Reverse Discrimination Case

[rockin'robin]

NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Inside a burning building, fire doesn't discriminate between Matthew Marcarelli and Gary Tinney. Inside the New Haven Fire Department, however, skin color has put them on opposite sides of a lawsuit that could transform hiring procedures nationwide.

This week, the Supreme Court will consider the reverse discrimination claim of Marcarelli and a group of white firefighters. They all passed a promotion exam, but the city threw out the test because no blacks would have been promoted, saying the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities likely to violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Besides affecting how race can be considered in filling government and perhaps even private jobs, the dispute also addresses broader questions about racial progress: Do minorities and women still need legal protection from discrimination, or do the monumental civil rights laws that created a more equal nation now cause more harm than good?

Also, beneath the specific details of the firefighters' lawsuit lies an uncomfortable truth: On most standardized tests, regardless of the subject, blacks score lower than whites.

Reconciling that reality with efforts to ensure "justice for all" remains a work in progress — one that will be molded by the Supreme Court.

New Haven's population is 44 percent white, 36 percent black and 24 percent Hispanic (who can be any race). At the time of the 2003 test, 53 percent of the city's firefighters, 63 percent of lieutenants and 86 percent of captains were white. Blacks were 30 percent of the firefighters, 22 percent of lieutenants and 4 percent of captains.

The promotion exams were closely focused on firefighting methods, knowledge and skills. The first part had 200 multiple-choice questions and counted for 60 percent of the final score. Candidates returned another day to take an oral exam in which they described responses to various scenarios, which counted for 40 percent.

Tinney, a black lieutenant who has been a firefighter for 14 years, was seeking a promotion to captain when he took the exam.

He says both the test and his fire department have hidden biases against minorities: The department is historically white, with the first blacks joining in 1957, and jobs, relationships, knowledge and choice assignments are passed on from friend to friend and generation to generation.

"I just call it 'the network,"' Tinney says.

The white firefighters' attorney, Karen Torre, said they would not be interviewed for this story. In a conversation on Fox News' "Hannity" program, Marcarelli said it was "gut wrenching" to learn that he was No. 1 on the test but would not get promoted.

"It's something that shakes what you believe in. Because you believe if you work hard, you're rewarded for that, and that's not necessarily the case," Marcarelli said.

Torre said whites have no special advantage in promotions because of laws requiring use of a race-blind, score-based system. She added that many blacks have relatives on the force, including high-ranking officers.

One hundred and eighteen people took the tests; 56 passed. Nineteen of the top scorers were eligible for promotion to 15 open lieutenant and captain positions. Based on the test results, the city said that no minorities would have been eligible for lieutenant, and two Hispanics would have been eligible for captain. (The lawsuit was filed by 20 white plaintiffs, including one man who is both white and Hispanic.)

The exams were designed by a professional testing firm that followed federal guidelines for mitigating disparate racial outcomes, the plaintiffs say.

But after the results came back, the city says it found evidence that the tests were potentially flawed. Sources of bias included that the written section measured memorization rather than actual skills needed for the jobs; giving too much weight to the written section; and lack of testing for leadership in emergency conditions, according to a brief filed by officers of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

"I'm sure there are numerous reasons why (blacks didn't do as well), and not because we're not as intelligent," Tinney says. "There's a lot of underlying issues to that ... these folks are saying, 'We studied the hardest, we passed the test, we should be promoted.' But they're not talking about all the other things."

Torre argues that discarding a test because no minorities would have been promoted violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination because of race.

Call it a legal riddle only the Supreme Court could solve: The white firefighters say Title VII prohibits discrimination against them for being white; New Haven says Title VII prohibits it from using a test that has a disparate impact against blacks.

FOXNews.com - Reverse Discrimination Case Could Transform Hiring Procedures Nationwide - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

 

[jillio]

Looks like they needed to check the reliability and validity of their testing instrument before they used it.

 

[VamPyroX]

I've actually seen people turned down from jobs because they were white.

Even I was turned down for a job for the same reason.

 

[jillio]

I've actually seen people turned down from jobs because they were white.

Even I was turned down for a job for the same reason.

Then I'm sure you can understand how someone would be upset if they lost a promotion based on an unreliable and invalid testing instrument.

 

[VamPyroX]

Then I'm sure you can understand how someone would be upset if they lost a promotion based on an unreliable and invalid testing instrument.

Sometimes, I think people complain too much when a test isn't done right.

I've heard that excuse done many times... "It's not fair. The test wasn't designed for black people!" or "It's not fair cuz it wasn't designed for deaf people!"

I hear that excuse from a lot of students at NTID who complain that they failed their tests because it wasn't made for deaf people.

 

[Byrdie714]

I've actually seen people turned down from jobs because they were white.

Even I was turned down for a job for the same reason.

But you are also deaf which the Civil Rights law would've covered you.....

 

[VamPyroX]

But you are also deaf which the Civil Rights law would've covered you.....

The job was already a deaf-related job.

I was even turned down because I was too smart and experienced too. :roll:

 

[jillio]

Sometimes, I think people complain too much when a test isn't done right.

I've heard that excuse done many times... "It's not fair. The test wasn't designed for black people!" or "It's not fair cuz it wasn't designed for deaf people!"

I hear that excuse from a lot of students at NTID who complain that they failed their tests because it wasn't made for deaf people.

They have a valid complaint, especially when one test is used to make a decision regarding an individual's future. If you are going to use a single assessment instument to make such a decision, you have to show that it is reliable and valid for that population, or the results are invalid, and you end up with issues like in the OP.

 

[lsfoster]

But after the results came back, the city says it found evidence that the tests were potentially flawed. Sources of bias included that the written section measured memorization rather than actual skills needed for the jobs; giving too much weight to the written section; and lack of testing for leadership in emergency conditions, according to a brief filed by officers of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

"I'm sure there are numerous reasons why (blacks didn't do as well), and not because we're not as intelligent," Tinney says. "There's a lot of underlying issues to that ... these folks are saying, 'We studied the hardest, we passed the test, we should be promoted.' But they're not talking about all the other things."

I don't know, personally I would want more information about the test. I don't think that it's fair to just throw the test out simply because it wouldn't have resulted in promoting any black firefighters. I mean, he mentions "all the other things", and I'd love to know what they are. Because to me it sounds perfectly fair to say "I studied, I did well, I should be promoted". That's sort of the whole point.

I got in an argument with one of my friends once about how I don't agree with Affirmative Action. I said that I thought applications just shouldn't ask for race or ethnicity, and that would be more fair. Her response was, "But then white people would get all the jobs". She really believed that if they hired people based solely on how qualified they were, that only white people would get hired, and that this wouldn't be fair. I didn't even bother getting into which one of us sounded more racist or fair... :roll:

 

[jillio]

The job was already a deaf-related job.

I was even turned down because I was too smart and experienced too. :roll:

That is not unusual, nor is it discrimination. If someone is over qualified for the job specifications, it is perfectly legal to not hire them, and to hire someone who meets the qualifications.

 

[jillio]

But after the results came back, the city says it found evidence that the tests were potentially flawed. Sources of bias included that the written section measured memorization rather than actual skills needed for the jobs; giving too much weight to the written section; and lack of testing for leadership in emergency conditions, according to a brief filed by officers of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

"I'm sure there are numerous reasons why (blacks didn't do as well), and not because we're not as intelligent," Tinney says. "There's a lot of underlying issues to that ... these folks are saying, 'We studied the hardest, we passed the test, we should be promoted.' But they're not talking about all the other things."

I don't know, personally I would want more information about the test. I don't think that it's fair to just throw the test out simply because it wouldn't have resulted in promoting any black firefighters. I mean, he mentions "all the other things", and I'd love to know what they are. Because to me it sounds perfectly fair to say "I studied, I did well, I should be promoted". That's sort of the whole point.

I got in an argument with one of my friends once about how I don't agree with Affirmative Action. I said that I thought applications just shouldn't ask for race or ethnicity, and that would be more fair. Her response was, "But then white people would get all the jobs". She really believed that if they hired people based solely on how qualified they were, that only white people would get hired, and that this wouldn't be fair. I didn't even bother getting into which one of us sounded more racist or fair... :roll:

The test would not be "thrown out" just because it failed to result in promotion of Black firefighters. It would be thrown out because it was shown to be unreliable and invalid. Results don't determine that. Flaws in test construction do.

 

[lsfoster]

The test would not be "thrown out" just because it failed to result in promotion of Black firefighters. It would be thrown out because it was shown to be unreliable and invalid. Results don't determine that. Flaws in test construction do.

Exactly, and the article didn't say anything about that. All it said was this, "The promotion exams were closely focused on firefighting methods, knowledge and skills. The first part had 200 multiple-choice questions and counted for 60 percent of the final score. Candidates returned another day to take an oral exam in which they described responses to various scenarios, which counted for 40 percent." My point was that I would need more information about the validity of the exam, and all that was given in the article was information about who did well, which we seem to agree does not show how valid the test was.

 

[jillio]

Exactly, and the article didn't say anything about that. All it said was this, "The promotion exams were closely focused on firefighting methods, knowledge and skills. The first part had 200 multiple-choice questions and counted for 60 percent of the final score. Candidates returned another day to take an oral exam in which they described responses to various scenarios, which counted for 40 percent." My point was that I would need more information about the validity of the exam, and all that was given in the article was information about who did well, which we seem to agree does not show how valid the test was.

You missed this:

the city says it found evidence that the tests were potentially flawed. Sources of bias included that the written section measured memorization rather than actual skills needed for the jobs; giving too much weight to the written section; and lack of testing for leadership in emergency conditions, according to a brief filed by officers of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

These are all issues affecting the reliability and validity of the test, for anyone who takes it. Apparently, validity was compromised, in that it was not a test of ability, as it was purported to be, but a test of memorization skills and writing ability. Content validity appears to be in question, as well. Looks like there were problems with contruct validity and criterion related validity, as well. That means that the test is not valid or reliable. All of this should have been tested on the assessment prior to ever giving it.

 

[Lighthouse77]

I've actually seen people turned down from jobs because they were white.

Even I was turned down for a job for the same reason.

Allstate decided to test a person's ability on a computer before they hire them. A computer can not discrimination base on your skin .

 

[lsfoster]

The first part had 200 multiple-choice questions and counted for 60 percent of the final score. Candidates returned another day to take an oral exam in which they described responses to various scenarios, which counted for 40 percent..

You missed this:

the city says it found evidence that the tests were potentially flawed. Sources of bias included that the written section measured memorization rather than actual skills needed for the jobs; giving too much weight to the written section; and lack of testing for leadership in emergency conditions, according to a brief filed by officers of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

These are all issues affecting the reliability and validity of the test, for anyone who takes it. Apparently, validity was compromised, in that it was not a test of ability, as it was purported to be, but a test of memorization skills and writing ability. Content validity appears to be in question, as well. Looks like there were problems with contruct validity and criterion related validity, as well. That means that the test is not valid or reliable. All of this should have been tested on the assessment prior to ever giving it.

I didn't miss that at all, it says "potentially". The memorization part doesn't sound concrete to me, it sounds like an excuse I hear all the time from people who don't want to study, so it's hard to draw a conclusion from that. Saying it gave too much weight to the written part also doesn't explain anything since it doesn't explicitly say what the written part tests. Unless there's a good reason that the weighting was incorrect, that doesn't sound like a definite reason to me either. Obviously all of these could go either way. One side is saying that the tests were valid, and one is saying they weren't.

The reason I'm leaning towards the test being valid is that every story I've read about this, the city didn't look at the test and say, "Hey, this looks like it might be discriminatory..." They had one batch of people take it (and nowhere does it say that this was the first group to take this test), but when they looked at the results of who would end up being promoted they decided to scrap the results. To me, that sounds unfair.

Another reason I have a hard time accepting that the test was discriminatory is that the meaning of that word seems to keep changing. Nobody has said anything about this part of the article yet, "Also, beneath the specific details of the firefighters' lawsuit lies an uncomfortable truth: On most standardized tests, regardless of the subject, blacks score lower than whites." The fact is that in most cases like these, they do throw out the validity of the test, and they do it for the same reason as in this case. Personally, I think it's more discriminatory to everyone involved to change tests the way they do. It not only does discriminate against white people who do well on the tests, but I also think it's hugely discriminatory to say that they have to rewrite the exams so that black people can do well on them too.

 

[jillio]

I didn't miss that at all, it says "potentially". The memorization part doesn't sound concrete to me, it sounds like an excuse I hear all the time from people who don't want to study, so it's hard to draw a conclusion from that. Saying it gave too much weight to the written part also doesn't explain anything since it doesn't explicitly say what the written part tests. Unless there's a good reason that the weighting was incorrect, that doesn't sound like a definite reason to me either. Obviously all of these could go either way. One side is saying that the tests were valid, and one is saying they weren't.

The reason I'm leaning towards the test being valid is that every story I've read about this, the city didn't look at the test and say, "Hey, this looks like it might be discriminatory..." They had one batch of people take it (and nowhere does it say that this was the first group to take this test), but when they looked at the results of who would end up being promoted they decided to scrap the results. To me, that sounds unfair.

Another reason I have a hard time accepting that the test was discriminatory is that the meaning of that word seems to keep changing. Nobody has said anything about this part of the article yet, "Also, beneath the specific details of the firefighters' lawsuit lies an uncomfortable truth: On most standardized tests, regardless of the subject, blacks score lower than whites." The fact is that in most cases like these, they do throw out the validity of the test, and they do it for the same reason as in this case. Personally, I think it's more discriminatory to everyone involved to change tests the way they do. It not only does discriminate against white people who do well on the tests, but I also think it's hugely discriminatory to say that they have to rewrite the exams so that black people can do well on them too.

Actually it is not an excuse. A instrument must test what it is intended to test in order to be valid. I see why you would focus on the quote, and that is the exact reason that the test is not reliable for use with minority populations. A standardized IQ test will also show that deaf people score lower. Why? Because the test is biased toward the hearing population. It is not discriminatory against white people to make certain that a test is culturally valid any more than it is discriminatory towards hearing people to use a revised standardized version of the IQ test for the deaf population. To do anything else is an invalid measurement.

 

[lsfoster]

Actually it is not an excuse. A instrument must test what it is intended to test in order to be valid. I see why you would focus on the quote, and that is the exact reason that the test is not reliable for use with minority populations. A standardized IQ test will also show that deaf people score lower. Why? Because the test is biased toward the hearing population. It is not discriminatory against white people to make certain that a test is culturally valid any more than it is discriminatory towards hearing people to use a revised standardized version of the IQ test for the deaf population. To do anything else is an invalid measurement.

Until there is clear proof that the exam did not reliably measure a person's qualifications for whatever position they would be promoted to, there is no way to say it wasn't valid. Also, I don't think this is a valid comparison. You're saying that when it comes to taking exams, being black or white is the same as being deaf or hearing? I'm not sure that's the same, and again, I think that statements like that are more discriminatory to black people.

I would also like to know where the statement about IQ tests come from. From just looking at non-verbal components of IQ tests, I'm pretty sure that deaf and hearing people test about the same. And again, I don't think that comparing a deaf person and a hearing person taking a test with oral components to a black person and white person with all the same faculties taking a test is a valid comparison.

 

[jillio]

Until there is clear proof that the exam did not reliably measure a person's qualifications for whatever position they would be promoted to, there is no way to say it wasn't valid. Also, I don't think this is a valid comparison. You're saying that when it comes to taking exams, being black or white is the same as being deaf or hearing? I'm not sure that's the same, and again, I think that statements like that are more discriminatory to black people.

I would also like to know where the statement about IQ tests come from. From just looking at non-verbal components of IQ tests, I'm pretty sure that deaf and hearing people test about the same. And again, I don't think that comparing a deaf person and a hearing person taking a test with oral components to a black person and white person with all the same faculties taking a test is a valid comparison.

Yes, but when given, the verbal portion is included, unless the revised standardized non-verbal test is given. So, in the case of the deaf, the verbal portion has been found to be culturally invalid. You are looking at the individual sub-tests. The sub-tests are what comprises the final score. If one of the sub-tests has been found to be non-valid with a particular population, and yet is included in the scoring, then the results are compromised and invalid. It

And, no matter how you attempt to justify it, many, many tests have been found to be biased against minority populations, thus making the results of that test, when given to that population, innaccurate.

There is nothing discriminatory about it. Where the discrimination comes in is using test results for populations that the tests are not intended for.

 

[November Gypsy]

Tests are, in my opinion as someone with LD, inherently unfair. I am not unintelligent, but I do not do well on tests because I have some issues which cause me to have trouble focusing and even cause me to have trouble understanding what is on the test, even though I may understand it in a different format. My point is that you can't recall every test for being unfair because almost every test IS unfair. I don't care what your color is, you shouldn't get told you can't have a job because of it. Period.

 

[jillio]

Tests are, in my opinion as someone with LD, inherently unfair. I am not unintelligent, but I do not do well on tests because I have some issues which cause me to have trouble focusing and even cause me to have trouble understanding what is on the test, even though I may understand it in a different format. My point is that you can't recall every test for being unfair because almost every test IS unfair. I don't care what your color is, you shouldn't get told you can't have a job because of it. Period.

Exactly. The problems arise when one assessment is given to all populations. For instance, a test that was developed for 40 year old white males would not given an accurrate score if it was given to 20 year old black females. If a test was developed for a specific population, then you have to make adjustments and revisions, and then prove those to be reliable...just like you mentioned a test in a different format would yield different results for you.

And, anytime test results are interpreted, they must be interpreted with cultural, gender, language, and age as a guiding factor in the interpretation.