While I am not a New Haven Firefighter, if it is true that they had a reading list and 3 months to prepare for the promotions, what is the deal? Let's take race out of it. It has absolutely nothing to do with race. If someone scores lower, should they be promoted over someone who scored higher? Perhaps the person who scored higher put more into it because of an overwhelming desire to be promoted. I have been in two promotional exams and made it to the Commissioner's Interview both times. I was not selected. I stopped and looked at myself. I didn't blame the process nor the politicians. Please, if the Firebirds (a seperate organization within the New Haven Fire Department representing the minorities) are receiving dirogatory postings and harassment, blame the one or two individuals who do this. Not the white race. There are good and bad on both sides. I work alongside many New Haven Firefighters as a paramedic for a local ambulance company and I don't have any complaints. For the most part, they conduct themselves as the professionals they are, white, black or hispanic. We shouldn't be splitting ourselves down these lines. One last thought, as a grade schooler, you run a race. You come in first, how would you feel if the gym teacher went passed you to the 19th person in line and handed them the first place ribbon? In solidarity for the profession, be safe and professional. God Bless.

What is the score measuring?

To give you an egregious example. If Hooters were to set as a criteria that its waitstaff had to be female and a minimum bust/waist ratio that would be acceptable.

If NHFD used that test, why would scoring well on it matter in selecting indivduals to be promoted to Capt or Lt?

So now lets go to your grade school example. You run a race, but the teacher gives the award to the 19th person in line... why? Because you got to run it without encumberances, but the 19th finisher ran it with 5# ankle weights on his feet.

Still unfair? Well the reality is that you as a white male (I'm assuming here) have received unearned positive outcomes in subjective evaluation after subjective evaluation. that's the equivilent of getting to run the race without ankle weights. Minorities and women all have ankle weights of one or another level.

and neither do your arguments. You refuse to look at the questions, but you declare them apriori racist. You claim that all blacks are somehow are at disadvantage when they have to take same tests with white folks - but fail to show a single spec of evidence that Ricci had unfair advantage.

Good job.

The link works fine, you just have to have a NYT cookie.

Neither you nor I are qualified to evaluate the questions for their racial bias. But it is simply untrue that Ricci did not have advantages granted to him throughout his life because he is a white male

Neither you nor I are qualified to evaluate the questions for their racial bias.

Who defines "racial bias"? Who and what defines "qualifications"? As in our previous discussion about the internet and planes - the first obvious test for both is basic functionality. When you claim someone has an expertise on ariplane building, it is beyond doubt that this someone can build a working system. As for your race-pimps - there is nothing to prove or disprove their qualification. It's like astrology.

But it is simply untrue that Ricci did not have advantages granted to him throughout his life because he is a white male

It is clear that you cannot provide a shreck of evidence that Ricci had any advantage. None, zero, zilch, nada. I have more evidence that you work for the KGB, than that Ricci had unfair advantage.

Hmm "race pimps"

Your bigotry is showing. Not just on racial issues but on issues of science as well. You've demonstrated you don't understand how science works, and now you feel the need to denigrate researchers who clearly are more well versed than you.

It is clear that you cannot provide a shreck of evidence that Ricci had any advantage. None, zero, zilch, nada.

All white males receive unearned benefits every day in our culture. Ricci is a white male. QED

You cannot bring a speck of evidence that those race pimps are in any way connected with science. None whatsoever, no empirical evidence. And yet, you, the man who does not even UNDERSTAND the value of empirical evidence is talking about science? Come on, which taliban run school you crawled out off?

degsme:

What is the score measuring?

To give you an egregious example. If Hooters were to set as a criteria that its waitstaff had to be female and a minimum bust/waist ratio that would be acceptable.

LOL, what a crock! You lie like a cheap rug, degs.

The moment Hooters did this and someone didn't get hired some lawyer would point to studies showing that this was discriminatory. For example, asians tend to be smaller busted overall than blacks or whites, don't they? So YOUR test is blatant discrimination against asians!

I'm sure if you were PAID by the plaintiff you could make an eloquent case that this was the Truth. This fireman's test is a LOT less potentially biased than your example -- unless secretly you don't think blacks can pass tests well.

Aha. So now a peer reviewed published paper is less connected to science than your racially biased russian opinion....

sure...

?

Your race pimp "scientists" cannot. Which means they are in the same league as astrologers.

Are you claiming that an opinion of a Russian is necessarily racially biased? Care to PROVE this - or this is just another example of your unfoundfed bigotry?

Russia has an extreme problem with racism

You have a problem with racial bigotry

You are Russian

I suspect the two are linked

You claim that all whites stick together - a typical anti-semitic claim.

Your missing the point of how the law is written. IF and ONLY IF you can show a LEGITIMATE business reason (Playboy 's customer is someone who fantasizes about women), then a disparate impact and even outright discirmination is acceptable

BUT the law does not REQUIRE you to defend that practice. Simply that if you want to CONTINUE the practice you have to defend it.

Kennedy's Ricci ruling changes that and REQUIRES that you defend the practice regardless of why you might choose not to. That's making new law and contrary to the legislative intent. And it is dumb law too since it encourages lawsuits in place of settlement and accomodation.