Reverse Discrimination Case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Still the same case that two lower courts have dismissed.

What you are still failing to recognize is that just because the test was designed to test for specific items doesn't mean it actually accomplished that. That is one of the issues of validity. No one disputes that the test was supposed to test for certain things. What is being disputed is that the test actually did test for those things. That is the whole idea behind validity of an assessment instrument. Just because a test appears to have face validity does not mean that it has actual validity in the areas of content validity, criterion related validity, predictive validity, construct validity, factor analysis validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, or reliability.
 
What's the standard you're using to define a disparate impact? I mean, if 77 people took the test, 19 were black, and the top 15 got promoted, what's the range of the number of blacks who need to be in the top 15 for it to not be disparate impact?
 
darkdog said:
What's the standard you're using to define a disparate impact? I mean, if 77 people took the test, 19 were black, and the top 15 got promoted, what's the range of the number of blacks who need to be in the top 15 for it to not be disparate impact?
Click to expand...

I think Daredevel already did the math on that one and posted the numbers. And we have to look not just at those numbers, but the variance in the scores, as well.
 
darkdog said:
What's the standard you're using to define a disparate impact? I mean, if 77 people took the test, 19 were black, and the top 15 got promoted, what's the range of the number of blacks who need to be in the top 15 for it to not be disparate impact?
Click to expand...

jillio said:
I think Daredevel already did the math on that one and posted the numbers. And we have to look not just at those numbers, but the variance in the scores, as well.
Click to expand...

Well clearly you're missing the point, darkdog, there is no range. Nothing factors into the distribution of people on the exam except race. :roll: ;)

Also, jillio, as I've said many many times already, we have absolutely no information about the distribution or variance in the scores except for one thing: out of 15 promotions, none of them would have gone to black firefighters. There is no other information about the average score on the test, what their standards are for promotion, the overall distribution of scores across the 77 people who took it, or any other information about them as individuals which might affect their score. We know one thing, because it's the only thing the city looked at when it got the results: their race. I'm surprised that with all the "experience" you keep stomping your feet about with testing instruments and their validity, that you don't seem concerned about the fact that no other factors have been considered but race. Or maybe you're just assuming that they did, since you assume just about every other thing that you say...
 
lsfoster said:
Well clearly you're missing the point, darkdog, there is no range. Nothing factors into the distribution of people on the exam except race. :roll: ;)

Also, jillio, as I've said many many times already, we have absolutely no information about the distribution or variance in the scores except for one thing: out of 15 promotions, none of them would have gone to black firefighters. There is no other information about the average score on the test, what their standards are for promotion, the overall distribution of scores across the 77 people who took it, or any other information about them as individuals which might affect their score. We know one thing, because it's the only thing the city looked at when it got the results: their race. I'm surprised that with all the "experience" you keep stomping your feet about with testing instruments and their validity, that you don't seem concerned about the fact that no other factors have been considered but race. Or maybe you're just assuming that they did, since you assume just about every other thing that you say...
Click to expand...

We know that the distribution of scores did not fall on a normal distribution curve.

And now you are just being silly. Your arguments have actually become humorous, especially since you seem to think they are convincing.:laugh2: You don't even realize the implications of what you have just said. But thanks for the laugh.
 
May I point out the obvious?
Race IS a factor. Gender IS a factor.
A real life example: Go to any engineering school and you will see a large disparity in gender (My college was over 70% men!) and in race too (There's a larger amount of indians and asians than normal).

Why? Is it because men are generally better than women in science? Or is it because engineering has a "manly" stigma attached to it? Are Asians/Indians better than white people in science? Or do they simply work harder because of cultural family values?

There's just too many social implications and other cultural effects that are probably beyond our comprehension associated with race before we naively say "Race is not a factor."

Saying that race is not a factor is different from race should NOT be a factor.
 
So with 77 test takers, 25% of which are black, and 15 slots for promotion, we should expect around 3 or 4 to get selected for the promotion. In your opinion, would we have a disparate impact problem if only 1 or 2 got selected? What about 5 or 6?
 
Daredevel7 said:
May I point out the obvious?
Race IS a factor. Gender IS a factor.
A real life example: Go to any engineering school and you will see a large disparity in gender (My college was over 70% men!) and in race too (There's a larger amount of indians and asians than normal).

Why? Is it because men are generally better than women in science? Or is it because engineering has a "manly" stigma attached to it? Are Asians/Indians better than white people in science? Or do they simply work harder because of cultural family values?

There's just too many social implications and other cultural effects that are probably beyond our comprehension associated with race before we naively say "Race is not a factor."

Saying that race is not a factor is different from race should NOT be a factor.
Click to expand...

Bingo!!
 
darkdog said:
So with 77 test takers, 25% of which are black, and 15 slots for promotion, we should expect around 3 or 4 to get selected for the promotion. In your opinion, would we have a disparate impact problem if only 1 or 2 got selected? What about 5 or 6?
Click to expand...

Depends on where the scores fall. But in this case the number elibigible for promotion was 0 based on the test scores. And not just blacks. Hispanics as well. One bi-racial Hispanic/Caucasion was eligble for promotion.
 
However, gender probably doesn't apply here because we know by common knowledge that females on the force should be disparagingly low compared with the men. Their values, whatever they are, are not going to be able to paint an accurate representation for standard deviation or discrimination in their end too. Using gender to back that up the statement is like saying.. There are gender differences between the NBA and WNBA.

If you want to get down into semantics.. once again to New Haven CT in general of their population distribution, looking at a site I frequent for statistics of cities ( New Haven, Connecticut (CT) Detailed Profile - relocation, real estate, travel, jobs, hospitals, schools, crime, move, moving, houses news, sex offenders )

Population in July 2007: 123,932. Population change since 2000: +0.1%
* Black (37.4%)
* White Non-Hispanic (35.6%)
* Hispanic (21.4%)
* Other race (10.9%)
* Two or more races (3.9%)
* Chinese (1.4%)
* American Indian (1.2%)
* Other Asian (0.8%)
* Asian Indian (0.7%)

Males: 59,331 (47.9%)
Females: 64,601 (52.1%)

This clearly shows a large jump from the 44% of whites being reported in the 2000 census.
Yeah this doesn't exactly pertain to the FD, but if you want to get technical the info is right there.
 
It's been awhile since I brushed up on socioeconomics but, isn't this a bit too low of a number to work with? The sample size is n<100 for both the test takers and the promoted.

We also do not know what is the "normal" distribution for promotions, only that this year it wasn't normal to them.

I can understand finding out the standard deviation of test scores of 77 people to find their scores and calculate what it should be, but to look at 77 persons of different races and how they ranked.. hmm?
You're also supposed to calculate a standard error for the mean to verify the validity of the standard deviation.

Another thing if I can add. We don't know who really "passed" the test. This is a crucial factor for determining validity.
We just know:
19 of 19 blacks who took the test did not get a promo.
17 of ?? whites who took the test did not get a promo.
?? of ?? hispanics who took the test did not get a promo.
?? of ?? asians / pacific islanders / native americans / other races
77 of 77 total test takers

14 whites who took the test qualified as passing.
1 hispanic who took the test qualified as passing.

What data isn't available and is probably only available to that FD/SJ, is out of the 62 other test takers, who passed and who didn't. The obviousness is that they chose people out of it, hence the comment "there is only room for 15." But you don't know if they chose 15 of the best test scorers, or if they randomly played lotto and picked whites and a hispanic, or how the dispersion of the scores were done and who was seen as promotable in their eyes.
 
Last edited:
jillio said:
We know that the distribution of scores did not fall on a normal distribution curve.

And now you are just being silly. Your arguments have actually become humorous, especially since you seem to think they are convincing.:laugh2: You don't even realize the implications of what you have just said. But thanks for the laugh.
Click to expand...

First of all, no we don't know that. Again, unless you have some hidden knowledge about the test results that you're just choosing not to share with the rest of us, we know absolutely nothing about the distribution of anything, or what they considered normal.

Also, let me point out that once again you have failed to actually respond to a post pointing out flaws in your statements with anything other than a cheap shot at the poster. I'm glad it amused you. Thanks for once again proving that you are unable to have an educated, adult discussion.
 
Daredevel7 said:
May I point out the obvious?
Race IS a factor. Gender IS a factor.
A real life example: Go to any engineering school and you will see a large disparity in gender (My college was over 70% men!) and in race too (There's a larger amount of indians and asians than normal).

Why? Is it because men are generally better than women in science? Or is it because engineering has a "manly" stigma attached to it? Are Asians/Indians better than white people in science? Or do they simply work harder because of cultural family values?

There's just too many social implications and other cultural effects that are probably beyond our comprehension associated with race before we naively say "Race is not a factor."

Saying that race is not a factor is different from race should NOT be a factor.
Click to expand...

may I point out that it's a violation of federal civil rights law - the Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 say employers may not discriminate against people because of their race.

beside - go to all-women school and you'll find many women in engineering or science majors. Boston University has more female students than male students. Does that warrant microscopic attention and lawsuit? :roll:
 
Daredevel7 said:
May I point out the obvious?
Race IS a factor. Gender IS a factor.
A real life example: Go to any engineering school and you will see a large disparity in gender (My college was over 70% men!) and in race too (There's a larger amount of indians and asians than normal).

Why? Is it because men are generally better than women in science? Or is it because engineering has a "manly" stigma attached to it? Are Asians/Indians better than white people in science? Or do they simply work harder because of cultural family values?

There's just too many social implications and other cultural effects that are probably beyond our comprehension associated with race before we naively say "Race is not a factor."

Saying that race is not a factor is different from race should NOT be a factor.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between comparing race in a group of men who most likely grew up in the same area, went to the same schools, and work in the same firehouse, and people on different continents. Also, saying that there is a disparity in the number of people in a certain field is not the same as saying that there are fewer women because women are worse at that field. (Basically exactly the issue in question here).

The bolded part is exactly my problem with this decision. There are too many factors to consider. My problem is not that race was a factor, but that it was the only factor.
 
It truly amazes me how people continue to misinterpret posts. It has gone beyond funny, and makes one wonder if it is a lack of understanding of what is said, or just plain, old fashioned, and deliberate obtuseness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top