I understand the theory behind it.  I just don't see how a written
test such as this can be racially biased.  Either you know how to put
out fires or you don't.

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Judah McAuley<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The theory, as written into law, goes like this:
>
> If all the people passing your test are white and all the people
> failing your test are not white, chances are that the test is not
> really fair.
>
> It is difficult to go into all the possible criteria for all the
> possible tests out there, so they went for an outcome based litmus
> instead. If the test is producing a proportionate number of minority
> folks who are passing, then the test is reasonable. If the testing
> situation is such that all the non-white folks are failing, something
> may be fucked up. Interestingly enough, the law doesn't *require* that
> you throw out the test, you can argue for it on other grounds. New
> Haven, however, decided to chuck the test because non-white folks were
> failing it disproportionately. So they were actually trying to be
> "good" even when they didn't have to. The firefighters who passed the
> test, however, were unhappy that they would have to take a new test.
>
> So, the question became: should the test be judged on the basis of the
> perception of fairness in the test or based on the actual outcome of
> the test? It wasn't a question of whether racial diversity was a
> proper goal or not. It was a question of how best to judge fairness in
> a reasonably uniform manner. An interesting question indeed.
>
> Judah
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Jerry Barnes<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I find it interesting that the test was supposed to be devoid of potential
>> racial problems.
>> From the WSJ:
>>
>> "The city set aside the results, although the test had been designed by an
>> experienced Illinois company, Industrial/Organizational Solutions, which
>> routinely scrubbed its assessments for any possible racial bias to protect
>> the agencies from potential civil rights complaints."
>>
>> It looks like New Haven went out of their way to avoid the problem that they
>> found themselves in.  The irony.
>>
>>
>>
>
> 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know 
on the House of Fusion mailing lists
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:299232
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5

Reply via email to