I have never claimed to have expertise in assessing such questions. That's never what this has been about. It is very simple - I want to see the tests, and for someone to offer a plausible and authoritative explanation as to whether there is a reasonable case for condemning the test as biased.

I can pretty much take any medical treatment, and render a fairly acccessible explanation that most members of the non-medical public would be able to follow. Why we use this drug here but not there; how we know that treatment A is better than treatment B, and when we think it might not be.

It's not - as the cliche goes - rocket science. But even your average rocket scientist can explain how and why we know what we do - some kind of accessible explanation of the building blocks on which the knowledge consensus is built.

So if a patient asked me if - say - it is wise to take that anti-cancer drug and put up with hair loss, I wouldn't just refer them to Medline and say "go read 14,000 papers." I'd explain what the basic evidence was and how we got it.

It's clear you can't provide that for these tests. If they were put in the public domain, such expert critique would quickly be provided. In their absence, I suspect many people are left feeling that the tests have been tagged as biased for no reason other than that the results weren't "right."

No, simply invoking Dred Scott in a speech does not inherently convey a message of anti-choice. Unless you already have an existing context for that mapping.

Bondsman:

degsme:

The point is that since you don't know what to look for, your ability to assess bias is at best limited to overt bias. Its a bit akin to trying to decipher Bush's invocation of Dredd Scott in his speaches if you don't know that Dred Scott invocation for conservative christians and anti-choice activists is code for the repeal of Roe

This makes no sense. It's quite clear to anyone that Dredd Scott would be used as an antiabortion message - denying humanity to one group is the same as another. That's *obvious* to all. How does that relate to bias in THIS case where the city bent over backwards to try and NOT be biased? Answer: it doesn't.

Well done at proving his point. Did you even make an effort to look at the links?

Why would you want to see the tests if you lack the ability to assess their content? Other than to assess their content?

I've offered you the basic "non-medical public explanation" - that when you hide content inside of symbolically contextualized settings you inherently bias the test towards those for whom the context is native.

Your patient example is a good one. If a patient asks "is it wise to take x", they are accepting your authority as an arbiter. They are not asking to see the Physicians Reference entry for that med along with a plausible explanation of its metabolic pathways. They are asking for the high level expertise opinion.

and in the case of Multi-guess tests that "expert opinion" is that they invariably contain bias.

At least two issues are being conflated here, I think.

The first is whether the tests should be made public as a matter of standard practice. I think they should. There almost no realms of public policy where such material would be kept secret on the grounds that the public "might not understand it." I doubt you will get much support from anyone on the notion that this is a reasonable way to treat the public.

The second is whether I specifically have any good reason for wanting to see the tests. I don't believe I need to have one; but in essence it is curiosity. I don't see why discussions of this kind should remain entirely hypothetical. The argument is about a specific document - put it in the public domain, and it will be rapidly supplemented by authoritative commentary from knowledgable people.

In college, cultural bias was explained to me as a test that referred to Native Americans as Indians. I was anthropology major. Apparently, once a Native American hears the word “Indian,” he or she becomes confused about whether the question refers to Hindus or Navajos. White people are unaffected by the derogatory, racist term of “Indian,” and are able to answer the question as intended. However, African Americans, Native Americans and Latinos, of course, are offended by the incorrect label and then become racially oppressed. Therefore, the protected disadvantaged minorities are unable to answer correctly.

Then I was asked, “How would you do on an exam that asked questions about skinning a seals?

Ironically, I skin a lot of seals (or wet cats), just as a hobby, so I answered that I would be prepared to answer that question.

A test would be considered fair, for example, to Alaskan Eskimo Fireman / Firewomen / Fireperson if it had questions about the appropriate way to skin a seal, eating whale blubber, or if it discussed snow quality. Like, would yellow snow douse fires?

Likewise, African American Fireperson tests could include questions about “letting it rain?" If the stripper is hot, will - letting it rain - make the exotic dancer happier / less flammable? I do believe when we let it rain, fires are doused. And wet strippers are more fire retardant than tinderboxes; I guess?

I’m not an expert on what is culturally acceptable to African Americans, so I would be unable to know when, where and how much letting it rain money is to be thrown on a $tripper. I might, for example, throw the money in her/his (or gender neutral) eye, or pelt her/his (or gender neutral) with the money and cause injuries.

I’m sorry; was I sexist to discuss strippers in the first place? So a woman, transsexual or a homosexual might become too oppressed to answer that question, even if she/he were black. But, I do believe is we let it rain, fires are doused.

Imagine the offense of a firewoman being asked a question such as, “Would a firemen use a 20 pound hose to put out that fire?” A better way to phrase it, “Would a fireperson, accessorize his or her fire-womb (hose is too phallic) with fur lined fire-retardant boots or open toe pumps?

A Latino Fireperson might be asked a question about which type of salsa is best for extinguishing fires, if the salsa is not already too hot.

I don’t know? I’m not as culturally competent as progressives. I wish Obama could provide a wise Latina to design that Fireperson test, because she will reach better conclusions than me. I know wise Latinas think that fireperson tests that ask questions about fires are cultural biased. More often than not a wise Latina’s judicial empathy is more correct than logic and morality.

I’ll give you wise progressives infinite Affirmative Action points if you can help me to understand my questions about culturally biased Fireperson Exams!

Is it discriminatory to discriminate to counter discrimination? Yes

Are disparate test results discriminatory? No

Disparate test results only prove that different groups performed differently. To require equality of outcome is racist. Non racists allow diversity of outcome as they expect differences between individuals and groups.

As in most cases, leftwing dogma is irrational, immoral and false.

Ah. Thanks. That's cleared that up.

You're an inveterate obfuscator on the issue of bias and fairness, degsme; you are now, and you have been in the past everytime the issue is discussed on Slate. Hey, obfuscator, how's that for sticking in a comp-sci term without realizing it? ;)

I'm curious to find out whether you can cut the shit and produce straightforward answers to straightforward and honestly intentioned questions:

1) Is it POSSIBLE for a fire-fighting test to be biased if the test were completely composed of questions about the many types of fire situations encountered, and about the standard methods used to fight those fires? (Possible within REASON--of course it's biased if the test is given in...Mongolian. Let's suppose it's given in simple, high-school level English--and for this discussion ignore the issue of test-takers whose first language is not English)

2) If people's LIVES depend on effective fire-fighting, isn't it a HUGE bias against THEM to be subjected to working with (or being rescued by) fire-fighters who know LESS about fighting fires than others who were passed over for the position?

3) If someone like Ricci--who apparently has considerable learning and test-taking deficits--can make the necessary effort to prepare for (which implies the topics of the exam were known to the examinees) and make the HIGHEST SCORE on the exam, doesn't that imply that any "bias" in the test would really be against those less willing to master the material? (and here too, let's assume for purposes of discussion that the material was NOT about quantum teleportation, but about standard fire-fighting issues)

I think you're not giving honest consideration to people who have a sinking feeling that the types of tests YOU would prefer might end up being biased AGAINST those best qualified for the job. This test, AFTERALL, was a test for PROMOTION FROM the job of "ordinary" fireman to fireman officer--who would have responsibility for determining fire-fighting strategy, etc. Shouldn't promotion be for those best qualified to do the job?

In America we are sent to school for YEARS as kids. We're TESTED there, and GRADED on our performance. Probably, all the test-takers on this exam were high school graduates. What is more objective and fair in assessing a person's qualifications in an area than a test on the material in that area, especially where the test-takers are given prior notice about the topics tested, and when all the test takers have had YEARS of experience in taking examinations? To me such testing seems like the most UNbiased method possible; CERTAINLY much less biased than supervisor evaluations, for example.

If you search using Advanced search on the first sentence of that post, you'll find an identical post submitted by "Island Muffin".

We have a case of sockpuppetry here.

Sure there are. I work for a company that does some work for various governments. We have Intellectual Property in our workproduct - as does IOS. As a result the work-product itself is not published, though the contents are escrowed. Same applies probably to IOS

I don't believe I need to have one; but in essence it is curiosity. I don't see why discussions of this kind should remain entirely hypothetical.

Setting aside the IP issues there are good reasons. Your curiousity I would posit, is becaues you want to make the judgement yourself. You want to second guess the experts.

But given the divisiveness and controversy involved, this would largely be pouring gas on the fire. So NH has no benefit in publishing the test and lots of potential adverse outcome.

"So NH has no benefit in publishing the test and lots of potential adverse outcome."

They do and don't have benefit.

They get benefit, or rather politicians, journalists, and media flaks gain benefit by stirring up controversy - controversy which would evaporate the instant the questions were released. These questions are being released because there's more political milage to be won. Incidentally, wouldn't the Freedom of Information Act apply here?

They do NOT benefit because once the test was released they immediately get shown for the morons they truly are. Did the SCOTUS justices see the test?

Sorry Eigen, if anything has been demonstrated by the anti-AA posters in this thread is that the controversy would not go away. Folks like NHFD, Gringo, Tarkol et.al. would no more acknowledge even overt bias in the questions than Limbaugh would acknowledge that waterboarding is more serious than Fraternity Hazing.

So there is absolutely no win there.

As for FOIA, I don't believe it would apply, since FOIA cannot be used to open up Intellectual Property of a contractor.

SCOTUS Justices did not see the test. Its not in the evidence.

degsme:

Sorry Eigen, if anything has been demonstrated by the anti-AA posters in this thread is that the controversy would not go away. Folks like NHFD, Gringo, Tarkol et.al. would no more acknowledge even overt bias in the questions than Limbaugh would acknowledge that waterboarding is more serious than Fraternity Hazing.

Interesting how you disagreeing with you presupposes how I would judge a test question.

I think you are projecting. It is you who have consistently argued that white males gain unearned advantage in any subjective evaluation while simultaniously arguing that the city was correct in refusing to certify the tests in favor of a more subjective evaluation.

Also when did I ever state I was anti-AA? I think AA has some good applications, especially in areas of recruitment for employment. I also said it should be coupled with economic status, in the area of school admission. Just because I oppose quotas doesn't make me anti AA.

I think that AA has to change with the times and to apply it like it was 1964 is ridiculous because as President Obama said the country has changed.

You also fail to call out the soft racism on the left. Like when Slate authors in attempting to debunk the merits of the test state that with ample preparation they could pass it. Yet black firefighters who have experience in the field, with ample preparation apparently couldn't? Or were they insinuating that the blacks didn't study.

Before you compare someone to Limbaugh I recommend you look in a mirror. You might find him staring back at you. After all a mirror is merely a reversed image.

Supporting Ricci is anti affirmative action because it essentially eliminates one of the core tools of AA - the very recognition of unfair outcomes.

And I don't see any "soft racism" from "the left" in any sense at all. The mere fact that you consider Slate "the left" is indicative of your politics.

The mere fact that you consider a law passed in 1991 (Disparate Impact) to be a harkening back to 1964 is another.

degsme:

Supporting Ricci is anti affirmative action because it essentially eliminates one of the core tools of AA - the very recognition of unfair outcomes.

That's not AA. Disparate impact is not an AA program.

degsme:

And I don't see any "soft racism" from "the left" in any sense at all. The mere fact that you consider Slate "the left" is indicative of your politics.

1. You failed to address the example I gave you. So you see it but you ignore it.

2. Slate is a left leaning magazine. My saying so is indicative of nothing but your tendancy to infer facts from thin air.

degsme:

The mere fact that you consider a law passed in 1991 (Disparate Impact) to be a harkening back to 1964 is another.

This doesn't even make sense. The law was passed in 1964 and amended in 1991. The disparate impact theory predates the 1991 amendment by 20 years and it comes from the 1964 law.

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431-2 (1971) Unless you are asserted that the Supreme Court decided a case in 1971 based on a 1991 amendment to the law.

Again the only thing indicated here is your own personal ignorance of the facts.