Supreme Court reverses ruling on White Firefighters Case

[fabulouslyghetto]

None of that has any relevance to this issue.

you're late. that tangent start many posts ago.

In this case EVERYONE was treated fairly, and the decision of who to promote was based solely on individual performance and not racial prejudice.

huh? i thought that's what the whole problem was, that it was a race-based decision.

 

[iman]

Well you know, as often as I compare the gay civil rights movement to the black civil rights movement, this is one area where there is a huge difference. Gay folk have never asked for or wanted any sort of affirmative action program. In fact, affirmative action doesn't even make sense in a gay context. In order for a gay affirmative action program to work, everyone would have to be ejected from their closets. Gay folk view that as an odious invasion of privacy and wouldn't tolerate it for a New York minute.

The discrimination experienced by gay folk and black folk are analogous, but the remedies for the discrimination won't necessarily be the same (nor should they be).

Not true! Many Federal. State and Local governments and agencies include sexual preference in their Non-discrimination policies.
The result of that sexual pref inclusion has caused the various organizations to make sure that the organization hierarchy is reflectively diverse and managers can take credit for adhering to and promoting the non-discrimination ideals.

 

[chuck10x]

I said that racism is systemic subjugation of one race by another. It can only be maintained by the ruling class.



Yes, we did. Racism is systemic. The mere fact that 53% of voters were able to vote for a black person does not mean that the system-wide subjugation has been eradicated. You're going to have come up with something better than that.

President Obama worked hard for the job, It wasn't given to him.
I am in Civil Service, and I can tell you Minorities have a distinct advantage in them, at least in Philadelphia.
Civil Service tests include a written exam and a performance exam.
Many jobs give 80% to performance, So if literacy is a problem you only lose 20 points.
If you are a veteran you could potentially cancel out the written test.
Also, Seniority counts, If you have 20 years on the job and the other person has 10 you can "Bump" that person out of the job.
Racism is systematic, But in a Civil Service job, it is reversed.
In the case of the firefighters- If the white guys failed and the blacks passed what would happen if they didn't promote the best candidate?

 

[landers]

Not true. Racism is systemic subjugation of one race by another. It can only be maintained by the ruling class.

Racism is the unsubstantiated belief that some races are superior to others. It has nothing to do with subjugation and can be committed by a minority against a majority.

 

[unclaimedblessing]

Firefighting is a noble and and courageous occupation.
Training and job expertise are essential because lives depend on them.
The supervising firemen's life and those of his subordinates, and the victims of fires depend on his knowledge and ability. It is not an area where "quota" hiring/promotion should be permitted.
I believe there are height and weight standards also. I'm a 6'2, 200lb man and if I were incapacitated on the third floor due to fire, I wouldn't be filled with confidence if a 5' 100 lb woman (or man) was responsible for putting me over their shoulder and carrying me down a ladder.
If a comprehensive, written test is required for advancement, then let the chips fall where they may.

 

[hotatlboi]

huh? i thought that's what the whole problem was, that it was a race-based decision.

The city's decision yes. I was referring to the court's decision.

 

[palemale]

Many here have made the factual assertion that no blacks passed the test for promotion. From what I have gleaned from the news, a number of black candidates did pass the test. The issue was that those test takers who achieved a certain score were entitled to a guaranteed promotion. I assume, therefore, that the others who passed the test, including black candidates, would be eligible and qualified for promotion, it was just not guaranteed. I believe the way civil service usually works is that if no promotional opportunities arose within a certain time, the list of qualified test takers would expire and a new test would have to be given. It is conceivable, therefore, that a black candidate who scored well on the first test, just not well enough to get a guaranteed promotion, might not be able or available to take the next test. A white candidate could take the test and pass with a lower score than the black candidate had on the prior test, but still end up getting promoted. Does this make sense? Most jurisdictions and employers no longer use these tests as the sole factor in hiring.

I had a friend who was a police officer on a small-town force. He and every officer was white. The police department gave a promotional test for sergeant. Nobody (i.e. the white police chief, white town council members, other white policed officers) liked the officer who achieved the highest score. He was considered to be a book smart guy who did nothing but study night and day to pass the test. No one thought he was sergeant material, that he didn't possess the other necessary qualities to be a good sergeant. Guess what? The police department through out the test results. A different, white, cop was promoted. No law suit there.

 

[MystikWizard]

Based on what I read, what essentially transpired is that a group of firefighters of all races took the time to study for and take a promotional exam (from what I gather to be for the positions of Captain and Lieutenant) ... however the problem was that the city of New Haven really were only looking for Black candidates to fill those positions.

So essentially, everyone else that took the time to study for and take the test essentially had their time wasted, and were passed over for promotion because they weren't the color that the city was looking for, despite being qualified.

However, when no Black applicants were determined to be qualified to fill the positions based on their test results, I would think the logical thing to do would then be to look at the remainder of the applicants who did qualify, regardless of their race. That did not transpire and instead nobody got promoted.

That is discrimination. The firefighters who were qualified to be promoted and scored accordingly were discriminated against from being offered a promotion because they were White and Hispanic ... and not Black.

I think this goes beyond the scope of traditional Affirmative Action in which we take a look at qualified applicants and their Races. And if White Person "X" has the same qualifications as Black Person "Y", then we take a look at Black Person "Y" as the likely candidate to achieve the position in the name of a diversified society.

What I essentially saw that transpired was that there was White Person "X" and Hispanic Person "Z", and no qualified Black Person "Y"s based on any of the test results. So therefore, instead of going to the applicants who were qualified, White Person "X" and Hispanic Person "Z" were refused promotions. And I'm sorry, I think that's wrong.

I believe in a Diversified society. But I also think that if there were no qualified Black applicants based on their own test results, which are objective compared to the other applicants, then it was wrong to deny promotions to the remaining firefighters.

If the city ONLY wanted 2 Black applicants to assume those positions, they should have only made it open to Black applicants. But then again, that would be outright Discrimination there, wouldn't it? Well, the ironic thing is that the same thing actually wound up transpiring, anyway.

I agree with the Supreme Court on this decision.

 

[hotatlboi]

however the problem was that the city of New Haven really were only looking for Black candidates to fill those positions.

That's not how I understood it. They weren't just looking for black candidates, but when no blacks achieved the needed result for promotion, they basically feared that this would be viewed as the opposite (that they were only looking for white candidates) and that they would be sued over that.

 

[palemale]

Since my last post, I have read the Ricci decision. Many posters here are making assertions and judgments based on a misunderstanding of the facts, so I have copied some portions, in bold face below, from the Supreme Court's decision that I think are relevant to this discussion. The system in New Haven required the fire department to choose promotions from a list of candidates who passed the test, with some eligible for immediate promotion. As opportunities for promotion arose, candidates had to be chosen from the list, which expired after 2 years.

"The City's contract with the New Haven firefighters' union specifies additional requirements for the promotion process. Under the contract, applicants for lieutenant and captain positions were to be screened using written and oral examinations, with the written exam accounting for 60 percent and the oral exam 40 percent of an applicant's total score."
Ricci v. DeStefano, page 4.

"IOS [the company that developed the test] developed the oral examinations as well. These concentrated on job skills and abilities. Using the job-analysis information, IOS wrote hypothetical situations to test incident-command skills, firefighting tactics, interpersonal skills, leadership, and management ability, among other things. Candidates would be presented with these hypotheticals and asked to respond before a panel of three assessors."
Ricci v. DeStefano, p. 5


Since 40% of the test was oral and scored based on the assessment of three individuals, much of the score was based on subjective criteria. Two thirds of the assessors were minority, however, so I don't suggest that the results were racially biased. Nevertheless, 40% of the score was based on subjective criteria.

Seventy-seven candidates completed the lieutenant examination-43 whites, 19 blacks, and 15 Hispanics. Of those, 34 candidates passed-25 whites, 6 blacks, and 3 Hispanics. Eight lieutenant 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. Subsequent vacancies would have allowed at least 3 black candidates to be considered for promotion to lieutenant.

Forty-one candidates completed the captain examination-25 whites, 8 blacks, and 8 Hispanics. Of those, 22 candidates passed-16 whites, 3 blacks, and 3 Hispanics. 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 captain-7 whites and 2 Hispanics.
Ricci v. DeStefano, page 6.

As you can see, 9 blacks and 6 Hispanics passed the two tests. Two Hispanics were eligible for immediate promotion, and 3 blacks would have been promoted over the two years the list was in effect.

The more interesting aspect of this case is that the Conservative majority found that the test violated the "disparate impact" prohibition of Title VII, absent an adequate defense. The Court then held that the remedy intentionally discriminated against white candidates. The Court then announced a new standard to evaluate these types of cases. This means the following:

1. Judge Sotomayor and the Court of Appeals panel properly interpreted the law as it existed when they heard the case.

2. The Conservative majority, whose overriding legal principle is that courts should strictly interpret statutes and the Constitution as written, did not strictly interpret Title VII. Thus, they did what conservative legal scholars always criticize liberal judges of doing, being activist judges who rewrite statutes to achieve policy objectives that fit their own concept of what the law should be.

Sorry for the long post, but I thought this would be helpful.

 

[noah617]

^This is pretty much how I read things too. The court is saying, and has basically been saying for a while now, that affirmative action was important but as time passes the justification for it lessens. They used the Ricci case to chip away at it a little more. There was nothing patently wrong with the lower court's ruling in Ricci. It just provided the Court an opportunity to change precedent to better reflect where they think affirmative action should stand now.

 

[Kulindahr]

^This is pretty much how I read things too. The court is saying, and has basically been saying for a while now, that affirmative action was important but as time passes the justification for it lessens. They used the Ricci case to chip away at it a little more. There was nothing patently wrong with the lower court's ruling in Ricci. It just provided the Court an opportunity to change precedent to better reflect where they think affirmative action should stand now.

That's an interesting way of viewing this.

Unfortunately, it also puts the Court in the position of making and shaping policy, which is the job of Congress.

 

[palemale]

Exactly. Republicans and conservatives always complain about activist, liberal judges, yet always ignore the fact that today's conservative majority is the most activist set of judges we have had on the Supreme Court since the Warren Court. The most obvious example being Bush v. Gore.

 

[Kulindahr]

Exactly. Republicans and conservatives always complain about activist, liberal judges, yet always ignore the fact that today's conservative majority is the most activist set of judges we have had on the Supreme Court since the Warren Court. The most obvious example being Bush v. Gore.

What was activist about Bush v Gore???? It usurped no legislative authority, set no policy. They were handed a ridiculous mess, and had to make a decision, with little to guide them. It was arguably partisan, but activist?

 

[MystikWizard]

I went back and see confirmed that we did have several Black firefighters pass both tests, although the numbers are varying according to the sites. However, they were not selected for promotion because no Black applicant achieved the highest score for each of the two tests.

I still fail to see how this is not an issue of discrimination.

A lot of the Media seems to be leaving out that we did have Blacks that passed both tests for each position, out of their reporting, for some interesting reason. I think this fact reflects even more negatively on the City, because that tells me that "even though we had Blacks that passed the test, none happened to achieve the highest score for each of the two tests. So, therefore, we aren't promoting anybody."

I was initially under the impression that NO Blacks passed either test, from basic snippets and stories passed around the Net that did not include that detail, but at the same time, I don't think too much has really changed by the fact and that we still had a case of Discrimination, regardless.

The City was specifically looking for Blacks to achieve the very top scores for both positions, that didn't transpire, so instead of then going to "who did pass the test", it was decided that none of those applicants were the "right color" the City was looking for, despite being qualified. Therefore, nobody got promoted.

If this situation was the other way around, and the City was specifically looking for Whites to achieve the Top Scores in both tests .... and instead if Blacks achieved the highest scores, and as a result, the Blacks were passed over for promotion because they "weren't the right color", I know people would be absolutely outraged, and rightfully so. And if a lawsuit was filed, then the Blacks in that hypothetical case would win, and should win deservably.

 

[jackoroe]

No one has made the argument that the test was culturally biased. The city didn't promote the white guys solely based on the fear of being sued. That's just flat stupid. So, they got sued anyway and lost due to their own stupidity.

It's not really all that far reaching of a case.

 

[naked gent]

What was activist about Bush v Gore???? It usurped no legislative authority, set no policy. They were handed a ridiculous mess, and had to make a decision, with little to guide them. It was arguably partisan, but activist?

It was an activist decision because the absurd reasoning used to reach the decision (the absence of a precise standard to guide the recount would deny voters equal protection under the 14th Amendment) strongly indicates that they had a preference as to whom they wished to see win the election. Any decision based on something other than law is an activist decision.

Its seems silly to hold that the standards used in the original count were somehow tainted when used in a recount.

While the decision did not usurp legislative authority it did set policy which was that for elections to be constitutional they must follow the same set of standards when counting votes. The odd thing is that every election we've had since then has effectively ignored that decision as we continue to count votes using different methods and even different ballots.

 

[Kulindahr]

I went back and see confirmed that we did have several Black firefighters pass both tests, although the numbers are varying according to the sites. However, they were not selected for promotion because no Black applicant achieved the highest score for each of the two tests.

I still fail to see how this is not an issue of discrimination.

A lot of the Media seems to be leaving out that we did have Blacks that passed both tests for each position, out of their reporting, for some interesting reason. I think this fact reflects even more negatively on the City, because that tells me that "even though we had Blacks that passed the test, none happened to achieve the highest score for each of the two tests. So, therefore, we aren't promoting anybody."

I was initially under the impression that NO Blacks passed either test, from basic snippets and stories passed around the Net that did not include that detail, but at the same time, I don't think too much has really changed by the fact and that we still had a case of Discrimination, regardless.

The City was specifically looking for Blacks to achieve the very top scores for both positions, that didn't transpire, so instead of then going to "who did pass the test", it was decided that none of those applicants were the "right color" the City was looking for, despite being qualified. Therefore, nobody got promoted.

If this situation was the other way around, and the City was specifically looking for Whites to achieve the Top Scores in both tests .... and instead if Blacks achieved the highest scores, and as a result, the Blacks were passed over for promotion because they "weren't the right color", I know people would be absolutely outraged, and rightfully so. And if a lawsuit was filed, then the Blacks in that hypothetical case would win, and should win deservably.

That puts a totally different light on things. If there were blacks who passed, whites who passed, and Hispanics who passed, they could just have promoted some of each and been done with it.

 

[palemale]

Kulindar, the Court would not have approved of promoting some of the blacks because it would not have been race neutral. Whether one thinks the "disparate impact" section of Title VII was wise policy, the fact remains that the SCOTUS went out of their way to interpret a statute not as Congress wrote it but in a manner in which SCOTUS approved. That is the very definition of activist judicial decision making conservatives purport to disapprove. I think it is fair to say that the conservative majority on SCOTUS are strict constructionists, except when they are not (i.e. when they don't approve of the result "strict constructionism" brings.

Bush v. Gore falls into this category for a couple of reasons, by the way. The Constitution does not give SCOTUS any role in choosing presidential electors. That is strictly the province of the states. Moreover, SCOTUS made their decision to permit the state to choose its electors (i.e. members of the electoral college) by a certain date that the statute provided for which there could not be a challenge to the electors. But the statute also provides what happens in the event electors are not chosen by that date, and thus contemplates that states could appoint electors. Thus, the reasoning that the SCOTUS employed in Bush v. Gore, that they had to step in so that Florida could choose its electors by the "safe harbor" date, is simply wrong and damaging to the integrity of the SCOTUS.

 

[MystikWizard]

Kulindar, the Court would not have approved of promoting some of the blacks because it would not have been race neutral. Whether one thinks the "disparate impact" section of Title VII was wise policy, the fact remains that the SCOTUS went out of their way to interpret a statute not as Congress wrote it but in a manner in which SCOTUS approved. That is the very definition of activist judicial decision making conservatives purport to disapprove. I think it is fair to say that the conservative majority on SCOTUS are strict constructionists, except when they are not (i.e. when they don't approve of the result "strict constructionism" brings.

Post specifically the part(s) of Title VII you felt that SCOTUS demonstrated Judicial Activism and elaborate, if you would.