Chicago must hire 111 black firefighters

[Slargos]

Good luck finding 111 black people that want to run into buildings on fire.  Easier to find 111 for a swim team.

[Slargos mode]Let them steal TVs out of the buildings, or rape white women while they're in there, and they'll set sprint records getting inside.[/Slargos mode]

Laugh it up, jerk-wad, but it certainly seems to be the M O for american negroes during whatever natural disaster occurs. 

New Orleans' finest in action

[Zoupa]

I don't understand why it's the FD's problem that some folks can't score higher on their test.

[grumbler]

I don't understand why it's the FD's problem that some folks can't score higher on their test.

The issue was that the city used the test to determine who was qualified.  People who passed the test were not considered qualified, though; there was a second hurdle established after the fact to limit hirees to scores above an arbitrary threshold that perhaps-not-so-coincidentally excluded 89% of the "black" test-passers.  Given that the outcome was discriminatory, the city had to justify that outcome on non-racial grounds, and was unable to do so.

Now, if the city had either (1) chosen randomly from those who passed the test, or (2) been able to show that scores  higher than 88 on previous tests had indicated a superior ability to fight fire, they would have been home.  They could meet neither challenge, however.

[Zoupa]

The issue was that the city used the test to determine who was qualified.  People who passed the test were not considered qualified, though; there was a second hurdle established after the fact to limit hirees to scores above an arbitrary threshold that perhaps-not-so-coincidentally excluded 89% of the "black" test-passers. 

Where do you get that from?

Given that the outcome was discriminatory, the city had to justify that outcome on non-racial grounds, and was unable to do so.

How was the outcome discriminatory? If the education system in the city of Chicago has crippled a particular group of people, it's not the FD's job to fix it.

Obviously, they had a limited number of job openings, and a big number of people applying. They used a weird ass system to pick out the best people. I'm not sure what this has to do with skin pigmentation. 

[The Brain]

It's America.

[grumbler]

Where do you get that from?

From the story.

How was the outcome discriminatory? If the education system in the city of Chicago has crippled a particular group of people, it's not the FD's job to fix it.

  They passed the test.  They were hardly crippled.

Obviously, they had a limited number of job openings, and a big number of people applying. They used a weird ass system to pick out the best people. I'm not sure what this has to do with skin pigmentation. 

They used a weird-ass system that disproportionately disadvantaged a particular set of people who passed the test.   You are not allowed to do that unless there is a demonstrable job requirement for doing so (like, say, weight-lifting requirements disadvantage women).  What it has to do with skin pigmentation is that apparent racial discrimination better have a non-racist explanation, or it is illegal if committed by covered entities, like governments.  The Chicago FD had no such non-racist justification for changing the minimum from 64 to 89.  CFD made no claim that they picked "the best people."

[Zoupa]

Hey grumbler, do you think the CFD put that 89 and above requirement back in the 1995 test because they're racist?

[Slargos]

There are no races, and so there can be no racism.

[Alcibiades]

So uh....why aren't white people that scored between 65-88 eligible for this then? 

[jamesww]

So uh....why aren't white people that scored between 65-88 eligible for this then? 

Hey, are you in London on the 21st/22nd ?

[grumbler]

Hey grumbler, do you think the CFD put that 89 and above requirement back in the 1995 test because they're racist?

That's what the court says, and I have no reason to doubt the judge - she heard all the testimony and knows the law.

[grumbler]

So uh....why aren't white people that scored between 65-88 eligible for this then? 

I made that point at the top of this page.

[Alcibiades]

So uh....why aren't white people that scored between 65-88 eligible for this then? 

Hey, are you in London on the 21st/22nd ?

Yes, the 20th and 21st, probably leaving the 22nd.

[Zoupa]

Hey grumbler, do you think the CFD put that 89 and above requirement back in the 1995 test because they're racist?

That's what the court says, and I have no reason to doubt the judge - she heard all the testimony and knows the law.

I'm sorry. That was a "yes, I think the CFD put that 89 and above requirement back in the 1995 test because they're racist", right?

[jamesww]

So uh....why aren't white people that scored between 65-88 eligible for this then? 

Hey, are you in London on the 21st/22nd ?

Yes, the 20th and 21st, probably leaving the 22nd.

I'm at Speakers Corner, Hyde Park from about 11.30am onwards, if anyone fancies a swift half.