# The New Haven Firefighter Case **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 31, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268 "2009-05-31T16:52:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2009, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/301 "2009-07-02T15:57:34Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > What I find disturbing is that a summa cum laude graduate from Princeton needs to have her academic competence challenged in the first place. Did we see this with Roberts? Or Alito? What about GW Bush? Why should we expect her to divulge anything that no one would ever think to trouble a white man with? > > If **Magiver** finds problems with Sotomayor because her SAT score wasn’t in the top 99th percentile, that’s cool and all…if he can show that he assesses all public officials by the same meritocracy metric. I doubt he can do that, though. There is a complete disconnect in your interpretation of what I’m saying. The metric is not her accomplishments. She did well in college. Good for her. The metric is her position of affirmative action and the idea that it’s ok to discriminate using Title VII and other such laws. It’s not and I don’t want her in a position to change this. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2009, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/302 "2009-07-02T16:29:41Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The metric is her position of affirmative action and the idea that it’s ok to discriminate using Title VII and other such laws. It’s not and I don’t want her in a position to change this. Is it your opinion that the SCOTUS majority decision in Ricci in any way overturned Title VII? It’s my understanding that they very clearly did not address the constitutionality of Title VII nor did they address the appeals court ruling on the matter. They merely said that the facts of _this case_ did not justify throwing out the test results over fear of litigation. I also find it highly ironic that you seem to want SCOTUS to invalidate duly-passed laws, thus “legislating from the bench”. I guess Sotomayor was wrong, it’s actually the Supreme Court “where policy is made”. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2009, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/303 "2009-07-02T16:38:34Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Bush was an elected official with a limited term of office. He was not capable of changing laws based on personal biases. Supreme Court justices are not elected, do not have a term limit, and are capable of “interpreting” laws. I don’t see what a term limit has to do with anything. If you want the best person in a position of power and you think SATs are the arbiter of that, it shouldn’t matter how long their terms last. I’d want my president to be as smart if not smarter than a SCOTUS justice. If anything because there is just one president. One dumb move by a justice can be canceled out by the others. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2009, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/304 "2009-07-02T16:49:26Z")
1. The value of an SAT score is predicting success in the college, success that is measured by obtaining a degree and doing well academically (i.e.: high GPA). The fact that Judge Sotomayor obtained a degree and had a VERY high GPA at one of the most prestigious and academically rigorous institutions in the nation indicates that she did at least as well as someone with the same high school GPA but a better SAT result. Thus, for her at least, the SAT (assuming that it really was “low” by comparison to her fellow classmates, which I tend to doubt) was not an accurate predictor of her ability in college, and also, she did not take the place of a “better qualified” candidate. 2. I notice **Magiver** has totally dropped the legal discussion that he was pursuing with **Bricker** , which makes me hope that (s)he understands that what Judge Sotomayor did in signing on to the opinion upholding the result at the trial level was not an indication that she believes that minorities should be advantaged at the disadvantage of the majority, but simply an indication that she agreed that the law required that result. Please note that she was not some wild radical in reaching that conclusion. Four Supreme Court Justices reached the same conclusion, and reading the decision in the case, if the City had been able to convince Justice Kennedy of the strength of the potential Title VII lawsuit had the city NOT set aside the results, the Supreme Court’s ruling in _Ricci_ would have gone the opposite way. Which is not to say that she DOESN’T believe minorities should be advantaged at the disadvantage of the majority, just that the decision in _Ricci_ at the appellate level cannot be taken as an indication on the subject one way or the other. 1. Hi, Opal! 🙂 I did have another point, but I’ve forgotten it… ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/305 "2009-07-02T16:55:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here again you’re confusing the issue. She decided that the city couldn’t be liable in a suit by the white firefighters, because the action they took was not intended to discriminate against them – it was intended to insulate them from liability for a suit from the BLACK firefighters. It’s true that what you lay out is the result of her decision, but she has to apply the law to the facts and reach a result that way, not look at the desired end result and then craft her decision in a way that guarantees she’ll reach it. > > So don’t lay at her feet the result. If you want to criticize her decision, address what was legally flawed in it. The mere fact that some firefighters were not promoted because of race is not enough – the question is, “What does the law say?” Thank you, **Bricker** , I have been hoping to see your comments on this case but have been too busy too request them (did I miss an earlier thread about this case?). Anyway, from my limited reading of the case, it appears that Judge Sotomayor and the other appeals court justices were being conservative and if they had ruled differently they would have been what many conservatives term judicial activists (i.e. they would have been interpreting the law and not really applying it as written and intended by the legislators the crafted it). Do you agree with this analysis? Regarding Ms. Sotomayor, after reading more about her, I don’t like her. She is, in my mind, definately qualified for the position, and I find Magiver’s analysis of her qualifications fallacious, but I think President Obama could do better. First off, I believe she is much more conservative than most people believe. This New Haven case is an example of that, though reading through her past decisions, I find that examples abound. She seems to make very narrow decisions on the finer points of the law and does not seem to have an over-arching understanding of how the law affects society. I believe that this is what President meant when he used the term empathy, and I agree that this is a good quality for a Supreme Court justice. One Justice that I believe had this quality in spades and used it to good effect was Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Second, I do not believe she has the judicial acumen to balance the brilliance of Justices Roberts and Scalia. Being a liberal leaning centrist, I don’t really like the current swing the Supreme Court is taking. I don’t mind having conservative justices (in fact I believe it is necessary to have them) or even a conservative majority, but I think it is more necessary to have balance on the court. I was pretty happy with the balance of the Rehnquist court, and I think that Justice Roberts was a good addition (though he is very conservative), but now I find that the balance is a bit out of whack. Justices Roberts and Scalia are brilliant and and it seems to me that they are driving the court with their ideology. I find that Justice Thomas is basically a shill and doesn’t really belong on the court (IMHO). You can almost always count on Justice Alito to vote identically to Justice Scalia and I think it is going to be a rare day that he has a differing opinion or methodology for reaching it. The other justices are capable and intelligent, but none of them has the sharpness to really challenge Justices Roberts and Scalia. I would like President Obama to nominate someone with this ability, and I don’t really care if they are liberal or moderate, just as long as they can temper the conservative slant of the court (which to me seems monolithic) and challenge the brilliance of the conservative stalwarts. Obviously, YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2009, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/306 "2009-07-02T17:40:41Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Suppose race correlates with IQ. > > That has nothing to do with the question being discussed in this thread. Maybe it was a tangent but I thought the discussion was addressing why we should adjust results because of disparate results based on race. I think almost everyone agrees that the test was appropriate and non-discriminatory (the city seemed to have taken pains to try and level the playing field as much as humanly possible) and yet because the results of the test did not yield proportional results, the results were thrown out. Its not that none of the black candidates passed the test, its that none of them scored in the top 3. When you have a sample size of a dozen people, does it really make sense to apply the disparate results critieria so rigidly when there is nothing else you can point to that indicates any sort of unfairness or discrimination? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2009, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/307 "2009-07-02T17:42:17Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > It seems to me that the Court sent the message that acting simply to avoid potential liability isn’t enough; fair, objective decision making should be the goal. The question is when can a court overturn the city’s decision. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2009, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/308 "2009-07-02T17:55:29Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > I posed this question to \*\*Chief Pendant \*\* sometime ago, so I’ll pose it to you: Where is the scientific data? Performing an experiment comparing synaptic markers between blacks and whites ought to be sufficient. One could go one step further by exploring whether blacks express less of the proteins required for memory storage and retrieval. If you believe blacks are less intelligent due to genes, point to one. Just one. We have 30,000 of them. Just pick one. If you or anyone else believe so earnestly that there are cognitive differences, what is your proof? Because I’m looking through the literature and I can’t find a shred of evidence. Its unclear to me how one can say “Blacks are \*\*genetically \*\*inferior” but unable to point to any **genetic** study that says it. > > Maybe I ought to open a new thread. > > - Honesty Are you saying that intelligence is not genetically heritable or that we all have identical genes when it comes to intelligence? I don’t know that the cognitive differences are as large as standardized tests indicate (I think that there is a lot of environmental factors that play a large role in the difference), but the gap in IQ test scores between blacks and whites is so wide that it is hard to attribute entire difference on latent racism (or the legacy of racism), my sense is that it is not oppressive enough to account for the difference between poor whites and poor blacks (or between middle class whites and middle class blacks). Certainly some of it is but if I could show you a statistic that showed that adopted Asian kids raised in white households scored (on average)significantly higher on standardized tests than adopted black kids raised in white households, wouldn’t that count as evidence or are you asking for incontrovertible proof? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/309 "2009-07-02T18:27:43Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Certainly some of it is but if I could show you a statistic that showed that adopted Asian kids raised in white households scored (on average)significantly higher on standardized tests than adopted black kids raised in white households, wouldn’t that count as evidence or are you asking for incontrovertible proof? No because you’re still left with the role of social programming, which can not be controlled for using normal epidemiological methods. And also, you’d have to assume that the prenatal environment of these kids is no different, which is an unreasonable assumption. A pregnant mother with no access to prenatal care, possibly engaged in drug use and other deliterious habits associated with poverty, whose child was put up for adoption because she got locked up in prison and there was no one else around to raise her child, is creating a different in utero environment than a pregnant mother who adopted out her child only because she wanted a boy and not a girl. Which child is probably going to do better on an aptitude test? The disparities between blacks and whites with regard to test scores has been shrinking through the years and is continuing to shrink. Just as it would have been incorrect to conclude from 1950’s disparities that blacks are less intelligent than whites, it’s incorrect to do that using 2009 disparities. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2009, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/310 "2009-07-02T18:37:25Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I’m not the person who stood up in front of God and everybody and said a wise Hispanic woman would reach better conclusions than a white male. I did not realize this was sworn testimony, I thought she was just talking about the added perspective she would have over a white male. > [@](#): > > There is nothing ambiguous about the racial discrimination in this case and it shouldn’t have taken the SC to rule on it. Sotomayor would never have reached her current career level if not for her ethnicity. This is not a reason to be a member of the SC. On the contrary, she was following the current state of the law and the Supreme Court is the one breaking new ground. Sotomayer is one of the most accomplished jurists to be nominated for the Supreme Court in a long time. The only way you can conclude that she is only here because of her race is if you conclude that only only reason any minority can succeed in America is because of tokenism and affirmative action. The problem with that line of thought is that while it may be reasonable to argue that one race or gender does better than another race or gender ON AVERAGE, it is false to say that the same applies to individuals and it is ridiculous to assert this applies to the tail ends of the distribution (and lets just agree that supreme court nominees are outliers). ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2009, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/311 "2009-07-02T19:27:08Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > You’re missing the conversation. Her SAT scores were waved to accomodate her ethnicity as part of a defacto quota system. She is on record as supporting and promoting this form of discrimination. > > This thread is about the New Haven firefighter case and how Title VII harmed them. I do not support this and therefore do not support her. Cite please that her SAT scores were waived. Pleaser don’t link to the video again; that isn’t proof that her SAT scores were waived, only that Judge Sotomayar says that perhaps they weren’t as high as some others who were admitted to the same school. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2009, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/312 "2009-07-02T22:54:46Z")
Just a brief note: Sandra Day O’Connor was the master of making “very narrow decisions on the finer points of the law.” It was her hallmark, and one of the reasons she drove me nuts with her opinions. You never knew exactly which infinitismal factoid of the case was going to tip her balance. Sadly, Justice Kennedy has taken her place, as the result in this case so clearly shows. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2009, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/313 "2009-07-02T23:11:35Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I did not realize this was sworn testimony, I thought she was just talking about the added perspective she would have over a white male. She didn’t say “added perspective”, she said “a better decision”. In fact, she couldn’t have meant “added”, because what would it be added to? If you believe, as she evidently does, that a white male can only see things from a white male perspective, then a Latina can only see things from a Latina perspective. She can’t have a Latina perspective in addition to some other perspective. One could argue that her Latina perspective would be added to the other perspectives already represented on the court, but that is clearly not what she meant. > [@](#): > > The only way you can conclude that she is only here because of her race is if you conclude that only only reason any minority can succeed in America is because of tokenism and affirmative action. If someone did believe that, whose fault would it be? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/314 "2009-07-02T23:22:18Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > If someone did believe that, whose fault would it be? Why don’t you answer that question? And then explain why the same reasoning doesn’t apply to rich white people. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2009, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/315 "2009-07-02T23:48:00Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > The disparities between blacks and whites with regard to test scores has been shrinking through the years and is continuing to shrink. Just as it would have been incorrect to conclude from 1950’s disparities that blacks are less intelligent than whites, it’s incorrect to do that using 2009 disparities. [The Flynn Effect is winding down, sez the man himself](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article756647.ece). > [@](#): > > Now the man who first observed this effect, the psychologist James Flynn, has made another observation: intelligence test scores have stopped rising. Far from indicating that now we really are getting dumber, this may suggest that certain of our cognitive functions have reached — or nearly reached — the upper limits of what they will ever achieve, Professor Flynn believes. In other words, we can’t get much better at the mental tasks we are good at, no matter how hard we try. If we are to make any further progress, we will have to start exercising different parts of our brain, particularly the parts controlling language acquisition and empathy, according to Professor Flynn, an emeritus professor at the University of Otago in New Zealand. People have supposedly gotten a lot smarter over the past one hundred years because scores on a certain subset of tests, most notably Raven’s Progressive Matrices, has increased. SAT scores have not gone up, yet the SAT is highly correlated with g. It’s hard to imagine that g could increase so much yet have no effect on SAT scores. Thus I conclude that Raven’s Progressive Matrices tests a narrow subset of skills and abilities compared to the SAT, so Raven’s is actually measuring g plus something else, and the something else is what has gone up. With regards to the existence of the disparities at all, if I wanted to set up an experiment to best study the issue, this is what I would do: I would compare the intelligence of black children adopted by upper-middle-class white families to the intelligence of white children adopted by upper-middle-class white families. This ensures that all children being studied are brought up in the most favorable family environment, and therefore any difference that emerges between the groups is a result of genetics and not environment. It turns out that the exact situation above has already been studied! I am referring to the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, and there is an excellent page at [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study)summarizing the results of the study. It’s rather ironic that the researchers who conducted this study were left-wing types who were hoping to prove that it’s environment, not genes, that causes the black-white intelligence difference. In interpreting the results, I must note that it’s not clear what IQ test was being used, but I presume that the scoring scale follows the convention in the IQ field that the average score is 100, and the standard deviation is 15, and when such an IQ test is given to both whites and blacks, it’s expected that the average white person will score 100 and the average black person will score 85. When IQ tests were given to adopted 7-year-olds, the average scores were: White: 112 Half white, half black: 109 Black: 97 As predicted by the genetic explanation, black children scored 15 points lower than white children. And children of mixed race background scored between the two extremes. Yet strangely, Scarr and Weinberg, the authors of the study, argued that this somehow proves that it’s environment causing the black-white IQ difference. They said, “look, half-white half-black children, who are ‘socially black,’ score higher than the average white child when they have upper-middle-class parents!” If we assume that this same test would show an average score of 100 for white kids raised by regular blue collar white parents, then the study is indeed showing an effect where being raised by upper-middle-class white parents has a strongly positive impact on IQ tests given to 7-year-olds. But the effect isn’t one where racial IQ differences are eliminated. Rather, the effect is that less-intelligent children get an average score on the test, and average children get an above-average score on the test. (There is similar evidence from many other studies that early childhood test scores are more easily raised by coaching than tests given to teenagers and adults. This is what studies of the Head Start program have [showed](http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/bg1755.cfm).) Heres a link to a 60-page paper by two leading researchers documenting why race differences in intelligence are genetic, and answering many recurring objections: [Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability, by Rushton and Jensen.](http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf) (PDF) ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2009, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/316 "2009-07-03T00:09:05Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > [url=“[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article756647.ece](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article756647.ece)”]The Flynn With regards to the existence of the disparities at all, if I wanted to set up an experiment to best study the issue, this is what I would do: I would compare the intelligence of black children adopted by upper-middle-class white families to the intelligence of white children adopted by upper-middle-class white families. This ensures that all children being studied are brought up in the most favorable family environment, and therefore any difference that emerges between the groups is a result of genetics and not environment. Sorry but I already point out why that you can’t reach that conclusion. A cursory background in social science and epidemiology would tell you that using these kind of experiments to make statements about genetics is foolish. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2009, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/317 "2009-07-03T01:58:31Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > 1. I notice **Magiver** has totally dropped the legal discussion that he was pursuing with **Bricker** , which makes me hope that (s)he understands that what Judge Sotomayor did in signing on to the opinion upholding the result at the trial level was not an indication that she believes that minorities should be advantaged at the disadvantage of the majority, but simply an indication that she agreed that the law required that result. We’ve been all through this in another debate. Per the dissenting judge’s comments they could have addressed the case in the broader sense. This was not a complex case and it was dragged all the way to the Supreme Court at the expense of people who were wronged. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2009, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/318 "2009-07-03T02:42:05Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > We’ve been all through this in another debate. Per the dissenting judge’s comments they could have addressed the case in the broader sense. > > This was not a complex case and it was dragged all the way to the Supreme Court at the expense of people who were wronged. AS I read it, that’s because of a crooked preacher and a spineless city government not Sotomayor ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2009, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/319 "2009-07-03T02:43:22Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Quite wrong on all counts. You are a public figure on this message board, you have staked out a position that you know to be controversial and you quite readily advocate for it. This is your thing and you are well-known among other message board posters for this very advocacy. Therefore, the claim that you are not a public figure is simply false. You have courted notoriety and now you’ve got it. > > You have earlier argued that a refusal to release information about one’s academic performance is an indication that one did poorly. I called this bullshit and challenged you to reveal your own details. You have declined the invitation to give specifics, all the while claiming you did spectacularly well (or, by turns, that you forgot how you did). Under your rubric, we should assume that this is puffery. Nevertheless, you claim the inference you otherwise insist we should draw about Sotomayor should not be drawn about you because you are “not famous.” > > In fact, what you really have experienced, and what Sotomayor has experienced, is that people just don’t enjoy revealing a wealth of personal information just because you had the audacity to participate in a public conversation or seek public office. There is, quite naturally, a difference between providing indicia of one’s abilities and meeting overbearing demands for a life’s dossier. All I ask is that you admit this very pedestrian fact and that your “rule of thumb” was misbegotten. > > Lastly, there is some natural curiosity regarding your educational details given that the position you are so celebrated for–the insistence on a biological-cum-racial basis for differences in intelligence and academic performance and the unwisdom of affirmative action and diversity programs in light of this fact. For you to press this position while declaring your own record off-limits is unrealistic at best. If you do not want your own record scrutinized, you may want to refrain from insinuations about the records of others merely because you hope it will corroborate your theory of eugenics. I am personally underwhelmed by the scores I posted at your request, and I suspect most SDMB members are equally unimpressed. Some good. Some crummy…moving on… It was a silly request of yours, unrelated to a rat’s patoot, and I did it to call your silliness. It is not my personal bio which speaks to genetic differences among races. I present the issues and facts as I see them. Not one of the facts or sources I quote as supportive evidence is in any way related to my personal biography. As it turns out (and I’d expect you to understand this) attacking me instead of my position is a common tactic known as an ad hominen fallacy. It’s like attacking Al Gore for being a personal bozo instead of finding factual fault with his position on global warming. As it also turns out, I’ve given you the real data you asked for: my personal scores. That I prefer anonymity as a poster here is not related in any way to any thing other than a personal caution that one never knows which nutcase is on the other end of the Internet. In all my years of perusing the Dope, I must say this is the first time I have seen someone pretend that an unwillingess to be anonymous here discredits a position taken. Absurd. If you can’t do better than to pretend that my desire for anonymity on some entertainment-related message board means a position I take on genetics is less supported, you are substantially more desperate than even grasping at straws. Try applying that criterion to the rest of the posters here… :dubious: But you know this. Your pretense otherwise diminishes any position you take on the subject in general. I await any reply you have on whether it’s disingenuous to retain as “personal” one’s standardized test scores while publishing one’s grades and class rank. I call bullshit on that. I am not, for the record here, disparaging either Judge Sotomayor or her academic record, or criticizing any decisions she made about releasing anything. I have no idea what she decided to do, and no interest in it. For the reasons mentioned above, I support actively enrolling underrepresented minorities in positions of leadership in this country. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2009, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/320 "2009-07-03T02:52:08Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > … > Lastly, there is some natural curiosity regarding your educational details given that the position you are so celebrated for–the insistence on a biological-cum-racial basis for differences in intelligence and academic performance **and the unwisdom of affirmative action and diversity programs in light of this fact**. For you to press this position while declaring your own record off-limits is unrealistic at best… (bolding mine for emphasis) Just to make sure you are actually reading the posts of mine to which you are referring: You are aware I support race-based affirmative action, right? So…um…why would post this nonsense (in bold)? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268.md?page=17)