8/18/2011 7:41:54 PM

Ahhh glad they hiked my Illinois state income tax from 3 percent to 5.25 percent to pay for such excellent causes.

8/18/2011 7:44:30 PM

they hiked your income tax because the state of illinois is on the edge of bankruptcy.

8/18/2011 7:49:17 PM

Quote :

"It's already been pointed out that test scores shouldn't be THE top priority when hiring for these positions. Furthermore, if people thought they only needed to make a 65 to pass, then they may not have felt the need to go out and study to try to do their best or whatever. They should have been warned prior to the test that it was a competition and that the notion of a "passing score" was actually meaningless."

So, initially, they said "we'll consider anyone that gets above a 65." They get a bunch of applicants, and many score above a 65 - more than they could feasibly hire.

At that point, they raised the bar, and said they were mainly considering those that got higher than a 89.

Maybe you don't think that's fair. Maybe it wasn't fair. One thing is for sure, though - race should not come into the picture. It was never shown that the Chicago FD purposely raised that bar as to exclude black people, because according to Title VII, it didn't need to be shown.

8/18/2011 7:51:20 PM

^^Thanks for pointing that out to me, this is good to know. You have told me many new to me things I should know.



[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 7:52 PM. Reason : ^^Captain Obvious is captain of obvious, obviously.]

8/18/2011 7:51:34 PM

just saying you could easily get mad at the unemployed teachers, slashed social services, etc. the state is about 5 Bil in debt, it's not like this single issue is what caused your income tax to double. the state HAS to get new revenues to get out of debt. even if this court order didn't happen, you would have seen an increase in your taxes.

8/18/2011 7:55:40 PM

lets get back on topic-

111 sub-par firefighters that happen to be black.

[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 7:57 PM. Reason : -]

8/18/2011 7:57:06 PM

Quote :

"Maybe you don't think that's fair. Maybe it wasn't fair. One thing is for sure, though - race should not come into the picture. It was never shown that the Chicago FD purposely raised that bar as to exclude black people, because according to Title VII, it didn't need to be shown."

i get that, but a lot of discrimination ISN'T purposeful. that is why there are purpose and effect categories.

anyway i think the court was actually just deciding on the timeliness of the claims. but in their holding you can read all the discussion of title vii and why the claim was appropriate and why the people were approp plaintiffs etc etc. but you can read a lot of analysiseseseses of the case and the holding on con law blogs and such (easily accessible by google)

the discussion is definitely interesting

but from where i sit, the case makes sense. court took law. court applied law. that is what i see. i get that not everyone does (even in con law world).

[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 7:58 PM. Reason : .]

8/18/2011 7:57:47 PM

^^^No way! You're telling me, the issue I just learned about isn't what caused me to be pissed when my state income tax was raised in February and also applied to my January paycheck?!

[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 7:58 PM. Reason : ^^^]

8/18/2011 7:58:27 PM

they're only subpar if you think some test score is the most important thing that qualifies as being a good firefighter. The real question is why someone would put such a heavy emphasis on the test score to begin with for a job that requires someone to voluntarily climb up a burning building.

Quote :

"No way! You're telling me, the issue I just learned about isn't what caused me to be pissed when my state income tax was raised in February and also applied to my January paycheck?!"

well, that seems to be the case, otherwise you wouldn't have come in here making snarky comments about "excellent causes" that you seem to think are causing your taxes to go up. Unless you were just looking for an excuse to cry about your taxes going up, in which case, I don't fucking feel sorry for you.

[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 8:11 PM. Reason : ]

8/18/2011 7:59:01 PM

i want to play for the NBA but i cant jump high enough LOL.

im white btw,

8/18/2011 7:59:14 PM

im a sub-par basketball player, but i think my whiteness and go-get-um attitude would be a valuable addition to any team.

and therefore i deserve to make millions of dollars.

8/18/2011 8:01:40 PM

Quote :

"but from where i sit, the case makes sense. court took law. court applied law. that is what i see. i get that not everyone does (even in con law world)."

I have many J.D. friends, and they typically offer up the same type of sentiment. They'll defend court decisions on the basis that the judges acted in accordance with precedent.

I don't give a shit about that, though, because I'm not a lawyer. I'm not interested in interpreting the laws in the same way that everyone else before me has. I want harmful/immoral laws to be repealed. As I mentioned earlier, that won't happen because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is sacrosanct and beyond reproach. Politicians are cowards.

I'd also argue that, in order to be held liable for discrimination, intent must be demonstrated. That's not what the laws says, but that's how it should be.

[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 8:05 PM. Reason : ]

8/18/2011 8:03:55 PM

i also don't think it will happen because in a lot of cases, it works the way it is supposed to.

i also want immoral laws to be repealed. but i guess people differ on what morality is, too

i don't agree with the intent part because it is pretty easy to discriminate intentionally but without proof of intent. that is just me, though.

when i went to ls i never thought i'd find an interest in being a people's attny. but clearly i got john edwardsed somewhere in there

(not that we are in torts right now, but i just have a thing for the little guy)

[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 8:15 PM. Reason : .]

8/18/2011 8:09:19 PM

Oh, it works like it's supposed to. Most laws do. That doesn't mean they're good for society.

I mean, I'd love to turn Title VII around and use it against the federal government. Drug prohibition, for instance - which groups are hardest hit by those laws? Some of the same groups that the federal government is allegedly doing such a great job of protecting with the Civil Rights Act. Obviously, that will never happen, because it's okay to unintentionally discriminate when you're the government, since you're doing the noble task of protecting people from themselves.

Quote :

"i don't agree with the intent part because it is pretty easy to discriminate intentionally but without proof of intent. that is just me, though."

If you can't prove they intended to discriminate, it's okay to just assume that they intended to discriminate and treat them as if they did? That seems to be severely unjust.

8/18/2011 8:45:20 PM

i hear ya!

i don't even wanna get started on what a fucked up cluster fuck the "war on drugs" is

8/18/2011 8:47:59 PM

Quote :

"i also want immoral laws to be repealed. but i guess people differ on what morality is, too i don't agree with the intent part because it is pretty easy to discriminate intentionally but without proof of intent. that is just me, though."

1) Laws and morality should not be related. They are separate entities and should remain so. I equate morality and religion in this sense. Morals are personal choices/beliefs and no one else should be forced to live by yours. I don't have a good explanation/word for my thoughts, but I don't see things like making murder, robbing, etc. as things to outlaw on tradition moral grounds, but more because things that directly and purposefully infringe on other's rights should be outlawed.

2) Knowingly and willingly are to very important parts to most crimes, but unfortunately, these words aren't used in many. And it's bullshit that they're not and that people get caught up in legal battles over minute oversights. Look, if someone, say CFD in this case, didn't knowingly and willingly discriminate, then no laws have been broken. If it can't be proven, then it didn't happen. Assuming someone broke the law is dangerous.

[Edited on August 19, 2011 at 8:26 AM. Reason : .]

8/19/2011 8:24:16 AM

Quote :

"If all applicants that scored above the fail rate were considered instead of the 89 score cutoff, and they hired the same pool of above-89 applicants, would the problem still be contested?"

This is what I'm wondering. If they hired say, 800 firefighter that year and they just chose the top 800 test scores to hire, would that get them in trouble? It's not really their fault if the top 800 test takers are 75% white, or Asian, or Latino, or whatever.

8/19/2011 8:35:11 AM

how did the people reviewing test scores know that the people that scored lower than 89 were predominantly black? They have to draw the line somewhere, they can't hire everybody, and there has to be SOME sort of weed out test to get the process started of training firefighters. An apptitude test may not be the best way to do it, but that's the way it was done. Sure, many people scored 'ok' on the test (up to 89) but if the Chicago FD wants to hire ONLY people that scored higher than 89, how is that racist? Regardless of color, why should you be allowed to be mad about not being a firefighter 15 years ago and get some tax payer money?

8/19/2011 8:35:22 AM

you cant see black firefighters in the smoke

8/19/2011 12:53:16 PM

Quote :

"and the court found that the score was arbitrary and that the score had no relation to the skills or intelligence to become a firefighter. all it did was discriminate against minorities. so its not like you were getting unqualified or dumb firefighters. so just CALM IT DOWN. read the entire facts and opinion, not a news article sillies. "

that sounds like a little much, what was the test about, country music stars and confederate war generals?

8/19/2011 4:02:34 PM