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.
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.
It can’t be more specific. Hire 4 black police officers and 9 black fire fighters from a special hiring list.
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.
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, said the lowering of the test score “is a slap in the face to black people.
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.
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.
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.
And the results were the same requiring the city to lower their standards and then abandon the test altogether.
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.
:rolleyes: The sentence could not have been any clearer.
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.
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.
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.
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.