High Court Rules for White Firefighters »
Posted By TimALoftis 7 months, 2 weeks ago in Political News
WASHINGTON (June 29) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.
New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.
Read Full Story at news.aol.com »
436 Views Share Story 38 Comments Report
Who Also Submitted: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 38 (view all)
-
67%
Endoscopy7 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
-
-
100%
injest7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
fsev41
Reply
"Mostly agree but have one question. Would you consider being educated in inferior schools to be a handicap?"
Questions, in this case,
Was any evidence of “inferior schools” presented?
If Yes, what was it?
If No, then why would it be considered in this case?
Wasn’t “inferior schools” the “base claim” for getting a foot in the door?
And once “in”, wasn’t it expected that real OJT, job specific knowledge or KSA’s (Knowledge Skills and Abilities) would be attained over time just like everybody else?
In other words its hard to claim “inferior schools” when ALL applicants ATTENDED the SAME SCHOOLS and had the SAME training.
So based on the facts of this claim does “inferior schools” pass the laugh test?-
SkepticComment removed: Spam
-
67%
TheGrunt7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not really. It would depend on how the test was written, and whether or not it had undergone validation. As I understand it, New Haven's error was in throwing out the test before validation.
Reply
So based on the facts, "inferior schools" can play a role, but since the City of New Haven didn't perform its due diligence, it's pretty much a moot point.
It's interesting that I've seen tests mysteriously dismissed when minorities do well, and tests held valid when there's massive failure (an indication of a poorly written test). As for OJT, KSA, there are ways, operationally-speaking, to skew a test. I'm not saying New Haven did this, but you can deny training opportunities, enhance professional exposure, or stick people in slow houses. That said, those are all things for which that can compensate with personal initiative, but to believe the entire process is color-blind is to believe in fairy tales...there are ways to skew the results to the way you want them, and the American Fire Service has a tradition of doing so, though they've done much to keep the courts out of the stations.
-
-
67%
injest7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dionys
Reply
"You have other people with much better records with SCOTUS? Should one's record with SCOTUS be the one and only deciding factor?
Idiot."
So your saying Sotomayor is Obama’s Harriet Miers?
I’m not sure that’s a “winning” argument. -
100%
TheGrunt7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To clarify my earlier comment re: New Haven and validation. New Haven never took the steps to determine if the test was normed for cultural differences, meaning (simplified) a test that would still measure job ability, but has removed language, syntax, references that wouldn't be common to all test-takers.
Reply -
beavis617bComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
Jeboba7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All of the idiot conservative republicans scream and yell they don't want activist judges then 5 of their golden boys on the court MAKE NEW LAW! What the supremes overruled was based on THEIR OWN legal precedents set in the past.
Reply
So NOW what do you idiot righties use as an excuse? Hmmm? -
Neutral
Jeboba7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All of the usual apologists for the failed neocons are out on this one. Idiots. If they would study the case, they would know that THEIR conservative judges violated their own precedents. In other words, "GASP" MADE NEW LAW!.. they were ACTIVIST judges!
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.