Supreme Court rules against racial discrimination in suprisingly close vote

Trancendental

Trancendental

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that white firefighters in New Haven were subjected to race discrimination when the city threw out a promotional examination on which they had done well and black firefighters poorly.
“The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, adding that the possibility of a lawsuit from minority firefighters was not a lawful justification for the city’s action.
“Fear of litigation alone,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.”
The 5-to-4 ruling, which reversed an appeals court decision joined by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, now a Supreme Court nominee, will have broad impact, lawyers specializing in employment discrimination law said.
“This decision will change the landscape of civil rights law,” said Sheila Foster, a law professor at Fordham.
The new standards announced by the court will make it much harder for employers to discard the results of hiring and promotion tests once they are administered, even if they have a disproportionately negative impact on members of a given racial group.
Public employers that use civil service examinations and similar tests will be most directly affected, but the principle announced by the court applies to all employers and all sorts of procedures used to rank and sort potential and current employees.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/us/30scotus.html?ref=business

More in the article.

I don't know about you, but if my house is on fire I want the best trained fireman showing up regardless of their race. It's a ludicrous proposition to put public safety at jeopardy for the sake of political appearances.
 
The decision made by the Supreme Court had nothing to do with firefighters. The fact pattern from the case was diffuse and ill suited to be a precedence case of this magnitude.

What the decision really did was find that Title VII contains "friction" with itself. If you're telling me that Congress wrote the two provisions in question with the intent of friction, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

As always, Scalia, Thomas, and the rest of the whimpering conservative side of the bench will laugh off originalism and the rest of that bullshit they feed to the talking heads.

“ ‘Sympathy’ is not what petitioners have a right to demand,” Justice Alito wrote. “What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law — of Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today’s decision, has been denied them.”
Click to expand...
Right. A test in a job dominated by white males advances white males. A job that has gone down in American lore for over a century as dominated not just by "white" males, but by specific tribes of whites. I would like to point out here that I don't know if the test discriminated. But we're talking about a government job where cronyism is rife and racism has a long and storied tradition. Doesn't it make sense to leave discretion to the city, rather than creating a new standard (legislating from the bench for those of you that actually give a shit about such things) by requiring a “strong basis in evidence” (a phrase that is going to be litigated into the ground and cause a new wave of lawsuits)?

I agree with you camoor, in that it should be that easy. Totally. I get that for sure. But these dicks always seem to find a way to hide under "what should be" while pushing an agenda that has nothing to do with the subject. They just use it for interference. This is an area screaming for legislation, not judicial activism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, reverse racism is still racism. Good show!

Now, if they could only reverse themselves on that whole imminent-domain-for-more-tax-revenue decision...
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Now, if they could only reverse themselves on that whole imminent-domain-for-more-tax-revenue decision...[/QUOTE]
You know, if legislators created a law that prohibited domain'ing out people for economic zones, it would be illegal.

I'm feeling a weird shift in the force. Legislating from the bench seems to be ok from those not left of center. Where's thrust when you need him? I wish I could see him supporting this decision (that he totally would) while also keep it real on the whole activist judge thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']:lol:[/QUOTE]

I have a feeling you didn't like this ruling, myke, am I right? :)

IMO, this was a victory for those who want to see people judged by their merits & not their race.
 
So ... what I'm taking from this thread is that nobody except Speed actually understands the ruling, but everybody has an opinion on it anyway. Okay, so pretty much business as usual then.
 
I'm kind of confused about what this means. :lol: I am at work and trying to read and work at the same time and it's not clicking.
 
[quote name='lilboo']I'm kind of confused about what this means. :lol: I am at work and trying to read and work at the same time and it's not clicking.[/QUOTE]

In a nutshell, the supreme court ruled that you cannot throw out test results of this nature solely because said results would cause a disproportionate amount of people from a particular race scoring higher and hence being promoted (resulting in fear of a racism lawsuit). By doing so, you are discriminating based on race instead of merit, no matter what race is being discriminated against. In this case, it was whites being discriminated against as their test results were thrown away because their race scored higher, resulting in the city fearing they would get sued because of that. And ironically, by throwing out the results for fear of being sued due to whites scoring higher the city got sued and lost in the end anyway.
 
I really can't see why this was such a close decision. Common sense says that those best able to do the job should get the position; I don't know why 4 of the Justices would vote in favor of the city.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']I really can't see why this was such a close decision. Common sense says that those best able to do the job should get the position; I don't know why 4 of the Justices would vote in favor of the city.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about public services, but that almost never happens in business. Often times the person who is more likable gets the position.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I don't know about public services, but that almost never happens in business. Often times the person who is more likable gets the position.[/QUOTE]

Seconded.
 
"Likeability"--for the lack of a better term, or even a real word--is a part of (not a huge part, mind you) one's ability to get a job done, I'd argue. Especially for people like CEOs who need to solicit capital and such, or those working in teams.

I don't see the difference y'all are trying to point out.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I don't know about public services, but that almost never happens in business. Often times the person who is more likable gets the position.[/QUOTE]

"Likeable" is an asset in performing a job well. It's another way for saying you get along well with others and can work well with them. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean. But of course those kinds of things are taken into account when making personnel decisions; why wouldn't they be?
 
[quote name='speedracer']Right. A test in a job dominated by white males advances white males. A job that has gone down in American lore for over a century as dominated not just by "white" males, but by specific tribes of whites. I would like to point out here that I don't know if the test discriminated. But we're talking about a government job where cronyism is rife and racism has a long and storied tradition.[/QUOTE]

You make some interesting points about judicial activism, but to be honest I've never had a problem with the judicial branch flexing its muscles (it's the executive branch I watch like a hawk)

I wanted to talk about this paragraph. You admit you don't know if the test descriminated but you throw all sorts of innuendo that cronyism and racism played a part. How could it? I'm really curious how you think this happened. Do you think they rigged the test? Is there a way of phrasing fire fighting questions that discriminates against certain races? Maybe you can tell me if there are different ethnic-specific words for fire fighting equipment such as a "hose", a "fire truck", or a "helmet".

[quote name='elprincipe']"Likeable" is an asset in performing a job well. It's another way for saying you get along well with others and can work well with them. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean. But of course those kinds of things are taken into account when making personnel decisions; why wouldn't they be?[/QUOTE]

Let's not be naive. "Likeable" can also mean anything from "most cutthroat" to "boss's son".

But in this case there was an apparently objective test. Unless someone can prove to me that the white firefighters cheated or were scored favorably due to the color of their skin, I don't buy the arguement that this decision was incorrect.
 
[quote name='camoor']
I wanted to talk about this paragraph. You admit you don't know if the test descriminated but you throw all sorts of innuendo that cronyism and racism played a part. How could it? I'm really curious how you think this happened. Do you think they rigged the test? Is there a way of phrasing fire fighting questions that discriminates against certain races? Maybe you can tell me if there are different ethnic-specific words for fire fighting equipment such as a "hose", a "fire truck", or a "helmet".
[/QUOTE]

Q #32: A white guy's house and some black guy's house is on fire. You have time to put one of the two fires out. Which house do you save?

Everyone who answered anything buy "Save the white guy's house" failed the test.

;)
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']"Likeability"--for the lack of a better term, or even a real word--is a part of (not a huge part, mind you) one's ability to get a job done, I'd argue. Especially for people like CEOs who need to solicit capital and such, or those working in teams.

I don't see the difference y'all are trying to point out.[/QUOTE]
I'm not necessarily talking about business executives. For the sake of it, lets say it's an accounting job, IT job, etc.. You have two people, one with more experience and better qualifications, the other has a better personality/is better at kissing ass.

Guess who gets the job, not the one with more experience or better qualifications. I personally think this is why some businesses are in such bad shape, nice people who don't know wtf they're doing.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']"Likeable" is an asset in performing a job well. It's another way for saying you get along well with others and can work well with them. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean. But of course those kinds of things are taken into account when making personnel decisions; why wouldn't they be?[/QUOTE]
Because having a "sunny disposition" does not make you better at doing a skilled job. I don't care if you have a smile on your face every day, if you don't know wtf you're doing, you don't deserve the job.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='JolietJake']Because having a "sunny disposition" does not make you better at doing a skilled job. I don't care if you have a smile on your face every day, if you don't know wtf you're doing, you don't deserve the job.[/QUOTE]

No need to deliberately mischaracterize what I said. Nobody would claim that having a "sunny disposition" (which is not what I was talking about anyway) is the only qualification for any job, much less if you are specifically talking about a job with very specific skills like firefighting. I only said that someone's personality and ability to work within a team ("likeability" if you will) is rightly a consideration when hiring or promoting in that kind of environment.
 
I know I screw a lot of opportunities for advancement because I don't tell my superiors I love them everyday.

I do my job. I do my job well enough to earn the maximum pay for my position, but every time I post out, my resume gets lost and I don't get an interview.

I remember the last time I posted out of the department. It was for a test lead. My prospective supervisor stated his schedule was a little hectic because he was a junior in college going for a BS in Computer Science.

I got mine in 2002. For some reason, I didn't get the opportunity to talk with his boss about whether I could do the lower job with my superior education and equivalent or better experience.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']No need to deliberately mischaracterize what I said. Nobody would claim that having a "sunny disposition" (which is not what I was talking about anyway) is the only qualification for any job, much less if you are specifically talking about a job with very specific skills like firefighting. I only said that someone's personality and ability to work within a team ("likeability" if you will) is rightly a consideration when hiring or promoting in that kind of environment.[/QUOTE]
True, but unfortunately in the real world "likeablilty" is mesured by the boss and not the rest of the world. So far more often it means that they know someone, they are a suck up, they are hot and not that they have good people skills, and are hired even though they may be so terrible they prove to be a hinderance.
 
In modern industrialized capitalist societies, we rarely, if ever, actually hire the best qualified candidate for the position.

Part of it stems from disagreement based on what "best qualified" means. Is it something we can measure in terms of pure, quantifiable productivity? The person who can build the most widgets per hour with the least defective widgets? Or is it the person who won't upset the balance of the workplace; the guy who doesn't share the same high school background as his co-workers, or the same fraternity/sorority, or happens to be a woman in a male-dominated position? Is it the person who happens to be a huge fan of Kenny G, while the boss HATES HATES HATES Kenny G?

You get the idea. Applications, resumes, and interviews are not adequate proxies for idea of the "best qualified" in terms of background, ability, and fit into the workplace. Add in the intangibles (e.g., 'did you see the way that motherfucker smirked when I told her the starting salary?') and you have a recipe for believing, I hope, the reality that a functioning meritocracy is a mythological creature.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Add in the intangibles (e.g., 'did you see the way that motherfucker smirked when I told her the starting salary?')[/QUOTE]

That must be what is killing me. I want 20% more pay to leave my current company, 10% more pay to move within the company and to be hired on immediately instead of a temp-to-fire position.
 
[quote name='camoor']You make some interesting points about judicial activism, but to be honest I've never had a problem with the judicial branch flexing its muscles (it's the executive branch I watch like a hawk)[/quote]
I agree that there are exceptional times in which the judiciary is required to draw a line in the sand and say "this shit is just flat unconstitutional". I also think both "sides" rely too heavily on the court to draw a line when legislation could resolve the issue, especially when the legislation could be reasonably expected to do it. This is the kind of case where the leg just basically said "eh, let the judges decide". A law could easily remedy the situation. When it would be easy and when it is clear that it is within the leg's power to do so, I think it should be done the way the Constitution provides.

But there is leeway there and reasonable people can disagree as to where the line of judicial restraint should be.

I wanted to talk about this paragraph. You admit you don't know if the test descriminated but you throw all sorts of innuendo that cronyism and racism played a part. How could it? I'm really curious how you think this happened. Do you think they rigged the test? Is there a way of phrasing fire fighting questions that discriminates against certain races? Maybe you can tell me if there are different ethnic-specific words for fire fighting equipment such as a "hose", a "fire truck", or a "helmet".
Click to expand...
This is more of the amateur statistician in me that doesn't like what I'm seeing. When you consistently have outliers above the mean that are white and outliers below the mean that are black, one has to wonder why. The reason we're even jumping through these Title VII hoops is because these tests consistently provide results of this nature, so we know for a fact that this is a problem. Title VII provides relief for these problems. If we dismiss the obvious "they're black so they're goddamn stupid and/or lazy" argument, there has to be a logical alternative answer. It's an extremely difficult topic to approach and understand without significant investment (that frankly I'm not interested in doing), but there are glimpses of the current thought here and here (Don't beat me up for brevity, myke. Gotta start somewhere). At the very least, reasonable people can agree that something's not right.

But in this case there was an apparently objective test. Unless someone can prove to me that the white firefighters cheated or were scored favorably due to the color of their skin, I don't buy the arguement that this decision was incorrect.
Click to expand...
And herein lies the problem. Clearly how we write the test affects the outcome. Clearly writing the test with the intent of helping black firefighters feels ethically wrong (if not constitutionally). Yet doesn't supporting the same old paradigm of we test this way and let the chips fall where they may and oh look! White people win again! seem...wrong as well?

The other point was that firefighting has been employment exclusively for whites on the east coast for over a century, specifically Irish whites. And as for cronyism, my brother right now is training to be a firefighter. He knows that when he finishes school he has a job waiting for him, even though he may not test the best or be the best qualified because he knows someone in a position of power that can "help him out". He is white. His inside friend is white. I wonder how many blacks get "inside help". I wonder when it's time for my brother to test for promotion if he'll get just a little more help.

However, NONE OF THIS DEBATE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE COURT'S DECISION. The actual case was about Title VII and the court's finding was that the law disagrees with itself, which is complete horse shit if you're all into original intent. In addition, they effectively created a new law. These are the two things that typically makes conservatives cry out in horror. It also completely goes against Chief Justice Roberts's statement that he steadfastly believes in a narrow view of interpretation.

Ruined, I'd like to know how you reconcile this decision with your stated belief in an restrained judiciary.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You get the idea. Applications, resumes, and interviews are not adequate proxies for idea of the "best qualified" in terms of background, ability, and fit into the workplace. Add in the intangibles (e.g., 'did you see the way that motherfucker smirked when I told her the starting salary?') and you have a recipe for believing, I hope, the reality that a functioning meritocracy is a mythological creature.[/QUOTE]

I have an idea - let's create an objective test and promote based on that. What could possibly go wrong ;)
 
I'd like to see the test itself. If it's all basic and advanced firefighting questions, then best scores should win regardless of race. If there's questions about yachting, croquet, or Tom Jones, then we have a problem.

But seriously, speed is right about tests being written by white people for white people. I also think the bigger problem is the so-called education most blacks get in inner city schools. If you can show up for class everyday in the hood, you pass.

Suburban schools aren't any better. I was one of two black kids in honors classes my freshman year in high school. All of the other black kids were either in the regular or remedial class. Remedial class only had 1 or 2 white kids. Which kids do you think were better prepared for a firefighting test, college entrance exam, military entrance test, etc.?
 
[quote name='itachiitachi']True, but unfortunately in the real world "likeablilty" is mesured by the boss and not the rest of the world. So far more often it means that they know someone, they are a suck up, they are hot and not that they have good people skills, and are hired even though they may be so terrible they prove to be a hinderance.[/QUOTE]

Maybe, if the boss is a horrible boss. A good boss will be able to consider how a potential new team member fits into the existing team structure, and take into account how that will play itself out if said potential member were hired. While you wouldn't want an incompetent employee who fits in well, a good employee whose skill set and personality fit in well with the existing team is better than a good employee who doesn't possess these qualities.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']No need to deliberately mischaracterize what I said. Nobody would claim that having a "sunny disposition" (which is not what I was talking about anyway) is the only qualification for any job, much less if you are specifically talking about a job with very specific skills like firefighting. I only said that someone's personality and ability to work within a team ("likeability" if you will) is rightly a consideration when hiring or promoting in that kind of environment.[/QUOTE]
I didn't even mention teamwork in my original post, you did. That's probably the only time i can think of when it should play a part, but even then maybe not as much as it seems to.

Being a team player and being well liked don't necessarily go hand in hand anyway. I've worked with people i didn't particularity like and still do, but we get along well enough to perform our jobs.

Actually, the reason i haven't gotten along with some of them is because they can't do their fucking jobs correctly. I tend to like people who aren't incompetent.
 
[quote name='speedracer']However, NONE OF THIS DEBATE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE COURT'S DECISION. The actual case was about Title VII and the court's finding was that the law disagrees with itself, which is complete horse shit if you're all into original intent. In addition, they effectively created a new law. These are the two things that typically makes conservatives cry out in horror. It also completely goes against Chief Justice Roberts's statement that he steadfastly believes in a narrow view of interpretation.

Ruined, I'd like to know how you reconcile this decision with your stated belief in an restrained judiciary.[/QUOTE]

Good point. However it's kind of interesting that the Justices predictably voted along party lines on this one, you'd think there would be less uniformity in opinion on both sides if they really believed in narrow interpretation. Frankly I believe that both sides of the aisle in the Supreme Court care more about their sense of justice then narrow interpretation, despite what they may say in confirmation hearings.

I think that in this specific case it just so happened that the firefighters with the highest scores were white, but I don't see any evidence that this would be the pattern if this test was issued nationwide.

You make a good point about cronyism - yet cronyism also contains checks and balances while tacitly setting up a mentoring system and support network, vital aspects missing from institutionally mandated quota hirings. I don't envy progressive lawmakers, when attempting to redress social injusice the law is a very clumsy instrument.

Back to this case though, all the articles I have read indicate the 60 mult. choice question test was thoroughly objective, and as such it seems to me to be a very fair basis on which to make decisions on promotions.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Maybe, if the boss is a horrible boss. [/QUOTE]
No that is if the boss is average, most bosses don't know more than the basics of selecting people(resume, well dressed, on time). They don't know what the signs of good character are so they base character on how much they like them.

[quote name='depascal22']
Suburban schools aren't any better. I was one of two black kids in honors classes my freshman year in high school. All of the other black kids were either in the regular or remedial class. Remedial class only had 1 or 2 white kids. Which kids do you think were better prepared for a firefighting test, college entrance exam, military entrance test, etc.?[/QUOTE]
That wasn't the case I my school, but I agree that the education most minorities/poor people receive is not up to par and tends to hinder them throughout their lives.
 
I understand the argument that minorities don't receive an equatable educational experience. That's all well and good - but it's not the fault of those who administer the test. The fact is, if a minority isn't as well educated and isn't the most qualified candidate for the job, then the job should go to someone who is qualified.

I'm sorry our government provided, union-controlled school system sucks for poor and minority students.

That doesn't mean people should lose their houses and/or lives because someone who is less qualified was promoted.
 
I don't know about you, but if my house is on fire I want the best trained fireman s
signature_damoo.jpg
:)
 
What incredible timing. Happening as we debate.

Racism, discrimination widespread inside HFD?
http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou090708_mp_racism-inside-hfd.20b25d62.html
...

“I mean, let’s be real. I didn’t come in with a blind eye to where I was working. I am at a place where it is a majority of white males,” said [black] veteran female firefighter Vantrece Williams.

Williams says she's been harassed, but nothing was ever done about it. Mainly because she says many firefighters won’t speak out when they witness something bad taking place.

...

11 News heard allegations of women firefighters being groped by their male co-workers, and an allegation of a male firefighter masturbating over a female co-worker while she was trying to sleep in her bed.
...
The other woman, Jane Draycott, said she transferred to the station after her 17-year-old daughter died in a car accident. "They defaced my daughter's picture and wrote 'dead' on her face, and they wrote 'die' on my face. It was a 5 x7 photograph of her sitting on my lap," said Draycott.
Click to expand...

2 female firefighters fearful, want attacks to stop
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/breaking/6518362.html

In their first comments about harassment that culminated in racist and sexist epithets scrawled across a door at Fire Station 54 at Bush Intercontinental Airport, Jane Draycott and Paula Keyes said they’re devastated by the attacks and at a loss to understand them.

“It’s demented,” said Draycott, a 16-year veteran of Texas fire departments who came to work Tuesday to find not just the graffiti but the mutilation of a treasured photo of her and her teenage daughter who was killed in a 2006 car crash. “Someone is absolutely sick to do this. It’s got to stop.”

Draycott, who is white, said the act was no isolated incident, citing less sensational but still shocking discriminatory acts dating back as far as two years, when she joined Station 54.

Keyes, who is black, said this was the first time she’d been harassed. An eight-year veteran of the department, she only joined the station three months ago.

Draycott said there is no question the abuse is primarily gender directed. She and Keyes were the only women among 50 men assigned to the firehouse.
Click to expand...

My personal favorite:
Houston fire chief 'mad as hell' about racist radio broadcast
http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou090708_tnt_hfd-racist-message.1ebf2758.html

HOUSTON -- Houston’s city inspector general is launching an investigation into the source of a racist message carried on a radio channel used by the city’s firefighters.

"Frankly, I'm mad, I'm mad as hell," said an emotional Houston Fire Chief Phil Boriskie at a news conference Wednesday afternoon. "The men and women of the Houston Fire Department, they do not deserve this."

Boriskie said someone or someone group "hijacked" HFD's Trac channel 2 around 7:15 Wednesday morning.

"Statements were made that were morally offensive," Boriskie said.

The initial investigation points to a radio from an outside source -- not from the Houston Fire Department, according to the chief.

The case has been turned over to the FCC and the Office of Inspector General for further investigation.

The racist radio broadcast comes the day after racist and sexist graffiti was found scrawled on the women’s quarters at the fire station at Houston’s Bush Intercontinental Airport.
Click to expand...
I saw the Chief on TV yesterday. He went on an on about how he was sure it was an outsider that had "hacked" the freq (his words, lulz). A reporter asked him how he could know for sure that it was an outsider and he started talking about the good men and women that serve.

How exactly could an entity without the resources to trace something like this be absolutely sure? They can't. At all. Period. Given the rest of the racist, sexist shit going on over there, anyone willing to take the bet that it really was an outsider? Hell, I used to talk shit about my bosses in the military on the military freq because I knew as long as they didn't recognize my voice, they had nothin. The bosses even called a battalion wide assembly and lied and said they were tracing us and would find me. Since I was the one passing their data, it was all I could do not to fall over lulzing at the damn thing.

Yup.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']That doesn't mean people should lose their houses and/or lives because someone who is less qualified was promoted.[/QUOTE]

How do you lose your home because you didn't get a promotion. Buying a home on the foolish assumption that you'll get promoted? That brings judgement into question more than a test.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I saw the Chief on TV yesterday. He went on an on about how he was sure it was an outsider that had "hacked" the freq (his words, lulz). A reporter asked him how he could know for sure that it was an outsider and he started talking about the good men and women that serve.

How exactly could an entity without the resources to trace something like this be absolutely sure? They can't. At all. Period. Given the rest of the racist, sexist shit going on over there, anyone willing to take the bet that it really was an outsider? Hell, I used to talk shit about my bosses in the military on the military freq because I knew as long as they didn't recognize my voice, they had nothin. The bosses even called a battalion wide assembly and lied and said they were tracing us and would find me. Since I was the one passing their data, it was all I could do not to fall over lulzing at the damn thing.

Yup.[/QUOTE]

We're, as a whole, pretty good about admitting bad stuff happens in society - racism, for example.

We're positively dismal as acknowledging it could happen as a result of people we know, or worse yet, our own actions.

The posts that follow this will only serve to reinforce that racism happens, just not around any of us. Ever.
 
I could tell a story about a racist cop but the last time I told it on CAG, I was called a liar because I couldn't bring forward any proof.
 
[quote name='depascal22']How do you lose your home because you didn't get a promotion. Buying a home on the foolish assumption that you'll get promoted? That brings judgement into question more than a test.[/QUOTE]

If someone less qualified* is promoted for a position that involves saving the life and property of others, then it's putting lives and livelihoods on the line.

*I understand that "less qualified" is often something that could be objective. My initial comment was toward the idea that minority or poor students receive a lower standard of education and that shouldn't be held against them when they don't stack up.
 
Blargh! I know I'm going to draw flames for saying this, but if you get a shit education, it's shit luck.

I didn't get two concussions from white people because I'm white or because those assholes were white. I got two concussions because I have shit luck.

I didn't steer out of the way from a moron white cop walking out in the middle of the street from between two cop cars without even looking as if he were Bambi and then total my car in a successful attempt to save his life and watch while the cops lied about it and blamed it completely on me because I'm white or that moron cop was white. That happened because I have shit luck.

If you have the shit luck to have a shitty education, then deal with it. And I don't mean bitch and moan and then do nothing about it. I mean educate yourself so you can do well on firefigher exams such as these.

To be fair, if people in charge, white, black, yellow, red, brown, or whatever else is roaming God's green earth didn't have their heads planted firmly up their asses, we wouldn't have any children, white, black, yellow, red, brown, or whatever else is roaming God's green earth, getting a lower standard of education and creating situations like these in the first place. Until then, these children are going to grow up into adults who are either going to deal with their situation and better themselves or bitch and moan and be leeches on society because leeches know no color.
 
In a perfect world the most qualified person would always get the job.That doesn't always happen and it's not going to always happen, i've come to terms with that, so should everyone else.

Has no one else ever had a boss who seemed like a completely unqualified dumbass?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Has no one else ever had a boss who seemed like a completely unqualified dumbass?[/QUOTE]

I'm sure that most of us who are out of school can say yes. I certainly can.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']In a perfect world the most qualified person would always get the job.That doesn't always happen and it's not going to always happen, i've come to terms with that, so should everyone else.

Has no one else ever had a boss who seemed like a completely unqualified dumbass?[/QUOTE]

But that doesn't mean it's a good thing and that doesn't mean we should sit by and do nothing while politicians work to move unqualified/lesser-qualified individuals to the front of the line.
 
[quote name='depascal22']They've never proven that more houses burned down because of this promotion.[/QUOTE]

It's the risk factor.
Obviously, when you have someone less qualified in higher positions, you are more likely to get poorer results than if you have someone more qualified in that position.

Should anyone be forced to take that risk?
 
It's not even about less houses burning down, it's about HR policy. Why even have a test for a promotion? obviously they shouldn't. Just hand out promotions based on race and be done with it. Don't pretend skill, knowledge, or hard work have anything to do with promotions if they don't.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It's not even about less houses burning down, it's about HR policy. Why even have a test for a promotion? obviously they shouldn't. Just hand out promotions based on race and be done with it. Don't pretend skill, knowledge, or hard work have anything to do with promotions if they don't.[/QUOTE]

Think politics, man. If they did it that way, 80% of the country would object. This way, they can fudge things so that people don't see clearly what they're doing.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It's not even about less houses burning down, it's about HR policy. Why even have a test for a promotion? obviously they shouldn't. Just hand out promotions based on race and be done with it. Don't pretend skill, knowledge, or hard work have anything to do with promotions if they don't.[/QUOTE]
I had a dream where you actually read the thread and carefully thought about the contents. You then wrote a tactful, thoughtful response that accounted for the variables far and wide, even the ones that didn't wholly support your position.

It'd be stupid of me to ask if you read the opinion, wouldn't it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top