I get it, why don’t you?
Categories: Justice/Law Enforcement, Politics and Elections
Written By: Shawn Williams
BY KRISTIN of Because I Said So
We all remember our first, probably most memorable first is our…well this is a family blog so you get the point.
Some important first that I remember are:
Shirley Chisholm the first black female U.S. representative congresswoman.
Thurgood Marshall first black male U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Dr. Charles Drew the inventor of the blood bank (and a huge part of my chosen profession)
Mae Jemison the first black female astronaut.
Madame C.J. Walker first black female millionaire
Ursula Burns first black woman to become chief executive of Fortune 500 company.
Barack H. Obama first black president.
There are more notable firsts that I can recall but for me these are a few in which I feel tremendous pride. What many people fail to realize with Ms. Sotomayor’s nomination is the exact same thing they failed to realize during Obama’s nomination for the Presidency of the United States, Pride.
Sure we all have pride in accomplishments from our fellow man but there is something undeniably special when it is someone who either looks like you or comes from a similar background. For those that believe minorities are indifferent to issues or a person’s record and that only their ethnicity or race matters I laugh at you and I reject your bigoted views.
Nominations like Sotomayor’s and elections like Obama’s will cease to be racially significant when they are no longer the first of their kind. However, for now Sotomayor’s nomination is another proud moment for me as a woman of color.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:46 am
“For those that believe minorities are indifferent to issues or a person’s record and that only their ethnicity or race matters I laugh at you and I reject your bigoted views.”
Kristin - I haven’t heard one single detractor who has been concerned with her race. There are legitimate questions about the importance that she places on race, but I haven’t heard anyone say that her race is an issue.
Have you read about the New Haven firefighters? I am interested in your thoughts on that case. Many whites are understandably concerned about this ruling, but I would be outraged by this ruling if I were black. I would like a black perspective there.
Even though I did not vote for Obama and may have concerns over Sotomayor, I completely agree that their achievements are to be celebrated.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Fred Barnes ” I think you can make the case that she’s one of those who has benefited from affirmative action over the years tremendously.”
^^^ This is but one example simply google Sotomayor poster child for affirmative action and you will find plenty of forums and commenter’s that echo the above statement.
This is my opinion regarding the New Haven firefighter’s case:
1. There were Black and Hispanics that actually passed the exam though none passed with a high enough score to guarantee a promotion. My problem with this is that Exams such as these are rigorous enough that achieving a passing score is good enough to me.
2. The fire department was said to guarantee one promotions to the three highest scoring individuals. This in itself is wrong because no one criteria should be a predetermining factor for a promotion. The fire department needs to redraft its wording for promotions
3. I happen to agree with Ricci in that he did well and he feels he should be rewarded for the hard work and effort he put into studying for the exam. However points 1&2 are also just as important for a fair and diverse work environment which is what Title VII aspires too.
Out of 16 minorities that took the exam for captain 6 passed for the lieutenant exam 9 out of 34 minorities passed. Would the black firefighters union sued had no black firefighter been promoted to captain probably and I would agree with their suit because of points 1&2 (strongly for point 2). Ricci feels deserving of a promotion and by all accounts scoring well on a test specifically designed to test your cognitive ability is important and should be rewarded. However, if Ricci was to score exceedingly well on the exam but have a disciplinary problem (which I am not saying he does) then he should not be guaranteed a job. That is why promotion wording within the department was wrong and the test had to be negated. Bill thank you for asking my opinion about this one.
I do not buy into the argument that standardized test are “culturally biased” or that minorities learn in a way that is not conducive to the use of standardized test. However, with that said I have always scored well on standardized test.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:24 am
Kristin - Thanks for your thoughtful response.
I completely agree that standards or criteria have weaknesses, but that is only relevant in this case if there is evidence the inherent weaknesses in the standards affected one race more than others. Here, I don’t believe there is evidence of that. The standards were clear. They were well communicated. The exam was reviewed by an outside source to verify “race neutrality” (whatever that means).
Just because one group scored lower relative to others, that does not lead to a clear conclusion that the standards were the cause, especially when you consider that one of the men who earned the promotion had a learning disability.
The primary reason given for throwing out the tests (both verbal and written) was that the city did not want to leave itself open to lawsuits, and it has been upheld by the courts as a legally sound policy.
I’ve read your blog. I know you are proud of your academic achievements, as you should be. I wonder how you might have reacted if your professors, upon seeing you in their class, would have said “Well, Kristin’s here, I better make my tests a little easier. Don’t want to get sued, you know.” How is that any different than what is happening here? How is this not racism against blacks?
In this country, we’ve essentially traded old discrimination policies for new ones. Certainly there are benefits to the black community and other minorities as well, but at what expense? Racism, bigotry, prejudice will only increase.
Back to Sotomayor… thanks for the Barnes quote and google reference. I had not seen that. I will check it out.
June 11th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Having read the entire 47 page decision by Judge Areterton (above link) her decision and the subsequent ruling by Sotomayor and colleagues appears to be consistent with previous precedents. The New Haven 20 did not prove they were racially discriminated against. Having read the actual decision now and not just snippets from the internet I have to make some modifications to my original comment.
1) I still believe a passing score on any standardize test should be “good enough” for anyone because of the rigor used to design the test.
2) I was mistaken that the promotion was guaranteed based on top performance that is not true
3) I do not after reading the background of the test and the design used agree with the defendants (mayor and city) preemptive move (throwing out the test) to avoid lawsuits
4) The written denials by Judge Areterton appear to abide by the law and directly address the arguments brought by the plaintiffs.
5) I believe Judge Areterton made the appropriate ruling based on the law. I however no longer agree with it on a personal level after reading the factual background presented in the case.
The following is additional information on the factual background of the case and some quotes from Aretertons decision.
Factual Background
Chad Legal (project manager of test development) appeared to develop a test that was racially neutral. After reading the manner in which the test was developed, I agree. It appears that all of the test questions (which have not been released) were covered in the various study materials listed on the Captain and Lieutenant syllabi. Two outside reviewers were used to verify the validity of the test from different fire departments outside of the county to minimize the threat of internal cheating.
Donald Day a representative of the Northeast Region of the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters argued that “‘there was something inherently wrong with the test’ because minorities did not score as highly”
There could be nothing more saddening than Day’s opinion. There are numerous other reasons to consider why minorities did not score as well and not necessarily the assumption that there is a disparate effect attributed to the test. I have previously stated that I do not believe that minorities perform poorly on standardized test because they are incapable of learning the material.
Ricci the chief plaintiff in this case is dyslexic he bought ALL study materials listed on the syllabus and paid to have someone voice record the material to circumvent his learning disability. I commend Ricci’s ingenuity in developing an effective teaching tool for himself and scoring well despite his disability.
In Judge Areterton’s ruling there were complaints that some of the study materials were difficult to obtain. The study materials listed as difficult to obtain were listed as such because they were not in the “fire houses”. This is not an adequate excuse if you are given a syllabus with suggested and required reading material there are more resources at your disposal to finding the needed materials than using just what is provided at the “fire houses”.
Areterton’s ruling
“The intent to remedy the disparate impact of the prior exams is not equivalent to intent to discriminate against non-minority applicants”.
“Defendants’ motivation to avoid making promotions based on a test with a racially disparate impact, even in a political context, does not, as a matter of law, constitute discriminatory intent, and therefore such evidence is insufficient for plaintiffs to prevail on their Title VII claim.
Judge Arterton rules that you cannot claim a test was “facially neutral” to all parties then argue that the results were used in a “discriminatory manner”. In addition Judge Areterton states that the plaintiffs did not prove that the defendants acted in a way which singled their group (white) for discriminatory action. Judge Areterton states the defendants acted on the following concern that the test had a “statistically adverse impact on African American and Hispanic examinees”.
Claim for Equal protection denied on the bases that the plaintiffs alleged the tests were not certified because they were white. Judge Areterton agreed with the defendant in their argument that not certifying the test results exhibited “no discriminatory intent against whites”. Claim denied.
June 11th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
http://www.adversity.net/newhavenfd/Judge%20Arterton%20re%20Summary%20Judgment%2009-28-06.pdf
^^^SHAWN, I forgot to add the link to the ruling could you please add that. Thanks.
June 15th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Thanks again Kristin.
I challenge you on your statements that you disagree with what the city did, but at the same time describe the rulings of the court judges as appropriate based on the law. That seems similar to saying I disagree with Jim Crow laws, but agree with the judges that they were appropriately upheld based on the law of the time. While it may be true, it sure rings hollow.
I also found these quotes you used from Judge Arterton interesting…
“The intent to remedy the disparate impact of the prior exams is not equivalent to intent to discriminate against non-minority applicants”.
“Defendants’ motivation to avoid making promotions based on a test with a racially disparate impact, even in a political context, does not, as a matter of law, constitute discriminatory intent, and therefore such evidence is insufficient for plaintiffs to prevail on their Title VII claim.”
So actions that result in discrimination are legal as long as the intent of those actions was not discriminatory? This just does not pass the common sense check. It is a dangerous precedent.
At the end of the day, we have a group of people who have been denied a promotion based on race, and we have a separate group who are being told the standards have to be loosened to give them a better chance. Both of these things have destructive outcomes.
Anyway, I’ve enjoyed the discussion. I will be watching with curiosity to see what the SCOTUS does with this case.