tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post4268969071405371060..comments2023-10-31T08:50:43.614-05:00Comments on ANEKANTAVADA: D & J Discuss Firefighting Institutional RacismQhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10444952585830773530noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-48818708707268939372009-06-26T01:25:29.792-05:002009-06-26T01:25:29.792-05:00Several points.
First, I did not say that all whi...Several points.<br /><br />First, I did not say that <i>all</i> white test takers were outliers. I said that Ricci who took off 6 months to study for the exam was likely an outlier, as would be any others who did likewise. If you study for a test for two weeks, and I lay out every night and cram 4 hours before the test, I would expect you to outperform me. And there is no way for you or I or the Supremes to judge whether such extreme study habits are the norm for test takers or if Ricci is simply more highly motivated to gain a promotion. In any event, his behavior seems highly unusual to me and I doubt that all test takers go to such extremes. Hence, my suggestion that he might be an outlier. Certainly the ability to take 6 months off work to study for an exam is not a racial issue, but an economic one. I suspect that very few of the white firefighters could afford a similar approach.<br /><br />Second, I think you misunderstand me when I say "you can't change boats mid-stream". I am not saying that New Haven has to adhere to this test (or any other)<i>in the future</i>. I am saying that it seems inherently unfair to have begun the process of promotions based on the existing policy that says this test will be used to rank those eligible for promotions and THEN throw it all out because you didn't get the results you want.<br /><br />I maintain that an employees have a right to take their employers at their word. At least one employee took time off from work to advance himself, and probably at great personal cost (loss of wages and potentially seniority, retirement, etc.). He did so because his employer stated that promotions would be awarded based on test performance. He performed well based on <i>the criterion his employer agreed to use</i>. If he is denied a promotion that he "earned" based on existing policy, he has been harmed and for that he should expect recompense. Simply stated, to deny him a promotion for being successful is not fair to <b>this individual</b>. <br /><br />I agree, the test is unfair to groups and the criteria for promotions should be changed. But for this group of individuals who entered the promotion process under a given set of employer policies, promotions should not be denied because the employer did not get the desired results. This group should get their promotions and the fire department should figure out how to rank people on more relevant criteria. If they don't award these promotions, I think the plaintiffs have a solid case for economic damages.<br /><br />What is weird to me about this is that one would expect the minority group that failed to pass the test to have to sue the employer to change their discriminatory practices. In this case, they are getting policy changes handed to them and the non-minority individuals who followed the rules are having to sue to get the employer to follow its own policies. This odd situation becomes less a case of discrimination to me than it is of a test whether the policies of an employer constitute a contract with its employees. I suspect that the latter is true.Daktarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08291715601733518982noreply@blogger.com