Two things: One, I hate the term “reverse discrimination,” and two, I’m posting this to shift comments away from this goliath.
In 2003, New Haven, Connecticut decided to base promotions within its firefighting force on the results of a written test. The firefighters applying for promotions studied for months to prepare for the test. Of the 118 firefighters who took the exams, 27 were black, and 29 were latino.
Now, none of the black firefighters scored high enough to be promoted, and only 2 latino firefighters qualified. The rest of the qualifying scores came from (gasp) white people.So what was New Haven’s response? To throw out the results of the test and deny the white and latino firefighters promotions because not “enough minorities” passed.
Now it looks like Obama’s SCOTUS pick, Sonia Sotomayor, was a judge who issued the ruling against the firefighters who ended up getting burned themselves, believing that even though they passed the exam for them, they didn’t deserve promotions because some minorities (who didn’t earn them) wouldn’t be getting them too.
Watch the video here. I ask the inevitable question: How is this different from denying black firefighters promotions because not enough white people would get them? That would be considered “racist” beyond belief, yes?
So isn’t stopping discrimination and special consideration based on race accomplished by stopping discrimination and special consideration based on race?
Browse Timeline
8
[...] Sonia Sotomayor ruled against white firefighters in Connecticut who were denied promotions because not enough non-whites passed the same [...]
Friday Discussion: Affirmative Inaction | Your Politics Are Boring said this on May 29 09 at 12:26 pmIt’s just like affirmative action, except instead of giving the under-performing minorities something they didn’t earn just because they’re black, they just took away the white fire fighters’ raises and said “there you go, fairness.”
anonymous said this on
May 27 09 at
3:51 pm
gee_oh_pee said this on Ah!I don’t necessarily agree with that ruling,simply because I passively and marginally support a hispanic “liberal” nominee for an otherwise fascist institution.Nobody I could say I really agree with would EVER get a nomination to a federal court,much less the highest in the land.While I do believe that tests with aspects of subjectivity are vulnerable to bias from test makers,including racial bias,I also believe that that claim could very easily lend itself to abuse and overuse.I dunno,I still haven’t read much about this case.From what I have seen,a third party organization indicated racial bias in the test.On what grounds,I don’t know.Any tacit support I DO give Sotomayor is based primarily on the heuristic assumption that I will agree with her legal opinions 5%-10% more often than the other justices,and I have a decent track record on heuristic inferences.There’s not been a supreme court justice in history I could agree with significantly more than 50% of the time.Lesser of a few evils is the game…When Nader gets the nod lemme know…
MassStrike said this on
May 28 09 at
7:10 pm
Also,for what it’s worth,Sotomayor was simply upholding the legal precedent of a state’s right to interfere in its civil sector,which it pays for,making her ruling actually quite libertarian,in that respect.I personally think the matter should be put to referendum for the citizens of Connecticut to decide on,as,ultimately it is their tax dollars we’re talking about,and the NHFD is at their service…but then again a popular referendum is absolutely worthless without a free media…
MassStrike said this on
May 28 09 at
7:14 pm
First off, you know I don’t give a damn who Obama picks to replace Souter on the SCOTUS.
“bias from test makers, including racial bias”
I’d like to see some examples of this.
“the legal precedent of a state’s right to interfere in its civil sector,which it pays for,making her ruling actually quite libertarian”
Really this was firefighters unhappy with the - if i may - racism of the action of throwing out their high scores, and taking it to a higher authority. I don’t see how her ruling saying “no they can that, totally fine” is libertarian.
“but then again a popular referendum is absolutely worthless without a free media…”
HH
Christopher said this on
May 29 09 at
1:39 am
“I’d like to see some examples of this.”
If I make a test for a civil service job,in which one question is “who invented reggeaton?”,clearly this is racially(or culturally,same thing as far as I’m concerned) biased towards hispanics.I’m merely stating that,insofar as a test has subjective,non-quantifiable material (which all tests do,to a certain extent),it leaves the possibility of racial bias open.Not saying this specific test had any,I wouldn’t know.Just..that I wouldn’t reject the racial bias defense off hand every time…It’s a judgement call that has to be made,preferably democratically…
MassStrike said this on
May 29 09 at
5:09 am
“Really this was firefighters unhappy with the - if i may - racism of the action of throwing out their high scores, and taking it to a higher authority. I don’t see how her ruling saying “no they can that, totally fine” is libertarian.”
Insofar as it’s a ruling for devolution from state authority to local authority,it’s libertarian.Other aspects of the ruling could certainly be deemed authoritarian,sure…
“HH”
Yeah BABY!I know there’s a Libertarian-Socialist down in there somewhere…;)
MassStrike said this on
May 29 09 at
5:12 am
