racism

[MomOfMany]

Here! Here! And Amen!

I have to disagree that standardized tests are made to be easy for people like me and hard for other people.
I think that is a myth that people concoct to make themselves feel better about their socieoeconomic group when they do poorly on a test.

There was a case presided on by Obama's recent supreme court appointment in which reverse racism occurred at the judicial level. White firemen who scored well on a promotion test were denied the promotion because black firefighters didn't score well.

In 2003, the New Haven Fire Department decided to base promotions to the positions of captain and lieutenant primarily on a written exam. But the next year the city threw out the test results when all but one of the eligible candidates for promotion proved to be white. New Haven firefighter Frank Ricci, a high scorer on the test who is white, sued for reverse discrimination. His case is now before the Supreme Court in Ricci v. DeStefano. The case is getting extra play because 2nd Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's choice to take Justice David Souter's place on the Supreme Court, joined a brief opinion rejecting Ricci's appeal and then voted to deny rehearing of his case. Many commentators have championed Ricci's cause and disparaged Sotomayor for voting against him.

Why Sotomayor rejected the New Haven firefighters' claim. - By Richard Thompson Ford - Slate Magazine


“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor


NYT ‘Explains’ Sotomayor’s Racist Views » Sweetness & Light

When people say that my life was easier because I am a white male they cheapen the struggles that I have had in life.

[MomOfMany]

Ryder actually brings up several issues that our courts refuse to deal with.

The heart attack treatment rate of AA is a great example of unacceptable prejudice to start discussion from. The materials had a direct, unnecessary, and avoidable negative for a demographic. Problem could be fixed not only without compromising the job performance, but actually improving it. Can't get more awesome that that! Whether the prejudice was purposeful racism or simple ignorance of a demographic doesn't really matter. It could and should be fixed without affecting the job negatively. IOW, it didn't dumb anyone down or prevent doing the job properly or with best success.

So the fire dept in question needs to prove that for some reason black people can't do as well on the test through no fault of their own AND the test cannot be changed without affecting it's usefulness AND that those same black people are just as capable for the job as those who can score better on the test AND demonstrate how they are judging that capability on something other than skin color.

If they are going to use a test to determine employment and yet purposely say a white doesn't deserve the job even if he scores higher in most aspects than someone else for no reason other than skin color - that is racism.

It begs the questions of why are they purposely giving a test they know an entire demographic (and maybe not even a minority demographic) can't score successfully.

It begs the question of whether the test is truly pertinent to the job if NOT doing well on it is still good enough to succeed at said job.

And of course, it begs a genuine solution as well. The answer to any demographic not having basic common skills is NOT to artificially promote them. That is insulting to their ability as it is basically saying that black or whatever really can't do it, so we shouldn't expect them to. The only genuine solution is to provide a genuine education to the demographic in question. No easy feat, but better than giving up by just lowering standards.

And btw. I don't think this is a race issue. It is an income issue. But oh wow. Ya'll think THIS is taboo discussion? Any mention of poverty issues gets decried as class warfare. Which is total crap. A white person in the ghetto does just as bad, sometimes worse, than AA or Latino. Just as Beargins noted, his associations are what made the difference. Poverty limits. It just does. All the poor kids go to the same crappy school. I'd bet my right pinky toe (bc I'm not a betting woman - too broke! LOL) that income or school district is a MUCH stronger and unilateral testing indicator than skin color the majority of the time.

[ShotoJuku]

@ Shotojuku - what a beautiful clip! I love it.. not to mention that I am secretly a Star Trek geek so it was especially nice seeing the topic covered in that setting.

"We've each learned to be delighted with what we are." JTK

[SIZE="3"]YouTube - ‪Star Trek Philosphy of Nom.‬‏[/SIZE]

[ryoder]

What an excellent thread and nobody is resorting to name calling!
Ok I grew up in poverty with no father around and I did fine. It depends on the situation.

There is research that shows that a poor black male growing up with a father in the home is more likely to graduate college than an upper-middle class white male growing up with a single mother.

Dads do matter. For me it didn't matter but I had other father figures in my life very close by, like my grandpa who taught 9th grade science. He is awesome and kept me and my brother on the straight and narrow and taught us what it was to be a man.

I think you'll find that a functional family unit with a male and female present nurturing the children is the best way to a positive outcome.

Fathers Matter: Dads Are Not Optional to Child Well-BeingThe Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

From that link:
n terms of economic well-being, children who grow up in homes where both parents are present are 82 percent less likely to live in poverty. Intact families tend to fare better in a wide range of economic measures; on average they have a higher net worth, higher income, more household assets, and greater savings.

[burbuja0512]

What an excellent thread and nobody is resorting to name calling!

That's what I love about this forum. A controversial topic can be addressed rationally and thoughtfully with respect for everyone's opinions. (AND Star Trek!!)

[STG]

That's what I love about this forum. A controversial topic can be addressed rationally and thoughtfully with respect for everyone's opinions.

That's why I started it... I'm enjoying reading everyone's posts and seeing things in their point of view so I can try to understand the dean.
Although, I don't think she meant something else...

[Lyanne]

Joanna, I strongly disagree with the opinion that you are just as much a racist for not saying anything to that professor.
As for Sotomayor...I have just as much of a problem with minorities who think it's alright to be racist. I am married to a Filipino and I see this all the time. For example, I was once called by a Filipino woman who wanted to set up a party for my husband. He had been promoted and his Filipino friends wanted to celebrate his accomplishment. When I mentioned that I had a few (white) friends of my husband I'd like to invite, I was told that this party was limited to Filipinos only, but "you are okay because he is married to you". I was incredibly insulted but only said that these (white) people were very close to my husband and would be offended not to be invited. When I told my husband about the comment, he called the party planner and told them he would rather not have a party if all were not welcome to attend. The party never happened. We made lots of jokes that because our children were half, they could go, but could only stay for half the time.

[brothert69]

Ryder actually brings up several issues that our courts refuse to deal with.

The heart attack treatment rate of AA is a great example of unacceptable prejudice to start discussion from. The materials had a direct, unnecessary, and avoidable negative for a demographic. Problem could be fixed not only without compromising the job performance, but actually improving it. Can't get more awesome that that! Whether the prejudice was purposeful racism or simple ignorance of a demographic doesn't really matter. It could and should be fixed without affecting the job negatively. IOW, it didn't dumb anyone down or prevent doing the job properly or with best success.

So the fire dept in question needs to prove that for some reason black people can't do as well on the test through no fault of their own AND the test cannot be changed without affecting it's usefulness AND that those same black people are just as capable for the job as those who can score better on the test AND demonstrate how they are judging that capability on something other than skin color.

If they are going to use a test to determine employment and yet purposely say a white doesn't deserve the job even if he scores higher in most aspects than someone else for no reason other than skin color - that is racism.

It begs the questions of why are they purposely giving a test they know an entire demographic (and maybe not even a minority demographic) can't score successfully.

It begs the question of whether the test is truly pertinent to the job if NOT doing well on it is still good enough to succeed at said job.

And of course, it begs a genuine solution as well. The answer to any demographic not having basic common skills is NOT to artificially promote them. That is insulting to their ability as it is basically saying that black or whatever really can't do it, so we shouldn't expect them to. The only genuine solution is to provide a genuine education to the demographic in question. No easy feat, but better than giving up by just lowering standards.

And btw. I don't think this is a race issue. It is an income issue. But oh wow. Ya'll think THIS is taboo discussion? Any mention of poverty issues gets decried as class warfare. Which is total crap. A white person in the ghetto does just as bad, sometimes worse, than AA or Latino. Just as Beargins noted, his associations are what made the difference. Poverty limits. It just does. All the poor kids go to the same crappy school. I'd bet my right pinky toe (bc I'm not a betting woman - too broke! LOL) that income or school district is a MUCH stronger and unilateral testing indicator than skin color the majority of the time.

I believe that the most pertinent factor with respect to this case is being over looked by many including the courts and the litigants.

The case comes from Connecticut. What is the ratio of whites to blacks in that state and in that town? What is the ratio of whites to blacks in the department?

Additionally this is not a test to see if one can be a firefighter it is a test to see if one can be a lieutenant or captain. Generally these positions are filled by firefighters that have years of experience, training and knowledge. What is the ratio of whites to blacks in the department with the requisite experience to be eligible for promotion to either position? Only with the answers to those questions could it truly be determined if there is a racial bias in the exam.

If 100 firefighters take the exam and 90 are white and 10 are black and the score distribution shows roughly a 9 to 1 ratio of white to black at all scoring levels then the exam probably lacks racial bias. Numerical superiority is not necessarily indicative of bias.

[MomOfMany]

Brother - you are correct about that too! In some areas, this aspect is so ignored that companies feel they have to hire outside of the local community or even outside of the industry to get a certain spread of demographic. Which is tremendously frustrating for several reasons. The locals get frustrated to be looking for jobs and see someone shipped in for it. The current employees are frustrated bc they see others promoted from outside the company. Or even industry! (Think of someone who has to suffer a new boss that has never worked in the industry before. Employees tend to resent the heck out of it, tho they keep their mouth shut to keep their job. And it doesn't make business sense, but companies are more scared of being called prejudiced.)

[MomOfMany]

That's why I started it... I'm enjoying reading everyone's posts and seeing things in their point of view so I can try to understand the dean.
Although, I don't think she meant something else...

And he might not have. I don't think anyone is arguing that racism doesn't exist. Just that we shouldn't presume all stated negatives are racism based.

I don't think you are racist for not saying anything.

But the only way to learn much of anything is to ask questions. If you had asked what he meant by that, in a curious but not combative manner, you might have learning something new. You certainly would have at least learned clarity about his intent. But since no questions or discussion happened - there's nothing learned.