Quote:
Originally Posted by Funkenstein  |
Yeah, that poster has no clue what he's talking about.
It was about the validity of the test but not the specific questions... he said
Quote:
|
mean some of the geographical questions had nothing to do with New Haven at all,
|
the case wasn't about going through each question and determining if they were good/acceptable questions or not. The validity issue was whether a test which saw zero black applicants pass was vaid based on the racial dispartity of the results.
There are some other points. The city had been sued multiple times by black firemen. There was a state statutre on the books regarding racially disparate results. Title VII was also in play. Imo, this case is a great example of the stupidity of trying to mandate an outcome to have a specific racial representation.
Anyweay, the state law (iirc) said if there were racially disparate results then the first element in proving up discrimination was met. However, the second step was, again irrc, that there must not have been a legitimate basis for the test... which of course there was... meaning it was designed to selkect the best applicants - not to discriminate against minorities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Funkenstein Racial disparity might not hold weight as an argument anymore, even when African-Americans are qualified for the positions as this case eventually showed."
My issues stand with the bolded (as DJMarbil, the original poster pointed out). Again, we'll see. |
Racially disparate results resulting from a non-discriminatory process is not racial discrimination. One must show more than all black test takers failed. They'd need to show discriminatory intent.