AshburnerX said:
TeKeo said:
Futureking said:
Apparently, a group of firemen took a promotion test. The results were declared null because no black person passed the test. And the class action suit was dismissed by the judge.
http://newsblaze.com/story/200905271345 ... story.html
Frankly, I really wish that people get promoted based on their ability rather than the colour of their skin.
Yeah, we were talking about this one on the last page. It sounds like New Haven went way overboard in trying to avoid a disparate impact lawsuit. What would be interesting to see is the actual content of the test, because that's really the key to everything.
How was this thrown out? This is clearly a racially based crime and that fact that it's against white people shouldn't matter. In order for any racially based legislation to be constitutional, it needs to protect EVERYONE EQUALLY, whether they are in the minority or not.
There are many misleading articles about this case. One of the most important things to remember is that Sotomayor found that DISCRIMINATION DID HAPPEN. She (or rather, the lower court opinion that she upheld) didn't throw out the case because they thought discrimination doesn't happen against whites or something stupid like that. However, the law says that, even if the court finds that racial discrimination happened, the government has a chance to try to prove that they had a damn good reason to do so.
The reason the government brought up in trial, the reason that caused the courts to throw the lawsuit out, was that the government could have been sued successfully for discrimination if they DIDN'T invalidate the test. Why? Because Title VII (the relevant law) requires the government to consider the racial impacts of things like tests. I'll quote the relevant part:
"A selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact."
The rates at which blacks and hispanics passed the test were below 80% of the rate whites passed the test. Thus, the courts found that New Haven did have a good reason for being discriminatory, and the lawsuit was thrown out. Basically. It's a bit more complicated than all that, of course, and I'd suggest you read (
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian ... -case.html) if you want to know more of the story.
Now, I'm not sure if I agree with the ruling. I think the Supreme Court should probably overturn it. But in making the ruling, Sotomayor was following law and precedent - in fact, her problem in this case was a LACK of empathy, not an overabundance of it (like conservatives like to charge her with). She probably should have overturned some of the precedent that led her to this decision - but to simultaniously say she should only follow law and precendent, AND to say she made a bad decision on Ricci, is contradictory.
-- Sat May 30, 2009 4:23 pm --
Futureking said:
It doesn't help that the judge is Sotomayor. The right wing sees her as the poster child of affirmative action.
Yes, and it really pisses me off. She graduated Summa Cum Laude from Princeton, for God's sake. Even if you think she got into Princeton due to affirmative action (which is laughable, as I'll explain below) she clearly proved that she belonged there. Then she went on to Yale Law School, becomming one of the editors of the Yale Law review. Again, that's an extremely high honor to earn, and you HAVE to earn it - race and sex just doesn't come into it.
Moreover, her gender actually HURT her in trying to get into Princeton. You see, Princeton only first admitted females a couple of years before she entered. Princeton was one of the last of the Ivies to become coeducational. There was a lot of resistance to admitting females. To pacify critics, when they first let women in, they explicitly said that they would not take the place of any man. Male attendance would have to remain at the same level; any slots for females would have to be increases in the schools population. Of course, there was only limited housing - so there was a quota for female admittance. Not a minimum quota, but a maximum! Far fewer females than males were admitted - there were four males for every female in her class. The acceptance rate for girls was 14% - for guys, 22%.
And the right wing says she didn't earn what she's gotten in life. What fucking hogwash.
