http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_chicago_firefighters_lawsuit
QuoteA federal appeals court ruled on Friday that the Chicago Fire Department must hire 111 African Americans who passed a firefighters entrance exam 16 years ago and pay millions of dollars to thousands more who took and passed the same test.
The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was the latest blow to the city, which has been on the losing end of court decisions regarding the 1995 test for years, including a 2005 ruling by a federal judge who said the test discriminated against black applicants and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that the candidates did not wait too long to sue the city.
An attorney for the black firefighter candidates said that the 111 jobs would be filled from the applicants who passed the 1995 test and their pensions would be adjusted as if they'd been firefighters since 1995. And, said Joshua Karsh, 6,000 others who also passed the test will divide "tens of millions of dollars" that would have been paid 111 firefighters from 1995 until today.
A spokeswoman for the city's law department called the decision a "partial victory" for the city because it reduced the number of African Americans the fire department must hire from 132 to 111. "Reducing the number of plaintiffs who are eligible reduces the damages," said Jenny Hoyle.
Hoyle said that the city was still calculating the damages as result of dividing the back pay of 111 firefighters among the 6,000 applicants, but that officials estimate the payout will be about $30 million.
The ruling stems from a test given in 1995 that was intended to measure an aptitude for firefighting. After the test, anyone who scored 64 or below was deemed not qualified, but officials told those who scored above that number that while they passed, they would randomly hire the top 1,800 who scored 89 or better.
Because only 11 percent of the African Americans scored 89 or better, the overwhelming number of applicants hired from that test were white.
Karsh said the test was discriminatory because there was no evidence that the applicant who scored 89 or better would be any better firefighter than another who scored a 64, and in fact in 2005 a federal judge said the test discriminated against black candidates. In her ruling the judge said the city knew the cutoff point was meaningless and would disproportionately exclude blacks from the pool of candidates most likely to be hired.
"If the city of Chicago had selected firefighters at random from all the people who passed the test it would have gotten a pool of equally capable firefighters and the pool would have been more integrated," said Karsh said. He said he did not know when the hiring might begin, but said that he expected it to start soon.
After the judge's decision, the city, which hadn't given another test since 1995 because of ongoing court challenges, gave another test in 2006. But that test was given on a pass/fail basis and that all passing applicants, and not just the top ones, were processed randomly for additional tests such as physical agility and background checks.
WTF kind of hiring process involves "randomly hiring" people?
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2011, 04:32:59 PM
WTF kind of hiring process involves "randomly hiring" people?
The kind that is associated with filling jobs that pay above market. Better for it to be random, rather than based on connections or bribery.
I think fusion bombs may be able to cleanse America.
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2011, 04:32:59 PM
WTF kind of hiring process involves "randomly hiring" people?
I got caught up in one of those random hiring once. For six days I was a colonel in the Malaysian army.
Quote
A spokeswoman for the city's law department called the decision a "partial victory" for the city because it reduced the number of African Americans the fire department must hire from 132 to 111. "Reducing the number of plaintiffs who are eligible reduces the damages," said Jenny Hoyle.
It is a victory to hire less black people? I could see that :D
Good luck finding 111 black people that want to run into buildings on fire. Easier to find 111 for a swim team.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2011, 06:46:15 PM
Good luck finding 111 black people that want to run into buildings on fire. Easier to find 111 for a swim team.
-_-
Man, I'd be really pissed about not getting a cut if I was a white guy who scored between 64-88 on that test. Or over 89 and not randomly selected.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 13, 2011, 08:38:10 PM
Man, I'd be really pissed about not getting a cut if I was a white guy who scored between 64-88 on that test. Or over 89 and not randomly selected.
Being white = qualitative intangibles
That was 16 years ago, how many of them are still in the physical condition to be a fire fighter. :huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 13, 2011, 08:38:10 PM
Man, I'd be really pissed about not getting a cut if I was a white guy who scored between 64-88 on that test
Good point. Or how about the guys who scored less than 64? How can the first 64 points of a test measure aptitude for a job and the next 14 are meaningless?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 13, 2011, 08:51:30 PM
That was 16 years ago, how many of them are still in the physical condition to be a fire fighter. :huh:
:lol:
You need to dial down the rationality if you want to really undestand their mind-set.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 13, 2011, 08:38:10 PM
Man, I'd be really pissed about not getting a cut if I was a white guy who scored between 64-88 on that test. Or over 89 and not randomly selected.
Yeah, this seems like a windfall specifically for black test takers. It's not like all of them would've been guaranteed a job, only a random selection of them would. Therefore, the ruling is not just a compensation, it's an over-compensation. It's actually over-compensation in two ways: too many black firefighters are getting paid, and they're getting paid like they've done a job, while they didn't. There are costs to actually going to work as a firefighter, and they didn't incur them. Terrible, terrible ruling.
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2011, 08:30:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2011, 06:46:15 PM
Good luck finding 111 black people that want to run into buildings on fire. Easier to find 111 for a swim team.
-_-
Well, I've seen a horse fly. And I've seen a dragon fly. And I've even seen a house fly.
But I been done seen about everything when I see a black dude run into a burning building.
Loady, Loady, Loady.
Quote from: DGuller on May 14, 2011, 12:39:28 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 13, 2011, 08:38:10 PM
Man, I'd be really pissed about not getting a cut if I was a white guy who scored between 64-88 on that test. Or over 89 and not randomly selected.
Yeah, this seems like a windfall specifically for black test takers. It's not like all of them would've been guaranteed a job, only a random selection of them would. Therefore, the ruling is not just a compensation, it's an over-compensation. It's actually over-compensation in two ways: too many black firefighters are getting paid, and they're getting paid like they've done a job, while they didn't. There are costs to actually going to work as a firefighter, and they didn't incur them. Terrible, terrible ruling.
It is because early on it was realized that if you want to virtually exclude black people from your workforce, just make the hiring criterea standardized tests as african americans tend to perform poorly. Thus there has been the requirement that you provide evidence that standardized tests reflect future job performance if you are going to use the tests as a critera to select applicants.
If you can't demonstrate this, and you rely on the tests, then you are open to charges of discrimination. Of course the lawsuit is going to award damages that haven't been earned--otherwise the city wouldn't be punished for breaking the rules.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 14, 2011, 02:44:32 PM
It is because early on it was realized that if you want to virtually exclude black people from your workforce, just make the hiring criterea standardized tests as african americans tend to perform poorly. Thus there has been the requirement that you provide evidence that standardized tests reflect future job performance if you are going to use the tests as a critera to select applicants.
:bleeding:
And these are the people you want integrated into your great brownish gene pool? :bleeding:
Quote from: alfred russel on May 14, 2011, 02:44:32 PM
Of course the lawsuit is going to award damages that haven't been earned--otherwise the city wouldn't be punished for breaking the rules.
It would be possible to punish the city with an award less than 16 years of full salary.
Quote from: Slargos on May 14, 2011, 02:47:34 PM
:bleeding:
And these are the people you want integrated into your great brownish gene pool? :bleeding:
For the first few hundred years after they came here it was illegal to teach them to read and their families were torn apart as they were bought and sold like cattle. Then for another century they were kept in substandard and poorly funded schools, while being denied entry into mainstream society. But clearly the reason they perform poorly on standardized tests is genetic. :wacko:
Quote from: alfred russel on May 14, 2011, 02:54:52 PM
For the first few hundred years after they came here it was illegal to teach them to read and their families were torn apart as they were bought and sold like cattle. Then for another century they were kept in substandard and poorly funded schools, while being denied entry into mainstream society. But clearly the reason they perform poorly on standardized tests is genetic. :wacko:
Women don't even have those excuses.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 14, 2011, 02:54:52 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 14, 2011, 02:47:34 PM
:bleeding:
And these are the people you want integrated into your great brownish gene pool? :bleeding:
For the first few hundred years after they came here it was illegal to teach them to read and their families were torn apart as they were bought and sold like cattle. Then for another century they were kept in substandard and poorly funded schools, while being denied entry into mainstream society. But clearly the reason they perform poorly on standardized tests is genetic. :wacko:
Those people are probably way too old to be firefighters in the 21st century.
Ageist :mad:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2011, 02:56:54 PM
Women don't even have those excuses.
Do they need them? I wasn't aware they performed poorly (as a group) on standardized tests?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 14, 2011, 03:03:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2011, 02:56:54 PM
Women don't even have those excuses.
Do they need them? I wasn't aware they performed poorly (as a group) on standardized tests?
lol
Quote from: alfred russel on May 14, 2011, 03:03:25 PM
Do they need them? I wasn't aware they performed poorly (as a group) on standardized tests?
That's my understanding.
At a firefighter aptitude test one would surely hope so.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 14, 2011, 02:44:32 PM
It is because early on it was realized that if you want to virtually exclude black people from your workforce, just make the hiring criterea standardized tests as african americans tend to perform poorly. Thus there has been the requirement that you provide evidence that standardized tests reflect future job performance if you are going to use the tests as a critera to select applicants.
I am always suspicious of rationales that can only be expressed in passive voice. They tend to have been made up, as this one seems to be. The courts accepted that the prospective firefighters needed to pass the test; no one who failed to pass is getting anything.
QuoteIf you can't demonstrate this, and you rely on the tests, then you are open to charges of discrimination. .
What the city didn't demonstrate was why they changed the hiring threshold from "pass" (64) to 89. Given that the effect of this was to disproportionately exclude "black" candidates, with no demonstrable improvement in the quality of the resulting hires, this decision (not the decision to use a test) was deemed illegal.
QuoteOf course the lawsuit is going to award damages that haven't been earned--otherwise the city wouldn't be punished for breaking the rules
These are not punitive damages, they are compensatory damages. White guys who scored better than a 64 should be compensated as well, otherwise the settlement is discriminatory against them because of their "color."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2011, 03:04:56 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 14, 2011, 03:03:25 PM
Do they need them? I wasn't aware they performed poorly (as a group) on standardized tests?
That's my understanding.
So a google search on the SAT came up with a USA Today article.
Average score men: 1523
Average score women: 1496
Not a big difference, and 53.5% of test takers are women, so presumably if you expanded the male base to equal the numbers the difference would narrow, if not disappear.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-08-25-SAT-scores_N.htm
1500 on the SATs just ain't what it used to be.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2011, 06:46:15 PM
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]
Quote from: dps on May 14, 2011, 03:39:55 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2011, 06:46:15 PM
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. :hmm:
New Orleans' finest in action
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eytom.com%2Fimages%2Fcops_looting.gif&hash=606c0d5e369683fb8ac251a2eda40bca1e2b83b8)
I don't understand why it's the FD's problem that some folks can't score higher on their test.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 14, 2011, 03:53:28 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2011, 04:24:04 PM
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.
:huh: Where do you get that from?
QuoteGiven 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. :)
:secret: It's America.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 14, 2011, 04:30:50 PM
:huh: Where do you get that from?
From the story.
QuoteHow 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.
:huh: They passed the test. They were hardly crippled.
QuoteObviously, 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."
Hey grumbler, do you think the CFD put that 89 and above requirement back in the 1995 test because they're racist?
There are no races, and so there can be no racism.
So uh....why aren't white people that scored between 65-88 eligible for this then? :yeahright:
Quote from: Alcibiades on May 14, 2011, 06:21:24 PM
So uh....why aren't white people that scored between 65-88 eligible for this then? :yeahright:
Hey, are you in London on the 21st/22nd ?
Quote from: Zoupa on May 14, 2011, 05:48:35 PM
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.
Quote from: Alcibiades on May 14, 2011, 06:21:24 PM
So uh....why aren't white people that scored between 65-88 eligible for this then? :yeahright:
I made that point at the top of this page. :contract:
Quote from: jamesww on May 14, 2011, 06:27:28 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on May 14, 2011, 06:21:24 PM
So uh....why aren't white people that scored between 65-88 eligible for this then? :yeahright:
Hey, are you in London on the 21st/22nd ?
Yes, the 20th and 21st, probably leaving the 22nd.
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2011, 06:30:22 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 14, 2011, 05:48:35 PM
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?
Quote from: Alcibiades on May 14, 2011, 08:22:38 PM
Quote from: jamesww on May 14, 2011, 06:27:28 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on May 14, 2011, 06:21:24 PM
So uh....why aren't white people that scored between 65-88 eligible for this then? :yeahright:
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. :bowler:
Quote from: Zoupa on May 15, 2011, 12:39:09 PM
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?
I'm sorry. Did I use words you didn't understand, so you feel you have to write
my posts as well as yours?
Tell me what words I used that you didn't comprehend, and we can go from there. You don't need to write any more posts for me; we will just use what is already here.
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2011, 03:23:21 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 15, 2011, 12:39:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2011, 06:30:22 PM
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?
I'm sorry. Did I use words you didn't understand, so you feel you have to write my posts as well as yours?
Tell me what words I used that you didn't comprehend, and we can go from there. You don't need to write any more posts for me; we will just use what is already here.
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2011, 06:31:52 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on May 14, 2011, 06:21:24 PM
So uh....why aren't white people that scored between 65-88 eligible for this then? :yeahright:
I made that point at the top of this page. :contract:
Think there will be a follow-up lawsuit by the other racial/ethnic backgrounds involved in the 64-88 percentile bracket? I find it odd that there was no evidence that someone who scored a 64% on the exam had as clear of a grasp of the fundamentals and prospered just as well as a firefighter as someone that got an 89% or better. I might try to read up some more on that aspect of things. I'm definitely intrigued.
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2011, 04:40:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2011, 04:32:59 PM
WTF kind of hiring process involves "randomly hiring" people?
The kind that is associated with filling jobs that pay above market. Better for it to be random, rather than based on connections or bribery.
Meh. In Illinois its not what you know, its who you know. My gut tells me that this whole gig has more to do with References than Racism, but since there's fuck-all in terms of information describing the hiring criteria actually used beyond test scores I'm just talking out of my ass -- just like everybody else...
:ccr
It's not fuck-all, it is claimed that people are picked randomly if their score was above the threshold.