If you can’t get the basic facts of the case correct, why should anyone bother to discuss it with you?”

Well Fafaroo I guess I take a more pragmatic approach. When one takes a test for promotion, the objective is to score high enough to qualify for promotion. I would suggest that a score that is indeed not high enough for promotion would be termed for lack of a better word failure.

Once again, Amused, you simply are not reading what I’ve posted.

Again, here it is:

But although a number of African American and Latino firefighters passed the exam, only two Latinos and no African Americans scored high enough to make the promotion list.

If you can’t get the basic facts of the case correct, why should anyone bother to discuss it with you?

I never said blacks find firefighting too difficult:

With this phrasing:

The racial divide in the results was evidence in a study done after the test that the test didn’t adequately test firefighting ability, but tested something else that the blacks had difficulty with.

Amused, I never said the test was “too challenging” for blacks. That is not how I characterized it at all. You added that because you want to assume that:

When someone fails a test that generally means that thier grasp of the material tested is inferior to someone who passes the test.

There are, however, other reasons why people don’t do well on tests.

I cited an article which noted that studies have shown some kinds of tests produce similar racial disparities not because of the subjects of the tests, but because of the way the subjects and questions are presented. There’s a difference there.

As to this:

You bring up the minutia of the arguements made in court, but overlook the basic events underlying the case.

I think what you mean to say is this:

You bring up facts but overlook my unsupported claims, broad generalizations and inherently fucked up assumptions.

“your conclusion that blacks found the test too challenging because they are inferior to white candidates or that blacks find firefighting itself too difficult. ”

I never said blacks find firefighting too difficult. We both said that the first test was too challenging for the small group of black firefighters taking it, they failed it.

When someone fails a test that generally means that thier grasp of the material tested is inferior to someone who passes the test.

You bring up the minutia of the arguements made in court, but overlook the basic events underlying the case.

The best thing to do when you paint yourself into a corner is wait for the paint to dry.

And Amused, to repeat myself, nothing I have posted and none of the facts of the case suggest anything remotely like your conclusion that blacks found the test too challenging because they are inferior to white candidates or that blacks find firefighting itself too difficult.

You inserted that bullshit into this discussion, not me. So yeah, I totally think you’re a racist fuck.

Remember though, that doesn’t excuse you for not knowing or understanding the basic facts of the case.

because you seem incapable of doing either, I’d add that you’re a stupid, racist fuck.

Amused, if you had actually read anything about the case, anything I’ve actually quoted about the case or the link I provided, you would have all the answers to all the questions you’ve asked namely because the court has already answered them.

You’d also understand that your suspicion of the motives of city officials might have been taken into consideration by the courts in determining the outcome of the case, if, in fact, Ricci and his lawyers bothered to bring it up themselves:

The question of whether a municipality incurs liability
when, motivated only by a desire to comply with
federal anti-discrimination law, it takes race-neutral
actions that have racially significant consequences, is
undoubtedly an interesting one.FN1 To *89 reach that
question one must, however, first examine whether
the municipality’s proffered desire to comply with
federal law is in good faith and not a pretext. After
that, we must ask whether that asserted desire, although
in good faith, is not also in part motivated by
other, racial, considerations. In this case, the municipality
claimed that its actions were grounded solely
in the desire to comply with federal law. The plaintiffs
alleged instead that this was not the real reason
for the city’s actions, and asserted that the city had
other less salubrious, and directly racial-political,
reasons for what it did.
FN1. For an exceptionally thoughtful and
thorough discussion of this area, see Richard
A. Primus, Equal Protection and Disparate
Impact: Round 3, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 494
(2003).
The district court and the panel readily rejected the
notion that the city’s stated reason was just a pretext.

But neither court went on to consider whether the city
was influenced by mixed motives. And that is why
Judge Cabranes, in his dissent from the denial of en
banc review, suggests that, since the plaintiffs alleged
that their race motivated the defendants’ decision, the
district court should have undertaken such a mixed
motive analysis. He contends, that is, that the courts
should have examined the situation as one in which a
legitimate motive may have combined with an improper
motive to bring about the challenged action.
SeePrice Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109
S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989). He would be
precisely right … except for the fact that that type of
analysis is not available to us in this case. It is not
available for the most traditional of legal reasons.
The parties did not present a mixed motive argument
to the district court or to the panel.

FN2. It is unavailable, that is, unless we
reach out and consider a legal theory that the
parties have eschewed. Sometimes-for example,
in matters of life and death-such a
reaching out may be appropriate. generally,
and specifically in this case, it is not.

http://www.cir-usa.org/legal_docs/ricci_2dcir_rhdn.PDF

So, Amused, again, perhaps you should actually familiarize yourself with the specifics of the case and the reasons for the court’s decisions before you open you’re mouth.

The only thing we appear to disagree with is the motivation behind throwing out the tests. You feel it was an honest mistake by city officials boxed in by federal law. Having the mistake brought to thier attention they invalidated the results of the sets.

I just don’t share your level of trust in the city officials. That hardly makes me a racist fuck. In any event we shall soon see what the Supreme Court thinks about the honest mistake that the city officials did or did not make.

Now this is the part where you are supposed to apologise for calling me names.

You really haven’t bothered to read a single actual fact I’ve posted and linked to have you?

You keep asking these questions as if they haven’t already been answered in a court of law, Amused. The facts are readily available on the internet. I’ve posted them here. I’ve linked to a pretty straightforward article outlining the whole case.

And you appear to have not read any of it.

You said they changed the new test to make it more relevent.

“The city threw its test, however, not because it was racially biased but because it did not adequately measure the skills for the promotions.”

If the old test wasn’t relevent about firefighting what was it about? Regardless of the contents of the first test the blacks all failed it. That is what you said.

“You seem to want to insist that this case proves that blacks are not as capable as whites in one way or another.”

Grades on a test are often used to judge capability on the subject being tested. This is hardly a radical or controversial viewpoint.

What other premise is available other than, in the small sample group studied, blacks were less capable than whites on the topics and subjects tested?

But I am most curious, if these tests given to firefighters aren’t about firefighting what are they about. Who is responsible for giving firefighters firefighting tests that aren’t relevant to firefighting?

No Amused. It’s when you put your words in my mouth that you’re a racist fuck.

You seem to want to insist that this case proves that blacks are not as capable as whites in one way or another.

The facts of the case don’t lead to anywhere near that kind of conclusion.
in the results.

You want to assume that this is because these tests are “less challenging” intellectually. But test bias has nothing to do with making questions easier for dumb people.

There are ways to test people for certain skills that are just as rigorous that don’t also produce racial disparity in the results.

The city threw its test, however, not because it was racially biased but because it did not adequately measure the skills for the promotions.

When you wrote:

The racial divide in the results was evidence in a study done after the test that the test didn’t adequately test firefighting ability, but tested something else that the blacks had difficulty with.

You, and you alone, are beginning with the premise that blacks have difficulty with “firefighting ability” which is patent racist nonsense.

“Ultimately, though, “Amused Observer” is demanding that the Court take an activist right wing perspective and rule against the clearly worded Civil Rights Law.

Right winger “Amused Observer” aim is to dismantle Civil Rights Law through right wing Judicial activism.”

I assume you are refering to the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. It is quite a stretch to claim I advocate a return to slavery or an elimination of the rights of blacks to vote. I am a strong supporter of the 14th amendment.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So just what was your point again News?

As for me, “Amused Observer” you’ve definitively convinced me that you are a sleazy liar.

“fafaroo”, in the other thread “Amused Observer” is now duplicitously trying to defend the indefensibly dishonorable “Swift boaters”.

Right winger “Amused Observer” is just trolling with lies to see who bites.

Nonetheless, “fafaroo”, it’s commendable that you’ve taken the time to address each of “Amused Observer’s” serial lies.

Ultimately, though, “Amused Observer” is demanding that the Court take an activist right wing perspective and rule against the clearly worded Civil Rights Law.

Right winger “Amused Observer” aim is to dismantle Civil Rights Law through right wing Judicial activism.

It’s clear that even if they were smart enough to know what they were doing they are too racist and dishonest to care.

1. “Amsued, according to the facts of the case, the sharp racial divide that appeared in the results is what prompted a review of the test. ”

2.”During the review of the test, the city realized, and the company which created the test, along with other experts, verified, that the test itself was not adequately designed to test all the right skills and so determine the best possible candidates for the job.”

3.”NEW HAVEN DID NOT SCRAP ITS PROMOTION LIST SIMPLY BECAUSE WHITES HAD HIGHER SCORES ON THE TEST THAN MINORITIES.

They scrapped the test because, on looking into it, they found that the test did not measure the skills required for the jobs in question. ”

4. “Their aim was not to find a “suffiently less challenging” test. Their aim was to find a suffiently MORE APPLICABLE test to the task at hand.”

You claim that the racial divide in the test is what prompted the review. That no blacks passing the test prompted a review.

You claimed that the test inadequately measured skills for leadership ability in regards to fighting fires. And further that a new test was devised to more adequately measure the needed skills since the old test that the blacks could not pass measured something other than leadership skills needed to fight fires.

So what the hell are you saying? That the test measured something else than the needed skills to manage a firefighting team. So if it didn’t measure that it measured something else.

So when I agree with your facts and use your quotes to show the facts I’m agreeing with that makes me a racist.

Obviously they tested something on the first test. Whatever it was, it was too difficult for the blacks because they all failed.

So where do you come off calling me a racist fuck. Those were all your points not mine.

Well, if anyone needed any more evidence that you’re a racist fuck, I’d have to say that this was pretty much it.

Another stab at your point. The racial divide in the results was evidence in a study done after the test that the test didn’t adequately test firefighting ability, but tested something else that the blacks had difficulty with.

Uh, no. That is not what I said.