07-13-2011, 03:51 PM
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.
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.
M.
Mom of 11
Graduated 6, still home educating 5
Credits from CC classes:
eng 1113 freshman comp 1
eng comp 2
pos 1113 american fed gov't (political sci.)
spa 1103 spanish 1
bio 2123 human ecology
his 1493 american history civil war era - present
phi 1113 intro to philosophy
soc 1113 intro to sociology
total credits 24 hours
gpa 3.12
Mom of 11
Graduated 6, still home educating 5
Credits from CC classes:
eng 1113 freshman comp 1
eng comp 2
pos 1113 american fed gov't (political sci.)
spa 1103 spanish 1
bio 2123 human ecology
his 1493 american history civil war era - present
phi 1113 intro to philosophy
soc 1113 intro to sociology
total credits 24 hours
gpa 3.12
![[-]](https://www.degreeforum.net/mybb/images/collapse.png)