If Sotomayer gets confirmed, she will then vote on one of her dicisions that was overturned, then appealed to the Supreme Court...

whether or not you can erect racial quotas against white men; in the case she ruled against the white men, for some firefighters. (She's also an anti-constitutional leftist about abortion.)

Her extreme lefism is why the same Party that worked so hard against confirming Miguel Estrada for a circuit court position will claim that anyone who votes against Sotomayer is a racist.

If Sotomayer gets confirmed, she will then vote on one of her dicisions that was overturned, then appealed to the Supreme Court...

Learn your civics. Sotomayor would recuse herself in this case ... unlike Rhenquist who DID rule on a case he prosecuted, or Scalia who refused to recuse himself with much more obvious conflicts of interest.

As for "leftism" - sorry Don, you are so far right you consider the center to be "left. Remember, you still have yet to show us where in the US Constitution regulation of a woman's body by The Government is a ceded power and how States gain the power to override "involuntary servitude Shall Not exist".

BTW, how is it "racist" to question a test who's outcome is disproportionately beneficial to white males? Unless of course you believe that somehow white males are more capable than minorities.

I agree that this one case should not be used to determine Sotomayer's suitability for the USSC. And hurling "leftist" around is an especially stupid way to advance any argument.

I do question this particular decision, however. For me, the deciding factor would be "is the test fair?". It does not make sense to work backwards and proclaim it unfair because it did not produce the correct "racial" mix in its outcome. It's too bad the actual test has not been published. So far, I have not heard anyone seriously claim that the test had a real racial bias -- but, perhaps somebody has asserted that and I missed it. I think most written tests have some flaws -- especially mulitiple-choice tests (which standardized tests tend to prefer). However, the question is not whether the test is flawed, but whether it is flawed in a way that's preferential to one category of applicants over another (Well, except, of course, that it's supposed to prefer those who are the better-qualified applicants).

I'm a believer in Affirmative Action if it means aggressive recruiting and training of classes who have been historically denied opportunities in the department. I don't like the notion of skewing test results, though.

Too bad two of the firefighters who did well on the test were hispanics, but they were probably some of those "white-looking" hispanics. I suppose all tests in the future will be geared towards getting certain minorities to pass. Why test for job skills at all? Is testing one's knowledge of job skills racist? If we aren't going to honor the test results then why don't we just say that certain minorities automatically get extra points on any test they take, sort of like a handicap. Oh wait, that already happens.

The point raised in the defense of the New Haven decision is that it is questionable how much a "book test" is relevant to a job that is physically demanding.

Consider the following case - you have two identical candidates: equivilent educations, identical GPAs, identical recommendations, The only difference being one is a minority and the other is not.

Whom do you hire? I would argue that given the existance of racism within our culture, the minority has achieved more, has demonstrated a stronger work ethic in the face of adversity, than the white candidate. So I would hire the minority.

How about you?

rpg3456:

Too bad two of the firefighters who did well on the test were hispanics, but they were probably some of those "white-looking" hispanics. I suppose all tests in the future will be geared towards getting certain minorities to pass. Why test for job skills at all? Is testing one's knowledge of job skills racist? If we aren't going to honor the test results then why don't we just say that certain minorities automatically get extra points on any test they take, sort of like a handicap. Oh wait, that already happens.

You seem to have missed the point that the test wasn't testing for job skills.

dbguy:

You seem to have missed the point that the test wasn't testing for job skills.

We do not know that because the test has not been released to the public. To my knowledge, nobody directly involved in the case has made that assertion.

And... if the test really was flawed in the way you assume it was, it still does not necessarily follow that it was unfair to some particular class of test-takers. It's possible that certain questions were formulated poorly and penalized all test-takers more or less the same.

Spambot RPG,

Since when is a multiple guess test in any way, shape or form a 'skills' test? Even though I am one of those evil hispanics, I guarantee I would kick your ass on any standardized exam that you would care to take. However, my intellect and intellegence are only part of the equation.

Since you dont seem to know shit about statistics, the problem is simple. Of the applicants who took the test, there seemed to be a wide and roughly equivalent level of participants based on race. However, among those who passed the test, certain racial groups were conspicuously absent. So, as a rule, if 20% of the test takers were black, you would expect a roughly 20% of the peopel who passed to be black. However, because of natural variability in statistical sampling, there is a variance that is included in statistical sampling. Anything that is outside of 2 measures of variance is considered to be flawed. Being that none of the approximately 20% of the blacks taking the test passed and were thus eligible for promotion (despite being eligible to take the test), it is statistically reasonable to assume that there is an exclusionary flaw. This is math and science, btw, something most 'conservatives' dont seem to be very comfortable with.

Another way to put is is why I have counseled any black or hispanic I have spoken to about military service to stay the hell away from the Marines (or Navy, for that matter), as they have a statistically miserable rate of promotion of blacks and hispanics, and miserable representation of blacks and hispanics among the officer and general officer ranks. The Army has the same rules and policies as the Marines and Navy, yet somehow manages to promote minorities at twice the rate. Im sure there is no overtly racist policies, but the statistics are clear.

Among the 3 classes of lies that Mark Twain enumerated, statistics are the easiest for me to understand and swallow. But hey, I am a scientist...

Have a great day!

Careful with the use of statistics to make a presumed point. As you are aware, one statistical sample/result does not a conclusion necessarily make. To assume an exclusionary flaw in the instrument based on one sample result (a small one at that) is a stretch.

EbenCooke:

dbguy:

You seem to have missed the point that the test wasn't testing for job skills.

We do not know that because the test has not been released to the public. To my knowledge, nobody directly involved in the case has made that assertion.

And... if the test really was flawed in the way you assume it was, it still does not necessarily follow that it was unfair to some particular class of test-takers. It's possible that certain questions were formulated poorly and penalized all test-takers more or less the same.

The point is that where a test isn't related to job performance or qualifications, the city can throw it out. If the test is not going to be about who would be the best fire lieutenant, than the city can make it about diversity or whatever else it wants.

So, in your hypothetical, the experiences of a minority have some unspecified worth which we assume is greater than zero. How do we quantify that, in reality?

How about if the minority candidate didn't have as good of a GPA, recommendation, etc?

How can you objectively measure the worth of his/her experiences a minority? How many points should we add to their GPA?

Furthermore, how is that fair, seeing as how I am a white male, and could never have the experiences of a minority, thereby never being able to earn those "extra points"?

How can you be really sure that the minority person really earned those points? Isn't it somewhat racist to presume that a person has had a particular life experience based on their skin color? Perhaps he/she was relatively affluent and had many opportunities in his/her life? What if I grew up poor in a black neighborhood?

What if I was abused as a child? Doesn't that mean I have overcome some adversity as well? How many GPA points is that worth?

Degsme, "The point raised in the defense of the New Haven decision is that it is questionable how much a "book test" is relevant to a job that is physically demanding." ALL of the people taking the test are currently firefighters, so presumably they are ALL physically competent. This is a test to be an officer, presumably to see if they know the laws regarding their business, "book knowledge" about chemicals and spills, how to read, etc. Yes, a "book test" IS important for an officer, because it's their job to read and make new policies.

I question whether the test was reliable in the first place, i.e., the degree to which it is free from error and provides information about examinees’ true abilities and the degree to which it provides repeatable, consistent results. Was this test just cobbled together and thrown at the examinees or was it thoroughly pre-tested so that real-life captains and lieutenants were shown to score within the "acceptable pass range" (and if they didn't, certain questions were sent back to the drawing board)? Sure, you can fault New Haven, but if the test-writer is to blame...

William, "Since you dont seem to know shit about statistics, the problem is simple. Of the applicants who took the test, there seemed to be a wide and roughly equivalent level of participants based on race. However, among those who passed the test, certain racial groups were conspicuously absent. So, as a rule, if 20% of the test takers were black, you would expect a roughly 20% of the peopel who passed to be black. However, because of natural variability in statistical sampling, there is a variance that is included in statistical sampling. Anything that is outside of 2 measures of variance is considered to be flawed. Being that none of the approximately 20% of the blacks taking the test passed and were thus eligible for promotion (despite being eligible to take the test), it is statistically reasonable to assume that there is an exclusionary flaw" The trouble with your rationale is that you are assuming the various groups are *equal at the outset*. What if the black candidates were hired because they were black and not because they were the best candidates, whereas the white candidates had more hoops to jump through and more restrictions placed on their entrance - thereby giving a better class of firefighter for the ones who "made it". It then would be no surprise if they later scored differently, if they were different in ability before they started, and would NOT indicate a problem with the test, but a problem in the initial hiring policies of the fire department.

sry about the format, posting thing doesn't always load right. You guys' quotes are in quotation marks.