# 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:** 4
**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:** [June 1, 2009, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/61 "2009-06-01T12:42:50Z")
**Chief** , are you saying that different races, i.e. black, hispanic, asian, etc., are genetically more capable than others with respect to intelligence, reading comprehension, etc.? ---
**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:** [June 1, 2009, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/62 "2009-06-01T12:51:47Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > **Chief** , are you saying that different races, i.e. black, hispanic, asian, etc., are genetically more capable than others with respect to intelligence, reading comprehension, etc.? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2009, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/63 "2009-06-01T15:18:40Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Can someone please explain Judge Sotomayor’s decision in this case. Simple. The bitch hates white people. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2009, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/64 "2009-06-01T15:36:29Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > **Chief** , are you saying that different races, i.e. black, hispanic, asian, etc., are genetically more capable than others with respect to intelligence, reading comprehension, etc.? And I’m thinking the entire NBA agrees with me, btw. ---
**Author:** ![YamatoTwinkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/cc9497/32.png) [@YamatoTwinkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YamatoTwinkie)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2009, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/65 "2009-06-01T16:38:29Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The term, ‘reverse discrimination’ is an unholy racist epithet. It’s beyond disgusting. There is no such thing as ‘reverse discrimination’. There is discrimination, period. While I don’t like the phrase myself, there needs to be some short of shorthand way of saying: “unintentionally discriminating against group B while attempting to avoid discriminating against group A” ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2009, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/66 "2009-06-01T16:53:37Z")
> [@YamatoTwinkie](#): > > While I don’t like the phrase myself, there needs to be some short of shorthand way of saying: > > “unintentionally discriminating against group B while attempting to avoid discriminating against group A” Fair enough. When you put it that way. I always hear it as, “Racists are by default white so we have to draw a distinction when racism is uncannilly engaged in by someone who is not white.” ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2009, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/67 "2009-06-01T17:39:44Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Simple. The bitch hates white people. So I guess the white judges who ruled the same way she did also hate white people? ---
**Author:** ![YamatoTwinkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/cc9497/32.png) [@YamatoTwinkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YamatoTwinkie)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2009, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/68 "2009-06-01T19:22:17Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I always hear it as, “Racists are by default white so we have to draw a distinction when racism is uncannilly engaged in by someone who is not white.” I agree, and that irks me as well. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2009, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/69 "2009-06-01T22:51:46Z")
> [@Hello\_Again](#): > > To the contrary, the Court specifically found there had been evidence that the test contained material that was not job related, that working firefighters judged the written exam as a poor indicator of future performance, and evidence that when a different test was given 1996 and 1999, there was no disparate impact. The court noted that the CSB had found such evidence. That evidence, though, was not argued to the court as a basis for the city’s decision, nor was it part of the rationale for the court’s ruling: > [@district court](#): > > “Plaintiffs’ evidence - and defendants’ own arguments - show that the City’s reasons for advocating noncertification were related to the racial distribution of the results.” The court also says elsewhere that the city was not obligated to conduct studies to determine whether the test was otherwise valid. Simply the fact that it produced results outside the EEOC’s benchmark for disparate impact was a sufficient basis for rejecting the test. BTW, I have no opinion as to what the S.Ct. will do with the case; this isn’t my field. However, even if it reverses, I can’t imagine that it’s going to find anything _outlandishly_ wrong with the district court’s decision. I don’t see this as any sort of deal-breaker for Sotomayor. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2009, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/70 "2009-06-01T22:56:57Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > But Frank Ricci who put considerable time and effort into passing this exam doesn’t get the promotion because he’s white. That is relevant to this specific case. Because a black man couldn’t get into the top scoring position, he is being held back from it through no fault of his own. That is blatant anti-white discrimination. He is being held back, losing the considerable expense of time and money that he put into passing that exam in order to get that job, that he worked very hard for within the rules as they were set down, and now he can’t have that job because of the inability of others to compete. > > Please explain to me how that is not anti-white discrimination? nevermind ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2009, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/71 "2009-06-01T23:03:42Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > The explanation is simple: different populations have different gene pools. The only reason this explanation remains “elusive” is that when we are staring at it, we pretend it is not there. Bingo. Note that virtually any “minority”, as a group, that isnt a white western male has no trouble with stereotypes that they are better at jazz, or feelings, or certain types of cooking, or certain kinds of art, or their connection with nature, or whatever. But, suggest that white western males might actually have a very slight edge when it comes to, say, quantum physics (or whatever) and all of a sudden you are a ragging racist :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/72 "2009-06-02T00:56:19Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > And here is the remarkable thing: that underperformance, by itself, is considered by the Court to be sufficient reason to throw it out, because under EEOC guidelines it will obviously have an adverse impact. As I understand it, the question is not what the court said but what the law says. Is it the court’s job to overturn a (in your opinion, bad) law passed by Congress? ---
**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:** [June 2, 2009, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/73 "2009-06-02T01:32:43Z")
> [@kevlaw](#): > > As I understand it, the question is not what the court said but what the law says. > > Is it the court’s job to overturn a (in your opinion, bad) law passed by Congress? It’s a good point, although I never quite figure out what the law says until some lawyer explains to me how what I thought it said is not what it said. In the case at hand, for example, the EEOC relevant law quoted in the Decision says: _"Specifically, the EEOC “four-fifths rule” provides that a selection tool that yields “[a] selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than fourfifths (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.”_ So in my limited and lay reading, if a selection tool yields a disparate result, even if the disparate result is caused by a lesser competence of a particular group, it can be considered to have an adverse impact. Sure it does, especially if one group is not as competent. But under this line of reasoning, what about my example that the PGA Q-school is therefore afoul of EEOC because of its adverse impact on women? Or worse, doesn’t Q-school adversely impact blacks since so few blacks make the Tour? What about the obverse–NBA or NFL tryouts? While I don’t disagree that an argument can be made that Judge Sotomayor was simply interpreting and applying current law, the law is so ridiculously ludicrous that it seems it would be equally appropriate to say it couldn’t possibly be meant to be interpreted that way. If one uses the over-arching principle of fairness and Equal Opportunity, surely everyone who took this exam was treated fairly and had equal opportunity. They just didn’t have equal ability. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/74 "2009-06-02T01:40:18Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > If one uses the over-arching principle of fairness and Equal Opportunity, surely everyone who took this exam was treated fairly and had equal opportunity. They just didn’t have equal ability. IMO if someone can NOT point to the question(s) in a test and either show that : One, the question has nothing to do with the job or skill set…or Two, its racists or sexists or whatever because of blah blah blah… Then the complaint is a crock o bovine excrement. Because the “minorities” can’t do as well just aint gonna cut it IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/75 "2009-06-02T01:40:48Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > The court noted that the CSB had found such evidence. That evidence, though, was not argued to the court as a basis for the city’s decision, nor was it part of the rationale for the court’s ruling: > . Look, all the court had to find on a summary judgement motion is whether there is ANY issue of triable fact based on the evidence presented by each party at the close of discovery. ONLY if there is NO issue upon which reasonable people could differ my a court render summary judgement. The plaintiffs, the court agrees, made a prima facie case of facts giving rise to an inference of intentional disparate treatment. (actually, the court is not so sure, but it agrees for the sake of argument) The defendants, the court agreed, proferred a Legitimate NonDiscriminatory Reason which defeated the inference of intentional discrimination as a matter of law THAT’S IT. The court did not have to evaluate the test themselves because Plaintiffs were not challenging the validity of the test! That was not an issue before the court! Plaintiffs were challenging the validity of the choice not to certify the results. And that choice, the court found, again as a matter of law, and there could be no reasonable dispute on this issue, that when the board decided to not certify the test, they were motivated by something other than a desire to discriminate - in fact they were motivated by a good-faith belief their actions were _required_ by Federal law, That’s the alpha and omega of this case. Not whether the test was or was not in fact fair, but whether the Board believed it was not. Based on the evidence heard by the Board, as noted by the Court, the test violated established criteria giving rise to a good faith belief it violated Federal law and should, nay must, be rejected. Don’t like it? Get your day in front of Congress, like Lily Ledbetter. ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/76 "2009-06-02T01:47:22Z")
One final comment, the Court found that the evidence before the Board gave rise to a good faith belief that the test failed BOTH the so-called “statistical case” AND the test of irrelevancy to job requirements. ---
**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:** [June 2, 2009, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/77 "2009-06-02T04:17:07Z")
> [@Hello\_Again](#): > > Look,…\ > > That’s the alpha and omega of this case. Not whether the test was or was not in fact fair, but whether the Board believed it was not. Based on the evidence heard by the Board, as noted by the Court, the test violated established criteria giving rise to a good faith belief it violated Federal law and should, nay must, be rejected. > > Don’t like it? Get your day in front of Congress, like Lily Ledbetter. The Board’s only basis upon which to believe it was unfair was that blacks performed poorly. There was no substantiation of any complaint that the content itself was inappropriate; in any case wherever it may have been non-substantive to firefighting, it was non-substantive for all, and none of those questions would have generated an unfair advantage. It is the perennial and universal complaint of all who have ever done poorly on tests that the material was irrelevant. Without specific substantiation, such allegations are meaningless. The idea that the outcome would differ if certain questions were discarded is highly questionable, and it’s likely the main reason that avenue was not pursued further. I don’t like this decision–it is fundamentally dishonest–and I don’t find the issues to be the same as you do. The most remarkable conclusion is that there was no disparate impact because the results were thrown out for everyone. Try throwing out an exam after the fact of it resulting in too many under-represented minorities being promoted and see where that gets you when you argue that throwing it out affected all groups equally. It’s difficult for me to comprehend that we have judges with this degree of stupidity. But I will save my exclamation points after SCOTUS comments on the case. I do not think they will support Judge Sotomayor’s muddled thinking here, but I admit to a very poor track record predicting what lawyers will do. As to “getting my day in front of Congress” if I don’t like it–well, that’s lovely rhetoric, but meaningless. Congress is an ongoing proofcase that clear thinking has little in common with legislation. I’d be uninterested in getting a day in front of most of those bozos, although I would like the chance to mock them in person for the EEOC wording, I admit. Idiots. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/78 "2009-06-02T07:36:58Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It all seems very ‘Tyranny of low expectations.’ to me. It seems far far far more racist to me to say that the people failed because they were black. Yes, the school system is failing minorities. But at the same time we educate people so that they will be more competent. If an institutional failure has failed to make a person competent, that doesn’t change the fact that they are not competent. But that is what is at issue. The conclusions the court came to were based on the fact that this test did not determine who was more or less competent to do the job. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > The Board’s only basis upon which to believe it was unfair was that blacks performed poorly. Wrong. And I believe I am not the only person to mention this to you. See [here](http://www.acslaw.org/node/13239) > [@](#): > > Due to concerns that the promotional exams discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the law, the c **ity held public hearings on the issue of whether to certify the test results**. The city considered whether the exams were sufficiently related to the positions in question. **Several New Haven firefighters testified that some of the questions were not relevant to the knowledge or skills necessary for the positions. The city also heard evidence as to whether fairer, more effective tests were available.** Testing experts testified that other types of exams would not be expected to result in such a stark disparate impact. **Testing experts also opined that alternative testing procedures could better identify the best potential supervisors for the fire department. These experts testified that “assessment center processes” and “situation judgment tests” can provide better alternatives to traditional written and oral tests.** Ultimately, the city declined to certify the test results and sought to explore less discriminatory alternatives to the exams that were administered in 2003. > > When the city declined to make promotions based on the test results, firefighters who had scored highly on the tests filed suit. The Ricci plaintiffs are seventeen white firefighters and one Hispanic candidate who allege that the city discriminated on the basis of race by not certifying the test results. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > There was no substantiation of any complaint that the content itself was inappropriate; in any case wherever it may have been non-substantive to firefighting, it was non-substantive for all, and none of those questions would have generated an unfair advantage. It’s not only about an unfair advantage, it has to do with the fact the test does not accurately test what is meant to be tested. While the test results would have raised eyebrows and attracted scrutiny as a result of the racial/ethic scoring discrepancies, the decision to overturn the results was primarily due to the facts detailed in the article I cited. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > But I will save my exclamation points after SCOTUS comments on the case. I do not think they will support Judge Sotomayor’s muddled thinking here, but I admit to a very poor track record predicting what lawyers will do. Do you understand the circumstances of the case and Sotomayor’s role in it? What part of her “thinking” is in so disturbing to you? Try to actually read what was said, and the applicable laws, and then explain to me how an appeals court judge could justify coming to another conclusion. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > There is an obvious problem here screaming to be addressed: If we insist upon categorizing populations for the sake of “diversity” we are going to have to come to grips with the fact that those populations are differently enabled. You got a cite for that other than pointing to the NBA (a group of 360 people or so)? I think the basic issue is that you seem to cling to the fiction that a test (any test) can quantify an abstract notion like intelligence or competence in a given task to the degree that it should be relied on to filter out the less qualified, or ration scarce things. Obviously, tests can be useful, but most rational people can appreciate the reduced utility of a test when you have people who take six months off work, and spend $1000 on tutoring so that they can improve their score. Notice I said improve their **score** , not become a better fire department lieutenant. People spend $2.5 billion a year to prepare for tests that are supposedly designed to measure their competence, preparedness, and capabilities. Doesn’t that say a lot about over-reliance on rubrics that people readily and enthusiastically try to game and subvert for their own benefit? The salient point that I think is missed in most of these discussions is that trying to order and evaluate people with such precision is a fool’s errand. Whether it’s teachers, incoming college freshman, or college quarterbacks; all these systems breakdown at some point which makes drawing broad conclusions even more foolish. It always ends up with people feeling they are entitled to a job, position, or slot because they scored better, or have a toothier smile than the next guy. Which is the reason why I don’t particularly mind the kind of social engineering that goes on to ensure that we create ideal outcomes. People need to start appreciating that fact that the perfect can be the enemy of the good, and that one only needs to be competent enough to justify being chosen or selected. Harvard and Princeton can fill their incoming classes with valedictorians if they wanted. They don’t because they are not only trying to admit the “best students” academically, they are trying to create the type of environment they want at their school. So long as the kids can theoretically do the work, it really doesn’t matter if their grade point average is slightly lower than another kid’s. ---
**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:** [June 2, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/79 "2009-06-02T15:17:00Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > \ So long as the kids can theoretically do the work, it really doesn’t matter if their grade point average is slightly lower than another kid’s. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I realize we are unlikely to agree with each other, regardless of how many times we post our own positions. Originally Posted by **Chief Pedant** “_The Board’s only basis upon which to believe it was unfair was that blacks performed poorly._” Let me comment upon this quote from my post, which you labeled “Wrong.” If blacks as a group had not performed disproportionately poorly on this test, the Board would not have discarded it whether or not the test contained irrelevant items or non-substantive content as part of its make up. No test is perfectly adapted to the real world, and so any test can be criticized post hoc by those who performed poorly. However a more appropriate standard is whether or not a test contains flaws that are inherently biased toward favoring a particular group. Here (unless the ability to read and retain information is inherently disparately enabled between blacks and whites) there was no such evidence presented other than a determination that it must be so because blacks underperformed whites (and the default assumption is that blacks–as a group–are equal to whites in their abilities). As I said in an earlier post, if you use a false assumption, you are going to get messy legislation and bad results. The assumption that various population groups are equal in ability is false. It has never been shown to be the case; indeed the ongoing results of such race-based groupings across thousands and thousands of various tests, corrected for various mitigating factors always leads to the same general rank-order for scholastic sorts of abilities, with asians near the top and blacks near the bottom. While this sort of statement is-to say the least–highly uncomfortable to make and highly unpopular, Mother Nature never promised fairness. As an illustration, let me return to the NBA, which you dismissed as if it were a small pool of 360 people representing some sort of aberration. I think honesty should compel you to admit that you were simply using a rhetorical tool. Sure, I’ll give you a cite for the fact that different populations are differently enabled for the NBA: the US of A. You already know this, but… The NBA is simply the pinnacle of tens of thousands of basketball groups across this land. Because the NBA provides fame, fortune and a glamorous lifestyle, attaining it becomes a life-dream for millions of children in this country, and from a very early age they and their parents work toward that goal, choosing secondary careers only when their primary dream is not realized. From minor basketball leagues to college to high-school on down, a cursory glance at high-performers leads to an obvious and inescapable conclusion: blacks are over-represented. Now it might be that whites have less opportunity. It might be they have lousier coaching. It might be that they would rather sell cars. It might be that Wall Street–or the local Insurance Agency–beckons. But over the years I’ve talked to a lot of Professional Sports wannabes and their stories are universally the same: their highest dream was a Pro career and they transitioned into alternate careers only when they weren’t good enough. So my cite that blacks are disproportionately enabled to play basketball is based on my sight. Yours too, I suspect. And if the Official Reason remains “elusive” it’s because we stare at the outcome and decide, _a priori_, the obvious reason does not exist: Different populations are differently enabled for various skillsets. Testing for precision in determining how well someone will perform in real life may be a fool’s errand for you, but I am hesitant to live in a world without it. I want my airplane pilot and my neurosurgeon to have demonstrably and quantifiably passed screening qualification exams that prove they have mastered a basic amount of material. Of course there are going to be other, more practical standards that also need to be passed. It is not an either/or; it is a both/and. I–as a physician who has taken hundreds of tests–understand how limited tests are but even though they are not sufficient, and even though they are not perfect, they are necessary and they do serve an essential purpose. And even where some material is tangential to the real world, tests nevertheless screen for those who can master material and those who cannot. A judge’s responsibility is to make sense of the law. The law at hand is the “Equal Opportunity” law. There was no unequal opportunity here. There was no unfair advantage, and not a whit of evidence was presented to demonstrate any unfair advantage. That the existing law wants to define an unfair advantage by using disparate outcome for those given the same opportunity is so far removed from anyone’s notion of fairness I suspect it will not stand. I have given you an example of how Sotomayor’s interpretation applied to the PGA makes Q-school illegal because it has a disparate impact on women, and I await your comments on that example. If you cannot defend your interpretation for golfers, you cannot defend that interpretation of the law for firefighters. I suspect the SCOTUS will agree, but we’ll see. I might add that I am in favor of diversity as a goal toward a just society and I think there are strong advantages to having a racially diverse world at all levels. I am in favor of a quota system which specifically sets aside race-based quotas for various leadership positions, including the New Haven Connecticut firefighter lieutenants and captains. I am not in favor of pretending that which is not true is true. ---
**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:** [June 2, 2009, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/80 "2009-06-02T15:45:23Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Harvard and Princeton can fill their incoming classes with valedictorians if they wanted. They don’t because they are not only trying to admit the “best students” academically, they are trying to create the type of environment they want at their school. So long as the kids can theoretically do the work, it really doesn’t matter if their grade point average is slightly lower than another kid’s. Higher academia is trying, that’s for sure. To take an example from my home world (medicine), the score differentials for the Medical College Admission Tests (grades are so subjective, and cross so many different subject courses it’s difficult to quantify them from one student to the next) are not “slightly lower” for blacks; the differences are enormous. A black applicant can expect to be accepted with a score that would get a white application permanently filed in the circular bin. On average in 2005, black applicants to medical school–remember these students all had, on average, the same four-year opportunity to learn the underlying material–had a Verbal Reasoning MCAT score of 7 and Physical Sciences score of 6.9 (v. 9.4 and 9.3 for whites). Matriculant scores are about 8.2 v. 10.2. Since so much of medicine requires a cognitive ability to read and retain, there is a tremendous competition on the part of medical prep schools and medical schools to drive under-represented minorities to success. This is not because of “slightly lower” GPAs. It is because of huge gaps in average ability to perform on par with other groups when any effort to quantify a grasp of material is made. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268.md?page=5)