I understand your point. But the question is how the law is written. Which is a better approach: do we try and analyze the content of the each test and try to somehow neutrally determine whether it is biased or do we look at the outcome of the test and judge based off of its implementation?
I don't know the specifics of the New Haven test. But I can see a situation where I would look at a test and not think anything of it because I'm a white dude who is really good at standardized testing, whereas it might be rather incomprehensible to someone not of that background in spite of the fact that we aren't trying to test how good we are at standardized tests. Why were minorities passing this test at a much lower rate given roughly equivalent experience? I got no clue. But is it unreasonable to say that the test if flawed if two groups which should perform roughly the same are not, even if you don't know the fundamental cause of the discrepancy? It wasn't like they said that the white dudes were going to take a different, harder test. They just said that test must not be a good one if people who ought to be passing are not when the only obvious reason is racial background. Judah On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Scott Stroz<[email protected]> wrote: > > 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:299234 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
