...and also pay 30 million in damages.

Quote :

"Chicago will hire 111 bypassed black firefighters by March 2012 and pay at least $30 million in damages to some 6,000 others who will never get that chance, under a court order expected to be approved Wednesday by a federal judge."

Quote :

"Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed that African-American candidates did not wait too long before filing a lawsuit that accused the city of discriminating against them for the way it handled a 1995 firefighter’s entrance exam. "

Okay, so it sounds like the city of Chicago discriminated against black firefighter applicants with a 1995 entrance exam. Let's find out more about how, exactly, this was a discriminatory exam:

Quote :

"When results from the 1995 entrance exam were disappointing for minorities, the city established a cut-off score of 89 and hired randomly from the top 1,800 “well-qualified” candidates. In 2005, a federal judge ruled that the city’s decision had the effect of perpetuating the predominantly white status quo, since 78 percent of those ‘“well-qualified’’ candidates were white. Currently 19 percent of Chicago’s 5,000 firefighters and paramedics are African-American. The force is 68 percent white and 11 percent Hispanic."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/7107077-418/city-to-pay-30-million-hire-111-black-firefighters.html

So, the city established this exam and only chose from applicants scoring above an 89. The exam was only discriminatory in effect.

Now, 2011 Chicago taxpayers are on the hook for these "damages," many of which were not even of voting age when this allegedly discriminatory exam was held.

There are many other questions that need answering. For instance, why would they not offer damages to all individuals that scored less than an 89? Why are they singling out applicants with black skin? How much "black" does one need to have to make the cut? If 3 of your 4 grandparents are white and one is black, does that count? What's the correct ratio?

Does this not strike anyone else as, well...draconian?

8/17/2011 7:30:26 PM

why didn't they just pass the exam?

what about white people who 'failed' or whatever? or Hispanics?

8/17/2011 7:32:02 PM

remember, d357r0y3r, the only way to fight the effects of discrimination is with more discrimination. DUUUUUUUUUH. who cares that some people can't pass the exam. Why even have an exam? It's the color of the skin that matters!

8/17/2011 7:34:24 PM

Quote :

"Now, 2011 Chicago taxpayers are on the hook for these "damages," many of which were not even of voting age when this allegedly discriminatory exam was held. "

doesn't this hold true for a lot of things we pay for?

8/17/2011 7:34:29 PM

If you ever take an HR course you can hear about all types of similar dumb shit. What I really want to know is what were the percentages of the original pool? These types of stories always seem to leave out those details.

8/17/2011 7:35:31 PM

i think the issue was the score of 89

there wasn't a justification. i think they just randomly picked it or something. so the problemo was that it was arbitrary.

disparate impact. look that ish up.

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 7:37 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2011 7:37:37 PM

they still picked a lower god damned score in order to get minorities in, though. think about that. they established a LOWER QUALIFICATION in order to get blacks in. it's exactly what anti-affirmative-action types bitch about, the lowering of qualifications in the name of "equality".

there very much WAS a reason for the lowered number. it was to get more blacks "qualified". Should they have set it at 50 so that 50% of the people would be black then? Should they have set it low enough so that all black applicants would "pass"? there's something wrong with assuming that, since a lot of blacks didn't pass, the test discriminates against blacks intentionally. guilty until proven innocent, basically

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 7:42 PM. Reason : ]

8/17/2011 7:40:12 PM

They should have set an upper limit on the test score.

I would rather have a big dumb mule busting into a building to pull me out of a fire than some super intelligent scrawny nerd.

I bet there is more to this story than reactionary Destroyer and reactionary burro seem to think. I'd be nice if people thought rationally about stuff rather than emotionally...

Good thing this is chit chat i guess?

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 7:44 PM. Reason : ]

8/17/2011 7:43:41 PM

Quote :

"doesn't this hold true for a lot of things we pay for?"

It holds true for virtually all of the things we pay for and most of the laws/regulations we must abide by. For instance, our generation will bear the burden of the reckless policies that came before us, despite the fact that we had no "vote" in the matter. We will deal with the consequences of massive national debt and a defunct Social Security system, and we will receive none of the benefits.

Quote :

"disparate impact."

There are cultural issues at play, though. For instance, someone on FB linked me the WRAL crime report because a person we knew got busted. I found him, but I decided to look through the rest of the pictures. Over 90% of the individuals arrested in Wake County are black males. That's not an exaggeration. Are Wake County police racist, or are black males just statistically more likely to commit crimes/get caught?

8/17/2011 7:44:11 PM

they lowered qualifying scores to get into the naval academy too. sounds pretty equal to me

8/17/2011 7:44:32 PM

I think they could have avoided the disparate impact problem by having an objective reasoning behind the 89 cutoff. Like Khcadwal said, they fucked up by picking a random cutoff number.

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 7:48 PM. Reason : an, not a]

8/17/2011 7:48:16 PM

the people passed the test the 89 was the "well qualified score"

so the people in between the failing score and the 89 were just fucked

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.

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 7:50 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2011 7:48:47 PM

Quote :

"I would rather have a big dumb mule busting into a building to pull me out of a fire than some super intelligent scrawny nerd."

so you are saying that blacks just big dumb mules? I seriously doubt this test was a basic IQ test. I want a firefighter who can follow his training rather than not, as that reduces city liability and the likelihood of death, thus incurring city liability. But that's just me.

Quote :

"That's not an exaggeration. Are Wake County police racist, or are black males just statistically more likely to commit crimes/get caught?"

1) That cops are less sympathetic towards black males is no big surprise these days.
2) Crime is highly correlated with low SES, where blacks just happen to fall low, for reasons that should be fucking obvious.
Saying things like that REALLY doesn't help your cause, even among people who might agree with you on other issues.

8/17/2011 7:49:01 PM

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.

oh and you missed the other part. WHAT HAD HAPPENED WAS

people sat for the test
some people passed, some people failed

then they saw that black people scored lower on the exam (still passed, but scored lower)

so then they were like, oh 89 sounds great, we'll say the "well qualified" people got an 89 and above and we'll only hire from them

DO YOU GET THE PROBLEM NOW??

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 7:51 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2011 7:50:35 PM

^^I don't have a cause to hurt in this case. It's just a fact that black males are statistically more likely to be charged and convicted of crimes. It's nothing inherent to their genetic make-up - there are a multitude of reasons for it. It has everything to do with upbringing and socioeconomic status and nothing to do with actual skin tone, except in cases where actual discrimination occurs and people bring their prejudice into play.

The entrance exam should have ended any question of discrimination, because they were using actual metrics. Without the exam, someone could have made the case that the fire department was discriminating and they wouldn't have had much of a defense.

^Unless there was a question "Are you black? Yes or No," and answering yes meant you scored lower, the test was not actually discriminatory. It was not just black people that scored lower than 89, and among the well qualified, only 78% were white.

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 7:55 PM. Reason : ]

8/17/2011 7:52:57 PM

omfg i give up



read the fucking case

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 7:54 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2011 7:53:38 PM

OK, i made the fatal asumption that 100 was "well-qualified" and that the score was not based on a 100-pt system. It looks like a 65 was "qualified".
http://www.bet.com/news/national/2011/08/17/court-orders-chicago-fire-department-to-hire-111-black-men.html

Quote :

"The city later conceded that the 89-point cutoff created a disparate impact against the 6,000 Black candidates who received qualified scores. "

I would argue than equal impact would have occurred to the whites who scored between 65 and 88. But then again, only blacks matter, so fuck the whities

Quote :

"It's just a fact that black males are statistically more likely to be charged and convicted of crimes. It's nothing inherent to their genetic make-up - there are a multitude of reasons for it. It has everything to do with upbringing and socioeconomic status and nothing to do with actual skin tone, except in cases where actual discrimination occurs and people bring their prejudice into play."

which is far from the assumption one might make based on what you originally said. Saying "look at all these darkies who are arrested and incarcerated" is far more inflammatory than saying "man, look at all these black people who, for many shitty reasons, got arrested and incarcerated."

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 7:57 PM. Reason : ]

8/17/2011 7:56:02 PM

^^Read the edit, I was responding to burro.

Quote :

"which is far from the assumption one might make based on what you originally said. Saying "look at all these darkies who are arrested and incarcerated" is far more inflammatory than saying "man, look at all these black people who, for many shitty reasons, got arrested and incarcerated.""

I'm not responsible for any assumptions people make based on my factual statements, am I?

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 7:59 PM. Reason : ]

8/17/2011 7:56:10 PM

l
o
l

chicago

8/17/2011 7:57:51 PM

Quote :

"I would argue than equal impact would have occurred to the whites who scored between 65 and 88. But then again, only blacks matter, so fuck the whites"

its not an equal impact because 78% of whites were above the well qualified mark but like 0% (i'm making that up but you get the point) of blacks were. so clearly the impact wasn't equal. which is probably why they call it disparate impact. MAYBE if you make the argument for other minorities, then yeah. but they weren't part of the lawsuit so...yeah.

Quote :

"Unless there was a question "Are you black? Yes or No," and answering yes meant you scored lower, the test was not actually discriminatory. It was not just black people that scored lower than 89, and among the well qualified, only 78% were white. "

it was the hiring process FROM the test. people < 65 failed

people 65 - 88 were qualified

89+ well qualified. they only hired from well qualified and determined that the test score of 89 was just arbitrary in terms of the skills needed to be a good firefighter. it seems pretty clear to me, i don't understand the difficulty with this. if you read the case i think it will clear things up a bit. you can see the facts outlined and the court's analysis. the news articles do a really fabulous job and skewing the facts and leaving out really relevant details.


[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 8:03 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2011 7:59:36 PM

No one is saying that it's equal impact. It very clearly is not equal impact - a higher percentage of black applicants got denied when compared to white applicants. I'm arguing that we should aim for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

As far as test scores being arbitrary...yes, they are. Did you think grading scales were determined by some concrete metrics?

Link the case briefing, if you could.

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 8:04 PM. Reason : ]

8/17/2011 8:03:05 PM

here: google lewis v. chicacgo you should be able to get a case briefing AND the full case

sure, all grading is arbitrary. but this is basically the issue...if you scored under a 65 you failed. if you scored above you passed. if you passed you should get the opportunity to be CONSIDERED for hiring. well, that isn't what happened. HENCE the problem.

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 8:05 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2011 8:04:30 PM

Quote :

"sure, all grading is arbitrary. but this is basically the issue...if you scored under a 65 you failed. if you scored above you passed. if you passed you should get the opportunity to be CONSIDERED for hiring. well, that isn't what happened. HENCE the problem."

Back to the original post, then. ALL applicants (not just those with black skin) that scored between 65-89 should get a shot at the jobs/damages.

8/17/2011 8:06:11 PM

well they should have filed a Title VII suit then and they'd have to show that they met the criteria.

and i get what y'all are saying. but its not like the court was like "oh it is discrimination so the black people win"

the plaintiff's have to meet certain requirements to even bring a suit and to qualify under title vii and THEN there is this whole balancing test

i don't know, a lot of that is lost in little news articles. even if you don't agree you still get a better understanding by reading the entire case (and this one is short like < 20 pages i think) so it helps clarify the law and HOW they got to the decision even if you still don't agree with it (and if you still don't it proooobably means you just don't agree with the law the way it is written, which is an entire other issue )

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 8:11 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2011 8:08:16 PM

I've read some of the case, but I'm not going to read all of it. My problem is with with Title VII, specifically, disparate impact. It's yet another part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that I think should be repealed. Of course, that won't happen, because you get branded a racist if you question any section of that legislation. God Bless Fucking America.

The doctrine of disparate impact essentially says that an employer can be held liable for unintentional discrimination. Think about that. No discriminatory intent has to be demonstrated or proven. The only benchmarks are 1) That whatever hiring practices were used, in effect, resulted in a lower percentage of (whatever group) being hired relative to their collective percentage of the applicant pool and 2) That the practices were not "job related and consistent with business necessity."

Of course, #2 is subjective as fuck. I think a business/organization owner has a better understanding of what is "consistent with business necessity" than some judge.

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 8:45 PM. Reason : ]

8/17/2011 8:44:16 PM

when such a large number of people apply for a scarce position, wouldn't they hire the people best suited for the job? isn't that what the test was for?

I hate discrimination shit like this... being forced to hire lesser qualified people because of skin color. (and i don't care what color that skin is.)

8/17/2011 8:57:01 PM

Did anyone else read the thread, then look at the user name, and then check to see if you are in Chit Chat?

Seriously, move these tards to TSB.

8/17/2011 9:03:09 PM

Listen to the great Merbig.

8/17/2011 9:04:49 PM

remember: only blacks were affected by the arbitrary cutoff. no whites were affected. equal protection under the law my ass

Quote :

"the plaintiff's have to meet certain requirements to even bring a suit and to qualify under title vii "

mainly skin color. so yeah, the white guys lose automaticall

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 9:07 PM. Reason : ]

8/17/2011 9:05:23 PM

Perhaps the black people should study harder next time.

8/17/2011 9:17:53 PM

I won't pretend to understand all the legal or HR matters but I do have a question.

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?

8/17/2011 9:19:24 PM

of course. the blacks suing didnt get any whiter

8/17/2011 9:28:15 PM

^^ i honestly don't know. i think if it was just Pass/Fail and they still hired the same people from the above the 89% cutoff then they might be ok. because then there would have been an equal opportunity for everyone that passed? i don't know. i'm sure it would be easier to argue that there WASN'T a violation, at least.

8/17/2011 9:32:31 PM

This is now a Spiderman thread.

8/17/2011 9:33:49 PM

khcadawal: 1
d357r0y3r: 0

8/17/2011 11:26:19 PM

Coming from you, that makes me feel validated.

8/18/2011 3:13:12 PM

Wait. So how is arbitrarily setting a passing score racist? I mean, if it's arbitrary, then it's not based on anything of fact, including test taker's race... so how does setting this score equate to racism?

8/18/2011 3:42:20 PM

It's not racist - it's unintentionally discriminatory. The plaintiff was not able to prove that the bar was intentionally raised to exclude black people, but it didn't have to. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, all you have to prove is that a higher percentage of black people were adversely affected by the decision than white people. Apparently, that's social justice.

8/18/2011 3:54:00 PM

In other words, it's bullshit.

8/18/2011 3:57:34 PM

^ Ding Ding!!

8/18/2011 4:02:45 PM

^^Racist

8/18/2011 4:07:43 PM

This isn't something I really wanna get outraged by either way.

But it is funny to think about. If you were like one of the lower scorers, can you imagine getting $5,000 for not doing very good on a civil service exam fifteen years before?!? That's gotta be kinda awesome. I mean, the discrimination and whatnot sure must suck, but getting paid for barely passing an exam...SWEET!

Oh, and this is screwed up if people thought the necessary score was 65 and only worked hard enough to achieve that score. They should have been told in advance that it was a competition.

[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 4:19 PM. Reason : sss]

8/18/2011 4:15:14 PM

this is a bridget kinda thread

nothing shed enjoy more than seeing more black guys totin big black hose

The Bridget 111

[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 4:18 PM. Reason : d]

8/18/2011 4:17:55 PM

Yes, but only good-looking ones!

And I mean the men and their hoses.

8/18/2011 4:21:57 PM

Does this make the FE/PE racist? I mean, the passing score isn't really arbitrary, but it's a floating/unknown target, and I'm sure plenty of people with skin other than white don't pass it. Is all standardized testing racist then? 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?

8/18/2011 4:22:40 PM

lol

8/18/2011 4:25:07 PM

little known fact-

if youre a big Samoan fucker named "Tiny" youre in by default.

8/18/2011 4:27:57 PM

I was going to post a bunch of hot firefighter pictures, but there actually aren't that many available on Google. So either there really is a major deficit of black firefighters or black firefighters prefer not to appear in the yearly calendars. Either way, this disparity is an outrage!

[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 4:43 PM. Reason : sss]

8/18/2011 4:39:36 PM

you cant get by on being late to a fire

8/18/2011 4:49:50 PM

---------->

8/18/2011 4:50:33 PM