[cjopbj]

I am wondering what everyone thinks about the Supreme Court Decision on Ricci v. DeStefano, the New Haven, Conn., firefighters case. This is the case in which white and hispanic firefighters sued the city of New Haven after the results of a promotion exam were thrown out because no African Americans passed. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the white/hispanic firefighters.

Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court's decision? Does this affect your feelings about Obama's pick of Judge Sotomayor for the court?

[jerhanner]

In this case, I must agree with the decision. A test was given and the results thrown out for political reasons. That's illegal as ****!

[Howlin' Wolf]

Originally Posted by jerhanner

In this case, I must agree with the decision. A test was given and the results thrown out for political reasons. That's illegal as ****!

I agree, everyone had a fair chance and if a guy with severe dyslexia can work his *ss off and pass there's no reason anyone else couldn't.


Edit: I considered this a fairly common sense decision and was more than a little disturbed by her line of thinking.

[MrQ1701]

I agree with the decision.

I believe affirmative action served it's purpose and continues to do so, but there comes a point where common sense and minimum requirements MUST rule at the end of the day. I know of many examples where a less qualified person has been hired or promoted, probably based on some quota. You know... "We need X amount of woman and minority managers..."

In the most recent case where I work a less qualified woman was promoted over three or four much more qualified men. She didn't even meet the minimum requirements of the job when it was advertised internally, then the job was re-advertised with lower requirements!! It seemed like the new advertisement was tailored for her. It was almost common knowledge that she would probably be hired. If I had been one of the more qualified employees that was passed up for the job, I would have gotten a lawyer and sued for unfair practices. This person that was hired doesn't even have the proper clearance level to get into her work area without an escort and she can't be in the building during certain conversations!!! All of this when the proper clearance was SUPPOSED to be a minimum requirement. Crazy. I sometimes wonder WTF the managers are thinking when they obviously hire people based on gender.

[Saquist]

I don't even begin to think affirmative action has lived up to expectation but I think this was a good verdict legally. If the African Americans didn't pass then devote resources to them, but don't deny others their promotion.
That would be illogical.

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by Saquist

I don't even begin to think affirmative action has lived up to expectation but I think this was a good verdict legally. If the African Americans didn't pass then devote resources to them, but don't deny others their promotion.
That would be illogical.

Well, I find it hard to devote resources to unqualified personnel, regardless of race. I think it would be unfair to spend money on a group when you already have another group that is qualified. Don't get me wrong, if you a current employee that fails to meet requirements for some reason, then I believe there should be an opportunity for that employee to retest.

I believe the intent of affirmative action was an honorable one, however I believe in practice it has become a means for reverse discrimination. I don't think this always follows racial lines, as my example above was based on gender.

[Botany Bay]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

I believe the intent of affirmative action was an honorable one, however I believe in practice it has become a means for reverse discrimination. I don't think this always follows racial lines, as my example above was based on gender.

Lets be carefull to not invite generalizations here. I agree that affirmative action is allways a problematic thing. But overall, if there is discrimination that violates the constitution, then the state has the duty to take action against this discrimination (in the US as in almost all european countries too). And that can only mean to help the discriminated, either with quotas, or with more education... all the methods have advantages and disadvantages. In the end someone can allways come along and call it "reverse discrimination", thats inevieatable.

So, yes, I think when it comes to affirmative actions and antidiscrimination laws, then the devil is in the detail, but overall we all here seem to agree that discrimination is intollerable and thus laws or programs that try to give everybody a fair chance and to guarantee everyones constitutional rights are often necessary, no matter how complicated it is to implement them. Fairness is about ballance and ballance is a tricky thing.

Concerning the question of the threadstarter: I am not an american and havent followed the case, cant say anything about it, just wanted to throw in my two cents concerning affirmative action. Sorry.

[MrQ1701]

let me give you another example: When I was applying for my current job, there were a number of steps that must be taken in order to be hired. First you had to pass a test. This test was a 12 question "common sense" test. Most of the questions were alost trick questions and you had to pay close attention to what was really being asked. If you missed more than two questions you failed. Then a physical test was given. You had to run one mile at an elevation of 7,500 ft in a certain of amount of time. Then you went into an interview. All of this while a backround check was being done. If your background checked out okay then the final people being hired were decided upon based on the interview board.

I was hired. About two weeks before my new job was to start I recieved a letter that my training class was postponed for 6 months!! One day while some of my wife's friends were visiting, I find out one of them, a young female about 20 years old, also tried out for the same position I was hired for. She failed the run and did not make it to the interview stage. She went on to tell me that the company's recruiter called her up after she failed the run and told her about another position that had not been advertised, one in which the run qualifier did NOT apply. He said (I am paraphrasing) that the company needed more young woman and that they would like to offer her this other postion. She ended up taking this job, which paid the same as the other, and ended up more senior than I!!! I was a bit pissed. Here I am forced to wait 6 months, while this female that failed is handed a different position!! I learned all this because she herself told me. She didn't see anything wrong. After she and my wife's other friends left our house, my wife could not believe the story.

[Botany Bay]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

let me give you another example: When I was applying for my current job[...] I am forced to wait 6 months, while this female that failed is handed a different position!! I learned all this because she herself told me. She didn't see anything wrong. After she and my wife's other friends left our house, my wife could not believe the story.

Allways sucks to be the one who has to pay the price and you have all my sympathy. On the other hand, statistics show that men do have it easier to make a career and do earn more money for the same performance and do suffer less income losses for having children, etc.

So, the moment you take a look at the broader picture, thats the moment where this case may not look that unfair anymore. Just wait untill she receives a child and you are climbing the career ladder while she is staying at home, missing a year in her job and has a hard time to catch up with you.

However, again, I sympathise and would likely have felt pretty much the same in this situation.

[FanWriter45]

Also, we're over simplifying the case, and it's rather arcane legal details. Aparently theres a clause in the staute establishing the testing of the firefighters that allows for throwing the test out, should it be found that there seems to be a bias. (I notice that THAT part of the ruling never seems to be talked about, much the same way you don't hear Limbaugh talk against Michael Jackson's Dr. shopping for Oxy-contin, for some odd reason.)

No, the right is doing it's usual hatchet job, using this narrow, 4 to 5 decision to try and cast Sotamyor in a bad light, and thus cost her points toward being confirmed for the SCOTUS. So they throw the facts into the media cuisinart, hit frappe, and then filter out all the bits that doesn't fit with their agenda.

BTW, did any of you read about the fact that the african american candidates for those jobs excelled in both the physical and oral tests for those same positions? Probably becuase the written test was worded at a second year college-level, while most of those guys taking it were at a rumedial high school level. (common enough in the neighborhood they would have been serving in, which they grew up in.) The point being, these guys were fully capable of filling those positions... they just couldn't afford college. There seems to have been some attempt at blocking them from getting the promotions, based on their economic background, far more than because of their race.

MrQ, sorry to hear that a woman got picked for a job that you feel only a man could fill... I wonder, if you were were to talk to your friend, the one who got the job, how she would feel about being given the chance. Where I work, I see kids who have just gotten out of college, who barely know how to turn a camcorder on, get offered jobs here at the TV station I'm employed by, for positions that pay far more than what I earn. Those jobs also involve far less back breaking labor than mine does. And here I am, with 25 years of film, TV and stage experience!

Life ain't fair, is it?