# 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:** 13\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/321 "2009-07-03T02:58:51Z")
> [@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. Which ignores the fact, as I’ve pointed out, that the City was a hair’s breadth from winning. Four Supreme Court justices voted to uphold the trial court’s decision. Your assertion that it was “not a complex case” is foolish in light of these facts. :smack: ---
**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, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/322 "2009-07-03T04:05:18Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Which ignores the fact, as I’ve pointed out, that the City was a hair’s breadth from winning. Four Supreme Court justices voted to uphold the trial court’s decision. Your assertion that it was “not a complex case” is foolish in light of these facts. :smack: Which ignores the fact that the judge in question could have swayed the vote. I can’t help it if there are already 4 jackasses on the bench who think it’s OK to discriminate based on race. ---
**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 3, 2009, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/323 "2009-07-03T07:22:39Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > 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. When the whole world seems to revolve around white males, it is an almost universal perspective. > [@](#): > > If someone did believe that, whose fault would it be? The people with the silly belief? ---
**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 3, 2009, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/324 "2009-07-03T07:29:26Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Which ignores the fact that the judge in question could have swayed the vote. I can’t help it if there are already 4 jackasses on the bench who think it’s OK to discriminate based on race. And if it had gone the other way would you have said that there were 5 jackasses on the bench who think its OK to discriminate based on race? ---
**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, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/325 "2009-07-03T17:03:40Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And if it had gone the other way would you have said that there were 5 jackasses on the bench who think its OK to discriminate based on race? Is this a trick question? Do you think my position on discrimination would change? Do you not see the irony of a minority firefighter losing a promotion to another minority because of a quota system? What the city did was wrong and it should not have taken the Supreme Court to point this out. ---
**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 6, 2009, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/326 "2009-07-06T07:16:19Z")
I am pretty sure I was saying the same thing about quotas. SCOTUS never quite went that far but throwing away test results merely because no blacks made the cut is effectively a quota. I was also saying that a 5-4 decision pretty much means that Sotomayer’s position on the firefighter case was basically meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/327 "2009-07-06T11:47:13Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Is this a trick question? Do you think my position on discrimination would change? > > Do you not see the irony of a minority firefighter losing a promotion to another minority because of a quota system? What the city did was wrong and it should not have taken the Supreme Court to point this out. While there is no question about your feeling on the matter, your understanding of the law on the matter is more questionable. Your implied assertion that the law on the matter was an open and shut case is wrong as shown by the fact that the case came a hair’s breadth from going the other way. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/328 "2009-07-06T16:57:04Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > While there is no question about your feeling on the matter, your understanding of the law on the matter is more questionable. Your implied assertion that the law on the matter was an open and shut case is wrong as shown by the fact that the case came a hair’s breadth from going the other way. Stop wasting your time. **Magiver** has no intention on looking at this through the appropriate legal lens. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/329 "2009-07-07T02:18:44Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > Stop wasting your time. **Magiver** has no intention on looking at this through the appropriate legal lens. I sited the dessenting judge’s opinion in another thread regarding the legal aspect of her decision. When you change his mind let me know. ---
**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 7, 2009, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/330 "2009-07-07T04:55:23Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > 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? It is really starting to sound like you are asking for incontrovertible proof rather than evidence. I don’t know for a fact that there is an actual gap in IQ between blacks and whites but you seem to be pretty certain that there isn’t. Objective tests tell us that there is a significant gap. There may be societal factors that may contribute to that gap but frankly it sounds like a bunch of pretty subtle factor to be creating more than a standard deviation gap in test scores. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/331 "2009-07-16T02:33:54Z")
In late news, Ricci found responsible for [destroying hypocrisy meters across America:](http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/new-haven-firefighter-originally-hired-by-claiming-discrimination.php): > [@](#): > > Deserved or not, the biggest political thorn in Sonia Sotomayor’s side has been one Frank Ricci of New Haven, CT. Ricci is a firefighter who sued the city claiming reverse discrimination in 2003 after officials there discarded the results of a firefighter’s promotion test after the test was revealed to have a disparate impact on blacks and Hispanics. > > But flash back, if you will, to January 25, 1995, when, according to the Hartford _Courant_ Ricci was singing the opposite tune: “A decorated firefighter has filed a lawsuit against the city, saying he was not hired because he is dyslexic.” > > The lawsuit, filed recently in federal court, could shed light on the selection process used by the city, which has been beset with criticism over politics and nepotism. > > Frank Ricci charges in the lawsuit that the city violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. > > Ricci, a Wallingford native who now lives in Maryland, was one of 795 candidates who were interviewed for 40 openings. Ricci told interviewers that he has a learning disability, the lawsuit says. > > Fire commissioners have said that although Ricci was qualified, many others also were qualified because they passed the Civil Service examination. So Frank Ricci got a job, and someone else without dyslexia didn’t. Oh, the irony! ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/332 "2009-07-16T02:59:07Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > In late news, Ricci found responsible for [destroying hypocrisy meters across America:](http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/new-haven-firefighter-originally-hired-by-claiming-discrimination.php):So Frank Ricci got a job, and someone else without dyslexia didn’t. Oh, the irony! Nor were the dyslexia case and the reverse-discrimination case the only times Mr. Ricci [haled his employer into court](http://www.slate.com/id/2222087/). As the very excellent Dahlia Lithwick observes (quote is from the linked article): > [@](#): > > Ultimately, there are two ways to frame Frank Ricci’s penchant for filing employment discrimination complaints: Perhaps he was repeatedly victimized by a cruel cadre of employers, first for his dyslexia, then again for his role as a whistle-blower, and then a third time for just being white. If that is so, we should all be deeply grateful for the robust civil rights laws that protect Americans from unfair discrimination in the workplace. I look forward to hearing Republican Sen. John Cornyn’s version of that speech next week. > > The other way to look at Frank Ricci is as a serial plaintiff—one who reacts to professional slights and setbacks by filing suit, threatening to file suit, and more or less complaining his way up the chain of command. That’s not the typical GOP heartthrob, but I look forward to hearing Sen. Cornyn’s version of that speech next week as well. > > When Frank Ricci testifies against Judge Sotomayor, it will be worth recalling that under any other set of facts he would have looked to his GOP sponsors like the kind of unscrupulous professional litigant Rush Limbaugh lives to savage. Is America’s conservative movement really ready for an anti-affirmative action hero who has repeatedly relied on the government to intervene on his behalf to win him—and help him keep—a government job? ---
**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 16, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/333 "2009-07-16T20:23:05Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > It is really starting to sound like you are asking for incontrovertible proof rather than evidence. No, I’m not looking for incontrovertible proof. I’m just looking for some evidence that isn’t based on assumptions that are riddled with gaping holes. In epidemiology, the correct answer is rarely just genetics. We could be talking about IQ, mental illness, obesity, alcoholism, etc, and it’s always the same: environmental theories nearly always takes center stage over genetic ones when we’re comparing two ethic populations that differ culturally and socioeconomically. There seems to be a misconception that this only applies to intelligence, but read some papers and you’ll see that it doesn’t. Although genetics are always a possible explanation for any source of disparities, solely using a process of elimination to declare genetics as the main source (which is the process you’re advocating) requires, you know, actually eliminating things. Particularly, wrt to IQ, this means eliminating things that we _know_ are associated with mental deficits and low test scores, such as [adverse prenatal health conditions](http://www.springerlink.com/index/Y745853502782887.pdf) and [social stigmatization](http://books.google.com/books?id=c6gmpk93yXAC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=test+taking+ability+social+stigma&source=bl&ots=qjysZEucw7&sig=Ph2VRhDj9W2aYdYRRoEgJkU7dt4&hl=en&ei=_YFfSpPHI8X0_AazuLjZBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6). If you’re not willing to accept these as environmental explanations for differences in IQ, even in the face of 1) data that shows these things depress test scores and 2) it’s common knowledge that these variables differ across racial groups, then I don’t know why anyone should accept theories that genes are the heart of the difference, especially when these theories are based on more conjecture than evidence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268.md?page=16)