Let me get this straight, because white people have more legacy or family positions in the fire dept in the past that gives the advantage to current and future white test takers. That make no sense but lets assume the logic holds. It has been argued that having more of an emphasis on the oral exam is better. If the problem is white firefighter legacy issues then who is administering the oral exam? Older white fire fighters.

Are black firefighters seriously making the argument that an oral exam is less objective than a professionally designed written test specifically made to screen out any racial advantage?

I think the whole disparate impact is BS and seems to be a crutch for minority underperformance. Seems just like high school- if the class knows you will grade on a curve they will not put as much effort into it.

When you throw up strawmen its easy to find yourself aggrieved. For example

Let me get this straight, because white people have more legacy or family positions in the fire dept in the past that gives the advantage to current and future white test takers.

While in part that has some effect, that's NOT the primary effect in play. Instead it is the documented fact that in subjective evaluations (such as commendations and reprimands) that are part and parcel of even QUALIFYING to be able to take the test, white males are given unearned and undeserved advanages.

Are black firefighters seriously making the argument that an oral exam is less objective than a professionally designed written test specifically made to screen out any racial advantage?

Another strawman. Because you assume that an oral exam is "not professionally designed" and not "specifically structured to screen out any racial advantage".

Nor is their any evidence that the written exam WAS constructed in a manner that screened out racial advantage. In fact there is testimony in the record that there WAS biasin the the written exam.

I think the whole disparate impact is BS and seems to be a crutch for minority underperformance.

And you would be??? Conservative, White and Male... right?

You are creating strawmen of your own degsme. The point of the OP is that, it is hard to argue that an oral exam where the applicant's and the evaluator's race is readily apparent is more race neutral than a written exam designed to be race neutral in which the race/age/gender of the applicant is not known and there is no reliance on subjective opinion.

That is not a radical position. A nearly universal requirement for employment applications is you not ask applicants for protected class information. The reason being that you want the selection of applications to be protected class neutral. Most federal government applications don't even use applicant's names once they get to the selection process, instead assigning them a number. This is because there is a long recognized truth that NOT knowing the applicant's race/gender/age/etc... is less likely to lead to discrimination than when an applicant's protected class status is known to the selector. It is just common sense.

So it is a tough argument that the written test designed to be race neutral is the problem, and that the verbal test in which race is readily apparent is the "good" part of the test.

Your statement that there is testimony "on the record" that the written test was biased is meaningless. There is also testimony "on the record" that it wasn't. And if memory serves the Supreme Court did not find racial bias with the test.

But please enlighten us, exactly which parts of the written test were biased and how?

Race need not be "apparent" in an oral exam. For example, orchestras tended to not hire women in auditions until a sonically transparent but optically opaque screen was placed between the auditioner and the evalutors. All of a sudden women started winning auditions.

Secondly I'm not arguing that the Oral portion should be the way this eval should be done. That's another strawman on your part.

Instead the point is that the NHFD, when it was looking at the initial disparate outcome results, took testimony that

1. The test was not as unbiased as it could be
2. That practicum based testing centers resulted in less biased and more effective results.

So it is a tough argument that the written test designed to be race neutral is the problem, and that the verbal test in which race is readily apparent is the "good" part of the test.

But that's not hte arguement. Why is it that you are raising it.

Your statement that there is testimony "on the record" that the written test was biased is meaningless. There is also testimony "on the record" that it wasn't

Given that under Title VII - which is the controlling law here - the ONUS is ON THE CITY TO PROVE IT WASN'T BIASED the fact that we have expert testimony of someone who saw that test that it IS biased- makes it hard for NHFD to comply with their portion of Title VII.

And only 3 of the judges found that the test met "business requirements" rather than that it wasn't biased.

"Race need not be "apparent" in an oral exam."

Do they use an opaque screen though? Do they muffle the persons voice?

How do you tell race from a voice?

Another strawman. Because you assume that an oral exam is "not professionally designed" and not "specifically structured to screen out any racial advantage".

Nor is their any evidence that the written exam WAS constructed in a manner that screened out racial advantage. In fact there is testimony in the record that there WAS biasin the the written exam.

So YOU are assuming that the WRITTEN was not "not professionally designed" and not "specifically structured to screen out any racial advantage" but the oral was? far fetched condsidering they were the same company. And there is NO testimony in the record AT ALL saying there was bias in the exam, other than testimony stating this test showed slightly more disparate impact than standardized testing in general. You also ignore the testimony of an African American Fire Officer who says the questions were indeed job related and consistent with business necessity.

You like to quote what YOU consider fact and can illustrate your point. You never address the 86% achieved on the written by an african american or the other african american's who passed the test and would have earned a promotion.

And YOU would be??? Liberal, Black and male...right?

Given that under Title VII - which is the controlling law here - the ONUS is ON THE CITY TO PROVE IT WASN'T BIASED the fact that we have expert testimony of someone who saw that test that it IS biased- makes it hard for NHFD to comply with their portion of Title VII.

You are WRONG there is absolutely NO testimony that says this test is BIASED. You are making this up as you go.

One of the testing experts gave a formal opinion to the promotions board that a less biased test could be constructed.

For that to be true, there is a clear implication that there IS bias in the test. You may dismiss this as a competitor trying to sell his own wares, but the testimony still stands as expert testimony until contradicted.

The written exam was by definition, "professionally designed". YOU are the one who invoked this terminology. It has no real meaning.

there is testimony in the record by an expert in the field that a LESS BIASEd written test could be constructed. Again, disparate impact is disparate impact. The law is what the law is.

And no-one has demonstrated that the test IS NOT BIASED. And yet that is exactly what the law requires. go read it.

and what SCOTUS ruled in Ricci was that NHFD cannot toss out the test because they didn't have sufficient evidence that they were going to be sued on Disparate Impact. Well now NHFD has been sued so according to Ricci NHFD is within its rights to toss the whole promotion process and start over - the way they originally intended.

And no I'm not a minority. I'm a white male who sees the unearned privileges I receive on a daily basis with clear,rational and open eyes.

You still refuse to address the issue of other african americans doing well on the exam, but again you have the most severe case of tunnel vision I have ever encountered. It is a good thing the SCOTUS looked at the BIG picture regarding all of this and made the proper ruling.

They were even smart enough to address counter suits in there decision..

"..Our holding today clarifies how Title VII applies to resolve competing expectations under the disparate-treatment and disparate-impact provisions. If, after it certifies the test results, the City faces a disparate-impact suit, then in light of our holding today it should be clear that the City would avoid disparate-impact liability based on the strong basis in evidence that, had it not certified the results, it would have been subject to disparate-treatment liability."

Briscoe will be no more than a footnote regarding Ricci

All that expert says was he could design a better test...degsme you are reaching now...never did they address the test as being bias....YOU are making assumtions and implications

Not better - less biased.

IE there is bias in the test and it could be improved. That means it fails the Title VII requirements.

He never used the word biased, he stated he could design a test that would have less disparate impact....

Explain to me how a multiple choice exam on fire department, policies, strategy, tactics, and management is racially biased

Do you really think the city had fault with the exams?? they had fault with the results..hence they were afraid of what the validation study would show. They tried to disguise this as title 7. If they REALLY thought they were in violation they would have conducted the validation study, the firefighters union actually suggested they do one, they would have been 100% justified in disregarding the results had the exam not been validated. BUT the city knew the exams were fair, valid and race neutral. And that is why Ricci won.

Under your thought process there MUST be something wrong with the exams if minorities did not score in the top 12..there are a lot of underlining factors that the general public does not understand. Such as 90% of the top 12 had taken state fire classes and attended seminars, unlike Briscoe. Over 60% had previous public safety experience, unlike Briscoe. 2 have bachelor of fire science degrees,unlike Briscoe. There are a lot of variables that you nor the media ever touched on

And of course you still refuse to address the qualified afrcian americans who earned promotions and PASSED the written exam or my quoted passage from the SCOTUS ruling....