# Are Republicans opposing their own old ideas just to frustrate President Obama? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 6, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-opposing-their-own-old-ideas-just-to-frustrate-president-obama/618038 "2012-04-06T22:57:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-opposing-their-own-old-ideas-just-to-frustrate-president-obama/618038/41 "2012-04-07T19:45:09Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Isn’t a “quota” usually understood to set a minimum, not an upper limit? This appears to be more like an explanation of a standard, as in. “do this much, and you’re cool”. yes. As I read it the city had to create a special hiring pool and hire a specified number. Maybe I don’t understand your point. If the city could hire above that number based on the normal testing procedures they surely would. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-opposing-their-own-old-ideas-just-to-frustrate-president-obama/618038/42 "2012-04-07T19:56:34Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Apparently you don’t even understand what my claim is. Let me state it again: > My claim is that the Department of Justice did not order Dayton to lower its standards. I posted a cite which was a liberal news paper. You’ve posted nothing to dispute it but your disbelief. This is what the city did. They lowered the standards for applicants twice and then simply ignored the test altogether. > [@Frylock](#): > > I’m sorry, I’m not seeing that language, either in section 54 or on page 54, so I’m not able to evaluate its applicability here. It can’t be more specific. Hire 4 black police officers and 9 black fire fighters from a special hiring list. > [@Frylock](#): > > You will note, though, that the order you linked to says the City is to come up with a new test which will be judged by the DoJ and the court based on the question of whether it has a disparate impact or not. That is exactly what I said probably happened–they judged the new test based just on whether it has a disparate impact. Dayton could have given them a _good_ test for police officers which had no disparate impact. Instead Dayton chose to give them a _poor_ test for police officers which had no disparate impact. Since the DoJ and the court were only concerned with whether it had a disparate impact or not, they signed off on it. The responsibility for the poor quality of the test lies with the city, not with the DoJ or the federal court. The court based the discrimination of the test based on the results and not on the test. That’s like saying a car is defective because someone drove it off the road. This has been an ongoing case for years and the city did change it’s test. Cite any part of either test for dispute. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2012, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-opposing-their-own-old-ideas-just-to-frustrate-president-obama/618038/43 "2012-04-07T20:06:23Z")
BTW, during all this one of the black applicants objected to it as well black community organizations. It’s insulting. Keith Lander, [chairman of the local Southern Christian Leadership Conference](http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/black-applicant-protests-lowering-police-entrance-exam-scores-1099043.html), said the lowering of the test score “is a slap in the face to black people. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2012, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-opposing-their-own-old-ideas-just-to-frustrate-president-obama/618038/44 "2012-04-07T20:53:16Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The court based the discrimination of the test based on the results and not on the test. That’s like saying a car is defective because someone drove it off the road. If half the people who take the test are black, and half white–and seven eighths of those who pass are white, and only one eigth black, that’s _all it takes_ to show that the test is discriminatory. By definition, such a test is discriminatory. This is beyond debate. But, importantly, this discriminatory effect is _not_ all that’s required to show the city must change the test. By law, the city can have a test even as discriminatory as the above, so long as the disparate impact can be shown to be required by “business necessities.” But, apparently, the business in question (the police department) failed to show that there’s anything about running a police department which necessitates the discrimination created by the test. So they were required to change the test. They could have created a _good_ test which isn’t discriminatory (or else is but only in a way that is justified by necessity) but instead chose to create a _bad_ test which isn’t discriminatory. Then they mischaracterized the situation. The chairman of the SLCL should have been criticizing the city, not the DoJ. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2012, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-opposing-their-own-old-ideas-just-to-frustrate-president-obama/618038/45 "2012-04-07T21:13:44Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > If half the people who take the test are black, and half white–and seven eighths of those who pass are white, and only one eigth black, that’s _all it takes_ to show that the test is discriminatory. By definition, such a test is discriminatory. This is beyond debate. How is this beyond debate? If you can’t show how the test is affected by skin-pigmentation then it is the very definition of debate. > [@Frylock](#): > > But, importantly, this discriminatory effect is _not_ all that’s required to show the city must change the test. > > By law, the city can have a test even as discriminatory as the above, so long as the disparate impact can be shown to be required by “business necessities.” The purpose of civil service tests are to award jobs based on scholastic achievement and not cronyism. Regardless of the tests provided the city was unable to do this without lowering standards to the point the tests were meaningless. > [@Frylock](#): > > But, apparently, the business in question (the police department) failed to show that there’s anything about running a police department which necessitates the discrimination created by the test. > > So they were required to change the test. And the results were the same requiring the city to lower their standards and then abandon the test altogether. > [@Frylock](#): > > They could have created a _good_ test which isn’t discriminatory (or else is but only in a way that is justified by necessity) but instead chose to create a _bad_ test which isn’t discriminatory. > > Then they mischaracterized the situation. The city went out of it’s way to seek out a company that specializes in creating neutral tests. I see no evidence that anything was mis-characterized beyond your desire to say otherwise. > [@Frylock](#): > > The chairman of the SLCL should have been criticizing the city, not the DoJ. :rolleyes: The sentence could not have been any clearer. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2012, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-opposing-their-own-old-ideas-just-to-frustrate-president-obama/618038/46 "2012-04-07T22:55:03Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > If half the people who take the test are black, and half white–and seven eighths of those who pass are white, and only one eigth black, that’s _all it takes_ to show that the test is discriminatory. By definition, such a test is discriminatory. This is beyond debate. This statement is flat-out false. You’re begging the question. Do you think it a reasonable assumption when Asian students outscore white students in science and math that the testing is discriminatory? I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2012, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-opposing-their-own-old-ideas-just-to-frustrate-president-obama/618038/47 "2012-04-07T23:15:52Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Saying “I accept this reluctantly on pragmatic political grounds” is different from saying “I believe this is the ideal position.” And that’s not what the Republican supporters were saying about it 20 years ago? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2012, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-opposing-their-own-old-ideas-just-to-frustrate-president-obama/618038/48 "2012-04-07T23:33:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > And that’s not what the Republican supporters were saying about it 20 years ago? It depends on their intent, which is why I started this thread. If the mandate became a compromise position as a product of negotiations toward passing a bill, then yes I would agree that ‘reluctant acceptance on pragmatic grounds’ is a reasonable descriptor. But if it was a bogus straw man from the start, created merely as something to point to as a pretext for opposition to the other proposal on the table, then no. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2012, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-opposing-their-own-old-ideas-just-to-frustrate-president-obama/618038/49 "2012-04-08T00:24:35Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > This statement is flat-out false. You’re begging the question. > > Do you think it a reasonable assumption when Asian students outscore white students in science and math that the testing is discriminatory? I don’t. If said Asian people then are allowed to do something that the white person is not, then, yes, it is discriminatory. You’ve discriminated against the dumber white people so you can hire the smarter Asian people. And if these greater math skills are necessary, then no one has a probelm with that. But if they aren’t, it’s clear you were using the test to figure out the race of the recipients, so you could discriminate on that alone. People only have problems when you discriminate based on race/sex/etc. They don’t have a problem when you, say, discriminate based on the fact that someone is a criminal, nor do they care when you discriminate based on who would be best for the job. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2012, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-opposing-their-own-old-ideas-just-to-frustrate-president-obama/618038/50 "2012-04-08T02:45:16Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > This statement is flat-out false. You’re begging the question. > > Do you think it a reasonable assumption when Asian students outscore white students in science and math that the testing is discriminatory? I don’t. What?! It is _definitively_ discriminatory, as in, by _definition_. The test discriminates between whites and asians–because in the aggregate, those two groups perform differently on the test. Again, as I’ve said repeatedly: this does _not_ mean there’s anything wrong with the test. “Discriminatory” _is not the same thing as_ “unfairly discriminatory,” or “illegitimately discriminatory” or anything along those lines. ETA: Just as **BigT** has just said as well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-opposing-their-own-old-ideas-just-to-frustrate-president-obama/618038.md?page=2)