Starving during surplus; surplus of starving

Another bit here reinforcing the importance poverty/lack of socio-economic power in causing hunger and malnutrition (a topic J recently got in an extended discussion with J-friend NP; to be re-posted here eventually).

Quoting Ms. Nierenberg of the WorldWatch Institute,

One of the most interesting things Thurow explained was how the success of African farmers became their failure-in 2001, the Ethiopian harvest was the best most farmers had ever seen. They had record yields and had more food than ever to feed their families, as well as to bring to market. But that surplus caused prices to collapse more than 80 percent. Farmers couldn’t pay their debts and they cut back their expenses the next season-they planted less, they used less inputs like fertilizers and hybrid seeds, and planted just enough to (hopefully) feed their families. When the famine hit hard in2002-2003 , the same farmers, write Thurow and Kilman, who had carried their surplus grain to market the season before, were now carrying their malnourished and starving children to food aid centers. And at the same time, Ethiopian grain traders had warehouses packed to the ceiling with surplus food because foreign aid agencies were buying foreign-mostly U.S. grain-instead of from local suppliers. As a result, while millions of people in Ethiopia went hungry, more than 300,000 tonnes of grain rotted either in fields or in storage.

This is rather similar to a story that was formational in the J-career related to food issues, from a 2002 NYT story, Poor in India Starve as Surplus Wheat Rots (original article is here, but I wanted to make sure readers weren't blocked by a possible NYT subscription wall). Not to pick another debate with NP, but these articles reinforce the pivotal role of poverty/lack of political power in hunger, as in both cases, there are surpluses that are going to waste rather than feeding people (although the details seem reversed, with farmers getting high, possibly inflated prices in one circumstance but underpaid in another, although J highly suspects that the farmers benefitting in India in 2002 were primarily large farmers). Fortification or yield increases or self-generation of pesticides (through genetic modification or other means) would none of them address the problems of hunger confronting the millions of people in these cases, because neither production nor nutrient content were the problem. (The argument with NP to be reprinted here revolved somewhat over Golden Rice (yes, again); one of his points was the fact that it might not solve "the" problem is not a reason it can't solve "a" problem; we'll leave it here by saying that is at least plausibly true, even if I think it to not be the case in the overwhelming majority of the time that genetic modification can solve hunger problems when market/governance problems are at root in the examples given, so even granting his point it appears like it may not be generally applicable solution, beyond potential safety and health problems J sees with GMOs... BID (but i digress)). One certainly can't make the point that production could have a secondary positive effect by lowering food prices in the Ethiopia case as in that case, low food prices (and a reliance on agricultural sales rather than self-sufficiency) contributed to hunger via farmer poverty; in the Indian case it appeared that the government was controlling the distribution of surpluses based on international and domestic political pressures, so price and supply themselves weren't necessarily prime factors there either.

BONUS J
Great quote from J-friend JCR, in response to a quote from another J-friend (""Americans are a stupid people by and large--we pretty much believe whatever we’re told.” -- Det. Norris, Baltimore PD, "The Wire"):

We have a very long history of mistrusting the government and believing in the importance of the individual over the community. We're steeped in it, and we don't often question it. This fundamental attitude is easy to manipulate, so that health care for everyone is bad (because you need more government investment to do it), while tax cuts for the rich are good (on the assumption that someone who is rich got that way by individual merit).

We're no lazier or dumber than the rest of the world, but our basic beliefs don't serve us as well as they could.

For the record, JCR partly credits this blog post by Frank Schaeffer for what he calls a not "completely original" sentiment. (Of course he's right; "There's nothing new under the sun", but then again, genius is, in a way, saying what others have thought but perhaps did not realize: "In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts; they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty.")

Oh, for fuck's sake

Sigh.

Apparently, the US is a criminal sex offender. So be on the look-out should this country move into your neighborhood.

I suppose this shouldn't come as a surprise... I've found myself rather in agreement with critiques of recent years observing that we've come to accept prison rape as an informal additional punishment, a nonchalance which can't help but be reflected in the actual approach of the prison-industrial complex to investigating and stopping it. There's a good point to be made that we shouldn't accept rape as an informal punishment any more than we would accept it as a formal one -- I can't imagine (or I can, but'd rather not) it would pass Constitutional muster as a NON-"cruel and unusual" punishment, but our being so blase about invites it to stay part of our system.

Speaking, unfortunately, of rape, there is the continuing and seemingly worsening wave of sexual violence in the Congo, where apparently we're (the US and UN) helping to mentor other countries' armed forces in sexual violence:

AMY GOODMAN: Now, what about this issue of the US-, the UN-backed Congolese army in the area now increasing the rate of rapes? And we’re actually not just talking about women and girls, but also of men and boys, as well. Is that right, Christine?

CHRISTINE SCHULER DESCHRYVER: That’s totally right. I have to say, since they started like with the new operation called “Kimia II” with the Congolese army and supported by the UN forces, the situation here on the ground is terrible, terrible, because now we have the militias just—not just going and rape the women, they are burning villages, they are killing the people, they’re raping men. They are like—they already use the same methods like Janjaweeds in Darfur. So now the level of violence in both North and South Kivu is just incredible. There’s no more words to describe what’s going on. And we still, like—we all, like—like the international NGOs, the local, the national NGOs, all of them made reports to alert the world that there’s a tragedy going on with this operation. But they’re still continuing, and we don’t understand that.

I... have nothing else to say, really. This has sort of sapped the pithiness right outta me.

The Hell?

There's an at least plausibly accurate survey out there showing that most Americans think women should be required to take their husband's name when they get married. The hell?

The J Continuum: Anekantavada has aspirations of doing some sort of Latin America-thingy with the future Mrs. J Continuum: Anekantavada where perhaps he adopts her last name as his middle and vice versa (making her prospectively more accurately named as the "Future Mrs. J Continuum: Anekantavada-Hyphen-Her-Name-Here") or some such other compromise; as a fan of some small amount of ritual and symbolism, I like the idea of reflection of a union of people in some sort of union of names. But a) I wouldn't even WANT her to simply replace her last name with mine, b) legally REQUIRED? c) the HELL?

Being a world-renowned professor while black

Prof. Henry Louis "Skip" Gates, Jr. -- Harvard University Professor, editor of the Root, etc. etc. -- was arrested on his own front porch after it was determined that he was, indeed, the legitimate homeowner as far as I can tell. Writer Samantha Henig of Slate and the Double X Factor comments on this and links to some other good commentaries:

Just as upsetting to me as the Henry Louis Gates Jr. arrest, Emily, is the way that so many people have been responding, including in our own comments section. There’s this reflexive defense mechanism that so often kicks in with white people (of which I am one) in situations like these; an urge to stand up for the white person accused of discrimination because hey, I’m white, and I’m not racist. I’ll admit, I feel that pull too at times—I cringe at people who fling around groundless accusations of racism [and other hot-button issues].

But this is not a case where people should get all smug about being “brave” and “honest” enough to question whether race was a factor; to suggest that maybe it was Gates who was out of line, not the cop. In all the steps of this story—the neighbor who called the cops, the way the officer spoke to Gates, the fact that the kerfuffle between them, no matter how much it was instigated by Gates, led to an actual arrest—it is just so hard to imagine that not one of them was influenced by Gates (and his driver) being black.

Blogger Kate Harding has a thorough explanation of why declarations that race isn’t a part of this arrest are coming from a position of white privilege. And to “people are trying to be all devil’s advocatey about it and suggest that Gates bears responsibility for making matters worse,” she offers this: “I’m sorry, who wouldn’t be a belligerent prick after getting off a long flight, coming home to a jammed door, then finding a cop in your living room accusing you of trying to steal your own shit? I sure would.” Ditto that.

Read the rest here.

Obama and Cheney, together in bed, giving H-E-A...

With apologies to The Coup.

But; srsly?

The Obama administration asserted a legal argument that a federal judge called the Jon Stewart “Daily Show exemption,” as the Justice Department continued a court fight to protect ex-Vice President Dick Cheney from disclosures about his role in the leak of a CIA officer’s identity six years ago.

At a federal court hearing Tuesday, Jeffrey Smith, an attorney in the Justice Department’s Civil Division, argued that the transcript of Cheney’s 2004 interview with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about the CIA leak should remain secret for as long as 10 more years.

Last month, Smith cited the possibility that the transcript’s release might discourage future vice presidents from cooperating with criminal investigations because their words could become “fodder for The Daily Show.”

When Smith revived that argument on Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan said, “You’re getting back to the Daily Show exemption. You’re not going back there, are you?”

Read the whole thing, "Obama Lawyers Shield Cheney on Leak" by Jason Leopold, at Consortium News.

It might be inaccurate, but at least it's fast

An article today at Slate discussing Body Mass Index (BMI) and how it's actually a poor measure of obesity -- and why it's used so commonly to diagnose said obesity. Rather like many population measures -- time at menarche or onset of puberty, age at death, literacy, whatnot -- the overall averages won't tell you what's going on with any given individual. But alas, the almight BMI is convenient, so it's commonly used.

This reminds of the (related) phenomenon, back during the Atkins Diet craze, when I read an article talking about it and its actual relationship to healthy eating and longevity (questionable at best, negative at worst). It quoted some scientists as arguing that at least Atkins brought people's attention to dietary questions; in my experience, however, it was just another fad diet, and people adhered to it specifically. There was little spillover into more generalized health concerns, exercise, etc., just cutting down on carbs -- which as many scientists in that article and out pointed out, is not terribly related to long-term health, as the fats associated with much of the protein people ate instead did little for their cardiovascular health, and they missed out on the nutrients and micronutrients chiefly gleaned from eating complex carbs (i.e. the anti-Wonder Bread).

Anyway, like BMI or even worse our focus mainly on weight, the article expressed a point of view that I like to summarize as, "Things are so bad, we need a solution -- even if it's a wrong one that won't work."

Sigh.

Frank Ricci: Firefighter, Successful Supreme Court Litigant... Serial Suer?

Dahlia Lithwick writes at Slate about Frank Ricci's penchant for filing suits over jobs. In what might be irrelevant background, a pattern of sour grapes, or a person "repeatedly victimized by a cruel cadre of employers, first for his dyslexia, then again for his role as a whistle-blower, and then a third time for just being white," the recent victor along with the others of Ricci v. DeStefano also just might be "a serial plaintiff—one who reacts to professional slights and setbacks by filing suit, threatening to file suit, and more or less complaining his way up the chain of command." Ricci, who will testify during Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, is, as Lithwick says, thus "not the typical GOP heartthrob." The GOP's stance on discrimination lawsuits seems to be along the lines of J-Friend Dan's philosophy of complaining. As he once said: "I don't believe in complaining about things you can't do anything about. On the other hand, I don't really believe in complaining about all the other stuff either." Switch "complaining" with "lawsuits" and you have the Republican philosophy, or its seeming one, regarding lawsuits for rights infringements (see their repeated attacks on tort lawyers and all that rigmarole).

Lithwick's piece is little more than a trifle, though it certainly paints Ricci in a different light (whether or not that's a fair different light is a different conversation) and makes one wonder why this wasn't brought up before now? Surely, this wasn't just discovered. And like I say, it might be irrelevant, but it could've been a choice part of the discourse anyway, considering how much the focus was on "being fair" to Ricci and his colleagues, who "earned" their promotions based on the standards given, regardless of whether the standards were the best ones to evaluate people with or were discriminatory as such Title VII was heretofore determined.

So, 6 heads of state walk into a summit...

What's wrong with this picture?



That's right: not only aren't half of the leaders women, none of the pictured leaders are women.

Oh, yes, and the failure to agree on a climate plan.

Though, black (male) head of state of a predominantly white country: check. We're still working on consistently representing the other (female) half of humanity, among other things.

New Haven's Firefighters: Race, White firefighters, and civil rights, Part the Nth

A really fantastic piece, or seemingly from my quick readthrough, by Richard Thompson Ford again, Stanford scholar and previously linked-to commentator on the "New Haven Firefighter Case" of Ricci v. DeStefano.

Ford analyzes how the SCOTUS' finding for the white firefighters (and one Hispanic firefighter) in this promotion case overturns years of civil rights precedent, while going with more recent precedents of treating any attempt at addressing civil rights as creating their own racial (or sexual, in the case of homosexuality) preferences, "reverse discrimination" or "special privileges."

There are two interesting points here (well, many more than that, but two I will make right now.) One is that recent discussions with various J-friends have, unhappily, split pretty clearly along racial lines (though not with any racial overtext, that is, whether or not people agreed or disagreed with the SCOTUS decision fell quite racially within my very small subsample of my friends). BUT, the point of contention seemed to (mainly) fall into "Ricci et al. deserved to win because they played by the rules," that is, the test happened, and taking back what they'd "earned" by going along with the test as written would not be fair, regardless of the errors, biases, whatever of the test. (The "compromise" position found between J-fave D and J was that they were deserving of some recompense for the efforts they put into preparing for the test, even if they were not owed a promotion.) Essentially, as I discussed with J-Mom, it seemed to be a focus on the individual, individualism, and the rights of the individual not to be "harmed" for the good of the whole, or good of another group at least. (This is not at all how the J-friends phrased it, but my interpretation of their objections to my points of view). J-friend Sean felt that institutional racism was real, but of a lessor magnitude than perhaps I may think it was, a lessor magnitude than discrimination from poverty (which is hard, if not impossible, to parse, but suffice it to say I think institutional racism is a profound and not terribly diminished problem, something D seems to agree with to some degree.) Indeed, Sean argued (if I am restating it correctly) that essentially positive preferences for any group are essentially the same, such that discrimination "for" blacks was as bad as discrimination against them (and you can replace "black" with white or Hispanic or what have you here).

Thompson argues that this places many, many programs to address racial programs at risk, as in the end, they all hinge on treating one group differently than another or end up displacing some people who would otherwise have received a job, promotion, or college acceptance. (He uses the example of the 10% programs, where, for example, Texas admits the top 10% of students in their high school class, a supposedly "race-neutral" way of achieving the end of diversity and representation of minorities. As has been pointed out by others, this only works because Texas schools are segregated, thus, you get diverse representation because the top 10% of the class at predominantly black or Latino schools is itself predominantly black, so minorities get represented essentially because they are not integrated (or have lower relative average scores where they are more integrated). As Thompson says:

The university now admits any student in the top 10 percent of his or her public high-school class, and because so many of the public schools in Texas are racially segregated, this guarantees a racially diverse student body. Opponents of race-conscious affirmative action have pointed to this policy as an example of a viable, race-neutral alternative. But no one denies that the motivation for dropping the traditional admissions criteria in favor of the 10 percent plan is to achieve a better racial mix. Extending the logic of Ricci, this looks like impermissible race discrimination against the students who would have been admitted under the old criteria, just as dropping the firefighter promotion exam was impermissible race discrimination against the white firefighters who would have been promoted.

I think this poses a challenge to those who agree with the Ricci decision, unless they hold the very narrow stance that it is only because the test already happened that it was unfair discrimination. As Thompson points out, how would the case be (legally) different if, before the test, the city chose to use one test that they knew from previous data would tend to favor a more diverse mix (i.e. less whites and more minorities) rather than a test that would favor more whites. The intent there is almost exactly the same as throwing out the results for, as some of my friends posed it, "having too many white people". So if Ricci is unfairly discriminating against whites, using a test that you know would admit more minorities also should be, to be logically consistent.

The second point, which you may have forgotten I even supposedly had at this point, is that Ford reiterates that Ricci is a change in the status quo. As J-Mom AND the article by Bazelon I've prattled about here for the past week pointed out, the previous standard for a "discriminatory" test was just that the results were discriminatory. Governments typically used an "80% rule":

Title VII requires employers not just to inspect their hearts and not find any discriminatory intent, but to consider the racial impact of things like tests. And the EEOC, in interpreting this requirement, has given clear guidance about what impact counts as suspect:

"A selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact."

The rates at which blacks and Hispanics passed the New Haven tests were well below 80% of the rate at which whites passed. That means that those tests were presumptively in violation of the law. (from Obsidian Wings)

Thus, the Court set aside the typical way things were done, where (as I have pointed out to J-friends), a test that has that much racial disparity is presumptively discriminatory, which seems to me a fine first pass at such things in a world of institutional discrimination, which I see as a very large on-going problem, contra J-friend EssEee.

As to the earlier point over the "fairness" to the individual, two other interesting bits:

Obsidian Wings: I have read many professions of outrage about this decision, but most of them focus on whether it is a good thing or a bad thing that Frank Ricci didn't get his promotion, rather than what the law requires. This puzzled me.

And Walter Dellinger:

Given that no one had been promoted and no one had been denied promotion, it's very hard to see how the firefighters who brought suit were able to establish the very first element of a Title VII action: the existence of an "adverse employment action." In addition to satisfying the statute, it would have been far better for the process to judge New Haven actions after promotion decisions were actually made using whatever new standards the city chose to adopt. Completing the process would have shed light on the question of whether there were in fact equally good (or perhaps, better) criteria for determining promotions, and with far less racial disproportion... Which takes us to the fact that Justice Kennedy's opinion relies in part on a logically flawed, categorical error. He writes: "If an employer cannot rescore a test based on the candidates' race [citing the Title VII provision], then it follows a fortiori that it may not take the greater step of discarding the test altogether to achieve a more desirable racial distribution of promotion-eligible candidates..." This is wrong. There is a very powerful difference between setting aside the results of a test based on what you learn from general racial statistics about those who took the test, on the one hand, and adjusting individual test scores on the basis of race, on the other... Using race to identify a problem has never before been considered problematic. It is what necessarily happens before institutions adopt the most widely accepted race-neutral actions, like using admissions criteria for every applicant that have less of a racial impact (for example, accepting students in the top 10 percent of their high-school class, which, in states like Texas, would produce a racially diverse student body). Contrary to Kennedy's assertion, deciding not to use test results should be far less problematic than "rescoring based on race." ...Here, all New Haven did was set aside the results of a test. It seems to me that test would have been very hard to defend, given the other questionable employment rules that surrounded it. New Haven counts the multiple-choice test as 60 percent of what determines promotion. That places twice the weight on test-taking as the median for firefighter promotions around the country. How can that unusually great a weight be justified? Kennedy says only that it was insisted upon by the union. Yep. That was two decades ago, when the union was dominated by the white firefighters. That so great a weight should necessarily be given to a multiple-choice test used to pick leaders out of a group of qualified firefighters is hard to see.

Going back to Ford to wrap up, he asks:

And why stop there? Even recruitment efforts aimed at underrepresented minorities are designed to increase the representation of those groups in work forces and entering classes with a limited number of openings. If these outreach efforts are successful, some minorities will necessarily displace some whites who would otherwise have been hired or admitted. Are those efforts discriminatory, too?

Among other things, I see this case as reflecting a problem of where many want us to be, especially in white America, and where we actually are (or at least how we perceive it in black America, to speak in broad generalities). If you think racism is a significant and real, persistent still-present problem, interventions of a certain size, from affirmative action to throwing out the New Haven test (which depending on how you look at it, was unfair to those who would have been promoted based on how the test was set up before hand by taking away what they'd earned, or would have been permissible because it threw out results based on the heretofore legally correct presumption that such skewed results were de facto racist) seem reasonable. If you think, know, or wish that racism has receded to the point where a lot less aggressive, race-blind, and minor intervention is all that's needed, it seems understandable to take it from Ricci's side.

Argh. Ok, I have a headache now (unrelated to the post, I think). Até...

GoldFISHER... The Waste with the Supreme Court Touch

Ok, that title is horrible.

BUT, so (seemingly) is the Supreme Court decision in Coeur Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. AND, the seeming complete LACK of analysis of this decision anywhere other than The Colbert Report. (If you can find some other good analyses, please let us at the Continuum know.)

From Colbert and quick skimming of other sources, it seems to be that a gold company in Alaska got permission from the Army Corps of Engineers to dispose of "tailings" from a gold mine but filling up a lake of a depth of 75 ft or so to a depth of 74 ft, killing (of course) everything in the lake, what with the lake becoming a "kiddie pool" and the toxic nature of the "tailings."

Apparently, the issue was: the gold mine waste is technically "fill" and "fill" is under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers, not the EPA, which only has jurisdiction of "waste". So the toxic fill could be used to fill up the lake because it wasn't toxic waste, but toxic fill. Somehow involved in this was a Bush Administration regulation (I believe they changed it so that "fill" was no longer covered by the EPA, but I could be off on that), and the Court ruled that it should give deference to the EPA's own interpretation of its regulations, such that apparently filling up a lake with toxic fill isn't the same as filling it up with toxic waste. (This seems to me to clash with Scalia's untenuous philosophy of using only the "plain sense meaning" of laws, but whatever.)

I'd really like to read more in depth analysis of this case, but it seems to be lacking. I guess we're too busy with celebrity deaths, strip-searching teenagers, and firefighters.

Actual SCOTUS decision is here.

Deforestation for Sustainable Development neither Develops nor is Sustainable

A recent study by Rodrigues et al. finds that development projects in the Brazilian Amazon didn't really increase people's long-term quality of life (there was an increasing quality of life as deforestation began and then it decreased back to a similarly low point as it started at). Among other things, this sort of belies (yet again) what's been called the environmental Kuznet's curve, roughly speaking, the idea that the economy has to "develop" or expand before you can "afford" environmental protection. If you in the end neither provide measurable development nor protect the environment, well... Anyway. Bjorn Lomborg: 0; Reality: Many.

There's much more to be said about development, resource use, sustainability, and the economics, politics and forces at work encouraging deforestation and supposed development scheme, but they won't be said right now.

Once again, Ruth Bader Ginsberg proves to be the Voice of the J Continuum

God love her. Though I still can't see how RBG and Scalia are supposedly personal friends; I guess they don't let politics get in the way, which in a way is admirable, and another way, kind of... blergh. I guess it's mostly admirable, but it's weird to me: "You have a fundamentally different view of justice, rights, appropriate behavior, and the roll of state than I do, to the point that where I see oppression, you see correctness, where I see sound reasoning you see soft-headedness, and where you see correctness, I see incorrect or wistful interpretation, and continuing of an oppressive system." I guess it's good -- and much needed -- to have friendship across political lines, but when it's someone like Scalia... It'd just be weird hanging with someone who not only differs with you on, say, whether or not the state should put people to death and what constitutes torture, but has and has used his position (quite correctly) to advance his views. (Like I say, it's of course correct for Scalia to do so, it just adds a creepy element to political disagreements, when you each have the power to make your stance part of the "correct" interpretation of the laws of the land.)

Anyway, Emily Bazelon returns to my good graces with this in her recent post on the recent Ricci decision:

Why all the competitive storytelling? The Supreme Court's ruling today will apply whenever cities try to base promotions (or, by extension, hirings) on a procedure that turns out to eliminate most or all of the minority candidates. This is called disparate impact, and Congress wrote it into Title VII in 1991. New Haven's test for promoting firefighters had such a disparate impact—that's one thing all the justices do agree on. The question is, What happens next? Can the city say, hey, we think there's another better way to make these promotions that won't leave us with a fire department led only or mostly by white people; now let us go figure that out? Until today, the answer seemed to be yes. Now the answer is clearly no. If a city in this position sees a disparate impact problem coming toward it like a right, it can only step out of the way if it has, as Linda explains, a "strong basis in evidence" for thinking that the test can't be defended—in other words, that the test it used is more job-related, and a better measure of performances, than the other measures of assessment it didn't use.

The city can't throw out its test even though the results allow for the promotions of no black firefighters because it would be making such a decision based on race or, as Kennedy writes, because "the City rejected the test results because the higher scoring candidates were white." He is treating the decision to throw out the test and start over as an absolute racial preference. Here is where the bad facts come in: Frank Ricci and the other white (and one Hispanic) firefighters who sued did what they were supposed to do. They studied for the test the city offered, and they scored the highest. But they didn't get the promotions they felt entitled to because no black firefighters scored as well. Justice Ginsburg points out that Ricci and his fellow plaintiffs "had no vested right to promotion." She's right. But to the majority, that doesn't really matter, because the majority focuses only on this test and this round of promotions in New Haven. And when you frame the case that way, Frank Ricci and his dashed hopes take up the whole screen. At which point, you think about justice for them and only them.

Ginsburg widens the lens. She goes back to the early 1970s, when African-Americans and Hispanics made up 30 percent of New Haven's population and only 3.6 of the city's 502 firefighters. This is when the black firefighters in New Haven started suing. Their efforts yielded much better representation among the rank-and-file in the department. But as Ginsburg says, not among the fire department's leadership: "The senior officer ranks (captain and higher) are nine percent African-American and nine percent Hispanic. Only one of the Departments' 21 fire captains is African American." (More from me about the history of New Haven's fire department here.) New Haven threw out the test results because it was trying to rectify that imbalance. To Ginsburg, this should surely be permissible—a city trying voluntarily to comply with Congress' 1991 mandate to address disparate impact.

And then, Ginsburg points out, the majority raises the bar for what New Haven must show to justify throwing out these test results. Kennedy dismisses as "stray facts" in the record the doubts raised about how the test was weighted—60 percent written, 40 percent oral—and the city's proposal to replace the test with an assessment center, which are designed to evaluate the particular skills needed for a job. But Ginsburg sees that the 60-40 weighting simply reflects the demands of the union—the same union that filed its own suit against the city in support of Frank Ricci. And she sees the merit of the assessment centers as an alternative measure. "Relying heavily on written tests to select fire officers is a questionable practice, to say the least," she writes. "Successful fire officers, the City's description of the position makes clear, must have the '[a]bility to lead personnel effectively, maintain discipline, promote harmony, exercise sound judgment, and cooperate with other officials.' These qualities are not well measured by written tests." No wonder, in Ginsburg's view, a 1996 study found that two-thirds of the cities surveyed were using assessment centers in making promotion decisions.

They make a good point that I've been (inadvertently) dancing around with my fellow discussants in other fora: the (reasonable) sympathy evinced for Ricci and his fellow white (and one hispanic) firefighters in this case is in conflict with the institutional history and less acute but nonetheless real plight of black firefighters in New Haven. And I would differ with my friend EssEee (Sean) who sees institutional racism as less of a problem than institutional discrimination against poverty; I guess part of my counterexample would be the various problems women have with equality of management positions, salary, and promotion (see i.e. Lilly Ledbetter), where the problems of disparity and inequality for women is, if not completely distinct from poverty, relatively so.

More on Ricci v. DeStefano from another forum

J-Friend EssEee said:

Jumping in late here... Has it been demonstrated in any valid way that the test was, in fact, flawed. Or is it merely a case of the results pointing to the possibility of a flawed test?
From my limited knowledge, it appears that the city said "This is the criteria used to determine promotions." and when the results came back and too many people of ... Read Morethe "wrong" race met the criteria, the criteria were changed. Without demonstration that the original criteria were flawed, it seems to be flagrantly a matter of discrimination.

J responds:
(as often happens, I don't get to my point until I ramble through a lot of "thinking out loud." As I occasionally do, I'm reposting the conclusion at the top because I think it contains a brief summary of all the words I wander through to get there. So feel free to read the whole thing, but here's the gist:)
So I argue: can one have a test that discriminates along race but is not itself discrimination or resulting from the structures of racism? I think this is unlikely. And if it is possible to use an alternative but equally or more valid test of ability that doesn't divide along race, how does that compare to the original? If the original is fair does that make the alternative "hyper-fair"? Or if the alternative is equally or more valid, does that mean the original is discriminatory? I think this is an important question to ask. Some argue that looking at the result they got in terms of race and saying you will re-test is discriminatory in itself. I argue that looking at the result and not re-assessing the evaluation to see if there's a better way to do it is racist, because if there's a better way to do it that doesn't end up segregating racially, that seems to de facto mean the original way is flawed. I mean, they can't both be true, can they? If one test yields more racially balanced results, and is a reasonable test of ability, but another test yields racially segregatory results, can this other test also be considered a reasonable test? How can two reasonable tests give different results? And if two reasonable tests do give different results but one favors racial equality, is it racist to demand that test be used (or at least such industry-common alternatives tried)? How do we analyze a situation like this (which seems likely to be what would happen)?

I will say that I'm somewhat rather swayed that those who prepped for the test extensively are owed some kind of recompense, because institutional racism is not their fault, but I don't know that they're owed a promotion. (And if I were ruling the world, the way they'd get recompense would likely be cuts in everyone's salary to pay for a proportional compensation for them, since it is everyone's responsibility in society to agitate for racial equality, though of course in real life, this would just make everyone hate everyone... though that seems to be likely in this case anyway.)

Well I'd challenge you on that EssEee, though I'm fairly sure you'll still disagree. The criteria for discrimination is "disparate impacts", that is, if different races are affected differently, there's a prima facie reason (to my understanding) for assuming discrimination. This was instituted such that people couldn't (consciously or unconsciously) ... Read Morediscriminate after Jim Crow was struck down by trying to tailor tests towards one race. It seems fairly clear, in this case, it *was* tailored towards whites, completely inadvertently, given that it tested (seemingly) esoteric knowledge of the characteristics of fire over practical experience, and the whites were MUCH more likely to be nth generation firefighters, and therefore to possess (or have easy access to) such knowledge.

To me the question I suppose is what do you count as discrimination? The biggest problem this day & age is institutional racism, imho, which is racism inherent in the structures of the society we've built today. You don't have 300+ years of de jure racism without a lot of de facto racism becoming part of the culture and its institutions. To me, there's a good argument for looking at all institutions critically from the standpoint of race & sex, because they were founded on assumptions of inequality, and getting rid of the *rules* of inequality doesn't ... Read Morechange that the institution was founded in it and therefore is likely to have understructures of power favoring one race or sex. In any case, the argument is that if a test affects one race completely differently than another (as seems the case here), it's likely there's a discriminatory factor. After all, there are 3 Occam's Razor type conclusions to be drawn: 1) The white firefighters are inherently more qualified (as measured by the test); 2) they worked harder as a group than Latinos and Blacks; 3) the test (likely unintentionally) exploited factors that aligned racially. The fourth, that it's random chance, seems unlikely given the numbers.

And one has to admit, I think, it's quite possible that the test did discriminate based on racially-aligned factors that are non-obvious . (I guess one of a more libertarian ilk might argue that's tough crap, that society is only responsible for intentional racism and inadvertently racially-aligned factors are not germane, but I could go on for two... Read More pages on why I think that's completely faulty reasoning.)
I guess I'd pose a couple questions on this basis: 1) Is it possible for the city to want to redo the test, purely based on race, because the test *in its results* seemingly discriminated? Aren't results that break too-neatly on racial lines automatically suspect, whatever the cause? In effect, is wanting to redo it simply because not too many of the "wrong" race met the criteria but because only ONE of the non-white races qualified? After all, that's the issue -it's not that the wrong people won, it's that one race all but COMPLETELY dominated promotions. 2) If it is automatically racist to want to redo it just because the test broke down (I would bet) non-randomly along the lines of race? (That is, I bet the chances of getting these results at random from a fair test is very low, so one must assume systematically lower qualifications among the blacks and hispanics or assume the test is inherently unfair.) If this is true, that it is racist to redo the test simply because a not representative enough x-section was promoted, in otherwise, racism can happen in advancement of a fair goal (equality in promotion), then it seems to me it must be equally true that it is inadvertent racism to presume a test is fair and that blacks and hispanics were systematically under-qualified. That is, if it's racist in the pursuit of diversity to re-do a test that, unintentionally or not, strictly divivded on racial lines, then to me it is equally (if not more) tenable to argue that a test that strictly divides along racial lines is de facto racist, unless it can be shown that there's not a different, equally or more valid way to conduct the test that does not break down on racial lines.

In the end, that is my understanding from Richard Thompson Ford of the law -- if there is a way to do it that does not break down racially that is equally or more valid, then it is discriminatory to use the method that does break down along racial lines, even if unintentionally. To me, there are two burdens of proof, a different one for each side: for those who want to redo the test, that the test is unfair in some way; for those that want to follow the results, to prove that the reason it broke down racial lines is skill-related. If both sides fail to prove their contention, I'd argue that the compelling interest of society in having its services reflect its own diversity carries the day. All this is to say, I would (I have to admit, at least now that I've considered all the factors) have to say it would be equally racist if only blacks passed and the test wasn't reconsidered. I mean, think of that -- would you assume the test was fair if only blacks and hispanics succeeded in promotions and only one, or no, white people succeeded? I would think that's suspicious on its face as well.

In the end, I think it is simply wishful thinking to equate "discriminating" in order to achieve racial balance the same as doing so to achieve segregation. One cannot correct a society that was biased along color lines through a color blind approach. You cannot expect all social starting points to be equal while Jim Crow (legal segregation) is still within easily living memory. MLK, often quoted for his "dream" of all living in harmony, did not seem to believe this would be achieved through colorblindness:

Many of the ugly pages of American history have been obscured and forgotten. A society is always eager to cover misdeeds with a cloak of forgetfulness, but no society can fully repress an ugly past when the ravages persist into the present. America owes a debt of justice which it has only begun to pay. If it loses the will to finish or slackens in its determination, history will recall its crimes and the country that would be great will lack the most indispensable element of greatness — justice.
o Where Do We Go from Here : Chaos or Community? (1967), p. 109

Can it be this "debt of justice" can be paid simply by ignoring race? That doesn't sound like in any way paying a debt to me. He further said:

If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas.
o from a 1968 Playboy magazine interview

This is certainly an "argument from authority," but I use it because MLK is so often used to argue for a race-blind society. Can anyone doubt from those two quotes alone that he meant for an equal society to come about by not challenging any institution that has, say, a 30% black population but not 30% blacks at all levels? That he would say the solution to that is not action and re-examination of the method of determining it, but simply, I don't know, hard work and better luck next time?

have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.

This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.

So I argue: can one have a test that discriminates along race but is not itself discrimination or resulting from the structures of racism? I think this is unlikely. And if it is possible to use an alternative but equally or more valid test of ability that doesn't divide along race, how does that compare to the original? If the original is fair does that make the alternative "hyper-fair"? Or if the alternative is equally or more valid, does that mean the original is discriminatory? I think this is an important question to ask. Some argue that looking at the result they got in terms of race and saying you will re-test is discriminatory in itself. I argue that looking at the result and not re-assessing the evaluation to see if there's a better way to do it is racist, because if there's a better way to do it that doesn't end up segregating racially, that seems to de facto mean the original way is flawed. I mean, they can't both be true, can they? If one test yields more racially balanced results, and is a reasonable test of ability, but another test yields racially segregatory results, can this other test also be considered a reasonable test? How can two reasonable tests give different results? And if two reasonable tests do give different results but one favors racial equality, is it racist to demand that test be used (or at least such industry-common alternatives tried)? How do we analyze a situation like this (which seems likely to be what would happen)?

I will say that I'm somewhat rather swayed that those who prepped for the test extensively are owed some kind of recompense, because institutional racism is not their fault, but I don't know that they're owed a promotion. (And if I were ruling the world, the way they'd get recompense would likely be cuts in everyone's salary to pay for a proportional compensation for them, since it is everyone's responsibility in society to agitate for racial equality, though of course in real life, this would just make everyone hate everyone... though that seems to be likely in this case anyway.)

Daktari & J continued: Ricci v. DeStefano and I get errors when I try to post this in comments

Previously on this same Bat-Channel, D said:

OK, I'm having a problem following your logic here. So maybe you can try following mine for a minute. Black and Hispanic test takers did not score proportionately as well given their representation in the test taking pool as white test takers so the test was thrown out. (I assume that the single Hispanic plaintiff is the one who passed the exam.)

It seems to me that the racial imbalanced results have two possible origins: 1) the test was racially biased against black and hispanic test takers, or 2) it is the product of chance. Now, to the best of my knowledge, no black or hispanic test takers claimed that the test was biased at the time of the test. So any bias wasn't apparent to any of the test takers, regardless of race. All test takers were willing to wait on the results, presuming that it was a fair and balanced exam. Also to the best of my knowledge, no post-test analysis has been performed on the actual test taken to see if there is support for the claim of racial bias in the test.

Other than perfomance, there is no evidence to support the claim that the test was racially biased. So it must stand to reason that it IS the fact that no blacks made it to the "promotion level" that the test was thrown out. The city did not get the results they desired. What the hell? This case is going to go to the Supremes without the test in question even getting a once over by the people in a position to evaluate such tests?

I am sure you are right that there is residual institutional racism in the New Haven fire department. But it seems to me that the problem lies within the department's flawed policies. Change the policies if they don't give you what you want.

I for one cannot see the problem with saying that gender and racial representation should reflect that of the broader community. Therefore, half the firefighters should be men, x% should be black, x% white, x% hispanic. If you don't like that idea, then take a job somewhere else.

BUT, a handful of firefighters have been denied promotion based on the criteria that the city said it would use to promote firefighters. I hate the idea of an all white supervisory staff there, especially given the community's racial composition, but you can't switch boats mid-stream. I think these guys have a legitimate case.

The real issue for New Haven will be how to design a promotion policy that allows more equitable representation without being discriminatory against minority (for their community) ethic or racial groups.

Finally, didn't Ricci take 6 months off work to study for this test? Surely he, and anyone else who did similarly, must be seen as outliers. What happens to test results when you take these couple of fellows out of the analysis? Who know? Maybe the playing field does seem more level. There is too much unknown here to presume anything about the fairness of that test. However, it seems incredibly unfair to me that the criteria were established and agreed upon by all participants and then the rules change because the right people didn't win the game.

Will be interesting to see what the Supremes say.

J responded, here in a post body because his comments post refused to work:

Don't know that I entirely misunderstood you. I'm only half awake, but I don't think this particular policy constitutes a contract with its employees. I'm not sure how often supervisory positions come up, but seemingly not very. Besides which, promotions are (I would think) discretionary; sort of like tenure -- there doesn't have to be a particularly great reason to deny someone tenure. It can't be a purely discriminatory one, but it can be as simple as "you don't fit where we thought we were going when we hired you/when we told you that typically people with your track record of crazy hard work get tenure yesterday before the review". I mean, especially if this test is unrelated to the skills needed for the position, which is a quite arguable position (and one of the positions the black firefighters have taken). Clearly, it is not a "contract" in any absolute sense, as no one would say they were required to promote them if the deal were "we draw straws and whoever gets the longest straw gets promoted." If you then (rightly) decided that pure chance was a horrible reason to promote someone, I don't think you are breaching contract to refuse. (It may be "unfair" but again it depends on your perspective; in this case, it would be "unfair" to the supervisees and the city to have firefighters chosen by raffle when a better method could be devised to gauge quality.) Further, if the test does depend on white privilege, it could therefore be called discriminatory even if it were fair in the way I outlined earlier, that is, given sufficient backgrounding in the facts and culture, you could excel. Of course, that's the further problem -- the "contract" was that the top scorers absolutely get the promotions, not all those who passed any arbitrary cut-off. Most would agree that a written test cannot be the most effective way to determine a manager and firefighting supervisor. The agreement was for the written test to be everything -- and for having the highest relative scores being as important as high absolute scores. If the scores had been 99.9, 99.8, 99.7, 99.6, etc. and those first several were white, under the agreement as it was, they still would have to be the ones promoted -- even if those differences were within the margin of error and any number of other factors (20 years on the force vs. a well-testing greenhorn to make an extreme example) said that Mr. or Mrs. 99.2 should get promoted.

The problem is, you're of course right that if the test is "fair" then the employer shouldn't change midstream just because the results weren't what they wanted. But the law defines unfair as "ending up with a result affecting minorities differently when an alternative would work as well or better." That is, unfair for that exact circumstance, i.e. the test the white firefighters did better on is by default unfair if there is a difference in race and it can be shown that better practices could've been used for the test. Hence the tough spot the city is in -- the black firefighters may've had the law on their side had the city gone with the test because discriminatory results apparently automatically raise the possibility if not plausibility of a discriminatory test.

The problem to me is not whether or not you can change requirements mid-stream; if tomorrow the test were found to be a horrible predictor of skill, you aren't going to risk firefighters & civilians lives because of a tacit agreement with the test-takers. And if the test were obviously discriminatory, then the city would be within its rights you seem to be saying. The problem is, it's easy to (to me) to argue both sides, and no matter how you decide you may be "unfair" to one group. Fairness depends on where you stand, as does the test's discriminatory nature. In the end, the test is an attempt to make a qualitative process strictly quantitative, and that underlies the whole problem -- we can't reduce any of this to "facts" because almost every bit of it but the most basic elements are subject to interpretation.

D & J Discuss Firefighting Institutional Racism

Daktari (from this post's comments):

OK, I'm having a problem following your logic here. So maybe you can try following mine for a minute. Black and Hispanic test takers did not score proportionately as well given their representation in the test taking pool as white test takers so the test was thrown out. (I assume that the single Hispanic plaintiff is the one who passed the exam.)

It seems to me that the racial imbalanced results have two possible origins: 1) the test was racially biased against black and hispanic test takers, or 2) it is the product of chance. Now, to the best of my knowledge, no black or hispanic test takers claimed that the test was biased at the time of the test. So any bias wasn't apparent to any of the test takers, regardless of race. All test takers were willing to wait on the results, presuming that it was a fair and balanced exam. Also to the best of my knowledge, no post-test analysis has been performed on the actual test taken to see if there is support for the claim of racial bias in the test.

Other than perfomance, there is no evidence to support the claim that the test was racially biased. So it must stand to reason that it IS the fact that no blacks made it to the "promotion level" that the test was thrown out. The city did not get the results they desired. What the hell? This case is going to go to the Supremes without the test in question even getting a once over by the people in a position to evaluate such tests?

I am sure you are right that there is residual institutional racism in the New Haven fire department. But it seems to me that the problem lies within the department's flawed policies. Change the policies if they don't give you what you want.

I for one cannot see the problem with saying that gender and racial representation should reflect that of the broader community. Therefore, half the firefighters should be men, x% should be black, x% white, x% hispanic. If you don't like that idea, then take a job somewhere else.

BUT, a handful of firefighters have been denied promotion based on the criteria that the city said it would use to promote firefighters. I hate the idea of an all white supervisory staff there, especially given the community's racial composition, but you can't switch boats mid-stream. I think these guys have a legitimate case.

The real issue for New Haven will be how to design a promotion policy that allows more equitable representation without being discriminatory against minority (for their community) ethic or racial groups.

Finally, didn't Ricci take 6 months off work to study for this test? Surely he, and anyone else who did similarly, must be seen as outliers. What happens to test results when you take these couple of fellows out of the analysis? Who know? Maybe the playing field does seem more level. There is too much unknown here to presume anything about the fairness of that test. However, it seems incredibly unfair to me that the criteria were established and agreed upon by all participants and then the rules change because the right people didn't win the game.

Will be interesting to see what the Supremes say.

J responds:
Don't know if you read my prior post and the linked piece by Richard Thompson Ford. But the choice between "it's racially biased" and "it's random chance" isn't so easy as it appears. That is, it doesn't have to be racially biased in a way most would recognize ("these are questions black people somehow are less likely to know the answers to") but rather "the test (possibly inadvertently) gives advantage to whites based on greater access to certain types of knowledge -- the institutional history of most of them being nth generation firefighters whereas almost none of the blacks are anything but 1st gen. firefighters". It also -- the linked article makes this point -- relies strongly on "book learning" of (almost seemingly esoteric) knowledge of fires that doesn't apply to the job at hand to a high degree.

"Switching horses in midstream" is really not a concern to me. After all, fighting discrimination is by definition switching midstream. You don't get to benefit from it just because it seemed fair at the time.

It rather seems that the test was "fair" in that given the same amount of studying and background in firefighting, anyone could do as well. There are two parts to unpack here: one is that the white firefighters seemed to have a greater interest (due to family history and culture seemingly) and greater background in the "book aspects" of firefighting and thus did better on a test of such aspects; two, even presuming it was "fair", the law around discrimination (as I understand it from R. T. Ford) is that, if there is an equal or better way to test for skills related to promotion that would be less likely to result in disparate impacts, it is essentially a discriminatory act to use the test that ends up with disparate results.

That is to say, no one (except the firefighters who passed) argues that this test was the best way to determine their suitability for promotion. If there is a test that would better test such suitability, it should be used and this test should be thrown out. Since the test was not based on actual comportment in the field, people skills, or operational knowledge rather than memorized knowledge, one can easily (in my opinion) argue that it's not the best way to test for promotions. Whether or not discrimination was intended, if there is a better way to test for suitability that would end up with less disparate results, it should be used and this thrown out.

don't know if you read the articles linked in *this* post, but the test hasn't been publicly examined because it's proprietary and the company and city's contract doesn't allow it to be released. But the description makes it quite seem to me that the test is fair in the ways I described. But, that's the point of institutional racism -- you can set things up that are nominally "fair" and use them, inadvertently or purposefully, to end up with disproportionate results. Such disproportionate results are inherently suspect, and if there is a different and plausibly better way to do things, then they should be done that way, whether or not the intention was to discriminate.

It seems to me like this test was a case of "white privilege" -- the white firefighters in this case benefited from culture and history in a way they had no control over, but in a way that would tend to maintain a discriminatory status quo. As I said to my white colleagues at Procter & Gamble -- if you reasonably believe in equality, then in certain zero-sum situations like promotion, you *have* to believe that whites will be promoted less often then now. you can't both maintain the status quo of disproportionate power and achieve equality. And like the original SATs, which appear fair but which were explicitly instituted for discriminatory purposes (originally to keep out Jews, though it didn't work very well), you can't argue to maintain a seemingly fair solution if there are better solutions, especially when the present one, even unintentionally, holds people back.

And I completely agree with you on making things reflect community %ages, but people argue that a) this is a quota (which it is) and quotas per se have been illegal for a while now, and b) that this means "unqualified" people (minorities) will get in, and if you require some "basic" competence, then you return to defining what this competence is, and you almost never end up with a "basic" test favoring minorities (historically speaking, and if you do, you get lawsuits like this).

I guess this is one of the reasons I feel so strongly -- this to me is a case of white privilege, where the racism is not intentional or obvious, yet to leave things status quo means perpetuating "hidden advantages." I would propose that everyone taking the test get equal access to studying resources, but even then, the nth generation firefighters have an advantage, and since almost all several-generation firefighting families are white... well, there you go.

It's prickly, and hard to explain in writing for me, but by your definition, essentially, the white firefighters are as a group outliers (which is statistically an inviable proposition I'd say). Of course, the criteria established and agreed upon were not by "all participants" but rather by the union, on behalf of "all participants," but then, the union is majority white and split on racial lines and supporting the white firefighters. Hardly a good way to establish "criteria agreed upon by all participants."

If it only turns out after the fact that the "right people" didn't win the game, when the game doesn't necessarily test the most pertinent skills, then it seems to me that changing the rules is not unfair. There is no right to a promotion, and fairness is not "holding the rules steady" per se; like I said, if fairness were simply constancy of rules, then rules couldn't be changed in the face of discriminatory results. There is more to fairness than constancy, and not all institutional barriers are obvious before they are smacked right into.

Firefighting in black and white: More on Ricci v. DeStefano (aka the New Haven Firefighter Case)

This continues an earlier J-Continuum/Anekantavada discussion about the discrimination case before the Supreme Court of Ricci v. DeStefano. Again on Slate, an article does a pretty good job covering a lot of the relevant territory. Although I won't get into it now in any depth, a couple of facts together seem to me to point to why the city got it right in throwing out test results and denying promotions to everyone from that round of testing (i.e. mostly white, one Hispanic, and no Black promotions would have resulted):

a) In their entries, Allan and Bazelon lay out a still-common history and present of discrimination against minority firefighters, such that majority Hispanic and Black neighborhoods have had and often still have majority white firefighting forces, and even further, have stratification such that the supervisory levels are quite disproportionately white, along with

b) In this case, the white firefighters are predominantly from almost-totally white neighborhoods (~95% white) outside of the city they serve, New Haven, while the minority firefighters are mostly residents of the city. In entry exams, city residents get a slight (5%) advantage, on supervisory applications, there is no preference for those who live in-city. (It seems to me that living in the place you serve as a civil servant is a logical thing to preference for, if not require or distinctly advantage -- there's something to debate here, but I think you should be an explicit member of the civic community you supposedly serve for a variety of reasons, and the very least, this should likely be preferenced/encouraged in perhaps positive-incentive ways if it were not to be required). Further, in this specific case, allegedly some of the white firefighters "joke on the phone about 'working in the ghetto.' [Black, female New Haven Firefighter Erika Bogan asked] 'How dare you, when you live in Madison or Guilford, come in here and take our money and go back to your communities and talk shit about New Haven?'" I don't know that this has entered the case, but such casual disdain -- even as a joke -- speaks poorly of a white "civil servant" who doesn't even live in the place he's "serving." (It just compounds the problematicness of the whole thing -- at least if he lived in the "ghetto" he'd have the social "right to speak" ill of it by being a part of the community, rather than an "outsider" ridiculing it.)

c) The tests were based almost wholly on memorization and technical details of firefighting, items which don't even (apparently) apply to the majority of cases faced by the New Haven dept. (which are emergency calls, often medical in nature, according to the article). In other words, the tests don't have an apparent relationship with the actual on-the-job performances and requirements of firefighting in New Haven.

d) The firefighter's union chose to support Ricci (the white firefighter), despite accepting dues from all the firefighters, of all races; when a court ruled they couldn't back Ricci in court, they still spent union funds supporting his case, despite protestations (and an impending suit) from Black firefighters. This seems to me to constitute another form of institutional bias; it clearly should've sat out of this case in this manner, attempting to see the interests of all of its members. (One could argue it sees this supposedly "neutral" test to be in the interest of all of its members, but when the vote went straight down racial lines, it seems to me paternalistic and institutionally (i.e. not individually or purposefully) racist to then honor the requests of the majority-white vote.

e) The way the test was designed and conducted -- little input or review by outside experts (to avoid potential cheating, apparently) and out of step with what appears to be best practices in many other municipalities -- seems to me to further indicate the possibility of systematic unfairness and, importantly, to indicate that it is not necessarily the best way to determine promotability. This is one of the cornerstones of the "disparate impacts" bit of discrimination law -- if there's a better way to assess ability that is less likely to affect races differently, then (from my lay interpretation) it appears the city did the right thing in vacating the test.

f) Scalia apparently said at oral argument that he doubts the city would've done the same thing had the situation been reversed and almost exclusively black firefighters got promoted. ARGH. That just sounds so FUCKING ignorant to me. For one thing, that seems unlikely -- actually, if someone can point out an example of that happening, I'd like to know, because the very fact that all blacks doing better than all whites on a job exam seems to be rare if not non-existent points to me to the persistent and lingering problems of institutional racism, which is the very spur for the city's interpretation of the law that Ricci is challenging. Besides which, if that happened, wouldn't the white firefighters seem likely to challenge it? And wouldn't they, perhaps, have a point? One cannot simultaneously maintain that the white firefighters would be right to challenge the results in that case, and that they are right to challenge it in this case, without the logical implication that the point is that the white firefighters are entitled to do better automatically. And the white firefighters would likely be right to challenge it should the results have been nearly all-black. And if the city's behavior in THAT case would possibly be illegal, it is possibly illegal in this case. To be logically consistent, if he's going to find for Ricci in this case, Scalia would have to think that a case where only blacks were promoted would be prima facie legal, I think. (Despite the Latin, I'm not making a specific legal claim since I know nothing about the practice of law.) Bottom line: that sounds potentially discriminatory to me. In the end, this objection sounds suspiciously like "Oh, the city is just too obsessed with promoting BLACK PEOPLE," which is a stone's throw from "Political Correctness is ruining us all" and a good ways down the road, but on the same road, as calling them "Nigger lovers." Really, Scalia just disgusts me with that (though I know that's in part visceral and not logical, but it still, to me, trades on racial anxiety in a deceitful way.)

Anyway, I actually did talk at length about all that. Ooops. Time for showering and eating and writing actual academic work.

So, I'll leave off here with a quote from what seems to me to be a (rare) exceptional bit of writing from Slate (and an exception to much of Bazelon's recent production, despite my overall fondness for her as a writer based on memories of articles I liked long ago):

To young black firefighters like Mike Neal and Erika Bogan, that sounds like a solution. "We want to be on a level playing field," Neal says. "We want everything to be given to us on our merits." Ricci's group, on the other hand, feel as if they've already earned their promotions based on merit. They did what the city told them to. It's hard to imagine how they'll feel right about starting all over again.

Neal and Bogan's conception of merit is different from Frank Ricci's. It's easy to see why. Ever since the test results came out, the black Firebirds and the white plaintiffs have had opposing interests. Stretching back further in time, back over the decades, the two groups also see the history of the department through a different lens. For Frank Ricci, the past is a story of ethnic heritage and family pride. For Mike Neal and Erika Bogan, it's a story about breaking the lock on hiring that kept their people out.

Maybe promotions based on an assessment center would serve the city better, in the long-run, by testing for the abilities fire captains and lieutenants most need. Or maybe there are just a lot of firefighters well-qualified to do these jobs and a scant number of openings. "It seems like guys on both sides of the line feel like they've been cheated, like there just aren't enough positions to go around," says William Gould, the white captain. He supports Frank Ricci. But he can see what this fight looks like from the other side. If New Haven could start over, maybe it could also admit outright that it has more deserving firefighters than it has rewards. The city could come up with a measure for who is qualified for the promotions, rather than who is somehow best. And then it could choose from that pool by lottery. That might not exactly be fair, either. But it would recognize that sometimes there may be no such thing.

Point, Counter-punch

An interesting contrast of two articles on Counterpunch recently.

Nadia Hijab writes in "Small Changes Within the Confines of the Establishment: The Obama Difference:

Many have read much into Obama's speech - that was part of its genius - but it contained no policy announcements. That does not mean there are no policies. The Obama administration works differently from its predecessors in at least three ways... it doesn't do business on the basis of public pronouncements, the Obama administration speaks with one voice (the same tough line - settlements must stop, peace must start - is delivered by Mr. Obama; Vice President Joe Biden, who used to call himself a Zionist; Hillary Clinton, the former stridently pro-Israel junior senator from New York; Rahm Emanuel, who twice volunteered for the Israeli Army; the national security adviser, General James Jones; and the special envoy, George Mitchell), and this is an administration that does its homework. So, yes, nothing has changed on the ground yet. But because of the way it works, the Obama administration has a much better chance of bringing peace to the Middle East than its predecessors. Still, before breaking out the champagne, remember that Mr. Obama works within the boundaries of the American establishment. Within those narrow confines and given the present Israeli-Palestinian power imbalance, the Palestinians are likely to secure a bare minimum of rights while Israel walks off with the rest. Unless, that is, the Palestinians can rapidly tilt the balance in their favor - or unless Israel's intransigence does it for them.

In contrast, (though not strictly speaking, in complete opposition), Jennifer Loewenstein writes in "New Rhetoric for the Coloner-Settler Project: How Much Really Separates Obama and Netanyahu?":

Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama have one thing very much in common: both of them have nearly the same vision for the future of “Palestine”. They may not recognize it yet, but sooner or later, whether Netanyahu remains in power or is replaced by someone who speaks Dove-Liberalese better, they will shake hands and agree that the only thing that really separated them in the early months of President Obama’s administration was semantics: the language each man used to describe what he saw for the future of Palestine, or “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” –a phrase that suggests there are two sides each with a grievance that equals or cancels out the other’s and that makes a just resolution so difficult to formulate. How deeply have we been indoctrinated. If President Obama’s speech in Cairo signified anything, it was that the likelihood of a dramatic shift in United States’ policy toward Israel in the coming years is almost nil... Barack Obama has sent Benjamin Netanyahu the message he most seeks, whether Netanyahu recognizes it or not: continue your colonial-settler project as you have been doing; just change the vocabulary you use to describe it. Then nobody will get upset or notice that the status quo will persists. In the meantime Nasrallah and his followers in Lebanon will be shaking their heads in disbelief at the service Obama has just performed on Hizbullah’s behalf.

Loewenstein lays out the numerous problems Obama didn't address (such as the "illegal use of white phosphorous on the densely populated neighborhoods of Gaza City and beyond? The cluster bombs and fleschettes? The rocketing, fire-bombing and bulldozing of entire neighborhoods? ...[Israeli Defense Forces'] attack on hospitals, schools, ambulances, UN buildings and shelters, food warehouses, businesses, factories and family homes... [Israeli opposition to] the UN fact-finding mission on the commission of war crimes during its relentless assault... [the] planning [of] Operation “Cast Lead” six months prior to its beginning, or when the ceasefire was still in effect... the cantonization of the West Bank into a series of disconnected ‘island’ villages and towns; the de facto annexation and militarization of the Jordan Valley; the encirclement of the economy-stripped Palestinian enclaves by the annexation wall whose boundaries incorporate the theft of the best agricultural land and resources in Palestine for Israeli use only; The status quo grid of interstate, “Jewish only” highways connecting the settlement blocs to Israel so that they are inseparable and indeed indistinguishable from the Jewish state itself..."), and an allusion to the Palestinian casualties during Operation "Cast Lead", estimated to 1400, 85% of which were reportedly civilians. In contrast, I remember hearing on NPR casualties among the Israelis from rocket attacks; I feel like it was around 100-200 max. This references the one other thing I wanted to bring up: to me, there comes a line, a line VERY SOON, where the number of people you're killing as "collateral damage" (nominally untargeted civilians) becomes an equal horror to the number of civilians the other side may kill intentionally ("terrorism"). Chomsky discusses this a lot in other contexts (as well as in this one), calling the civilian casualties of (often "just" wars) "state terrorism". Call it what you will, I don't excuse it. A life is a life is a life to me -- especially in the case where the life snuffed out is not the one who attacked you. That it is a countryman or countrywoman of the person who attacked you is as immaterial as when civilians are intentionally killed and it's justified by pointing out their collusion or support of attacks on another aggrieved party in turn. If we claim only military targets are justifiable targets, we cannot simultaneously claim that military attacks killing large amounts of non-military citizenry is justifiable.

But of course, we do. Hiroshima and Nagasaki nominally had military value, but were entire cities. But the justification to this day is that it prevented later heavy casualties. So how come it's ok to kill civilians when the cause is important enough to us but it's not ok when the cause is important enough to others? (Not that I think it's ok in either case, but I'm asking for moral consistency on our part. Silly, perhaps -- but hypocrisy, to me, cannot be morality.)

I've wondered afield here. Go read the Counterpunch articles.

Um... Happy Monday?

Silence is the enemy: Marching orders from Comrade PhysioProf

From Comrade PhysioProf this morning:

This morning begins a coordinated blogospheric effort to draw attention to the ongoing horror of mass rape of women and girls in Liberia, which continues despite the end of civil war:

Jackie is too young to remember the 14-year civil war in Liberia, from 1989 to 2003, when as many as three-fourths of women were raped. Jackie’s world is one of a bustling, recovering Liberia with a free press and democratically elected leaders.

Yet somehow mass rape survived the end of the war; it has been easier to get men to relinquish their guns than their sense of sexual entitlement. So the security guard at Jackie’s school, a man in his 50s, took the little girl to the beach where, she said, he stripped her and raped her. Finally, he ran off as she lay bleeding and sobbing on the sand.

Mass rape and torture of women and girls also continues in the Congo:

Nothing I have heard or seen compares with what is going on in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where corporate greed, fueled by capitalist consumption, and the rape of women have merged into a single nightmare. Femicide, the systematic and planned destruction of the female population, is being used as a tactic of war to clear villages, pillage mines and destroy the fabric of Congolese society.

In 12 years, there have been 6 million dead men and women in Congo and 1.4 million people displaced. Hundreds and thousands of women and girls have been raped and tortured. Babies as young as 6 months, women as old as 80, their insides torn apart. What I witnessed in Congo has shattered and changed me forever. I will never be the same. None of us should ever be the same.

A number of bloggers are coordinating our efforts to call attention to this horrible situation and mobilize activism and financial support to end systematic mass rape in Africa. Here are some things you can do:

(1) Visit the blogs of Isis the Scientist, Tara Smith’s Aetiology, and Sheril Kirshenbaum’s The Intersection. They will be donating their revenues for page views to Doctors Without Borders, and they will be posting on an ongoing basis about this situation.

(2) Donate to Doctors Without Borders, who are leading the effort to provide medical treatment to women and girls who have been grievously harmed.

(3) Write to your representatives and senators in Congress to urge them to use the diplomatic power of the United States to end this horrible situation. You can use this directory to obtain the contact information for your representative and senators by typing in your zip code.

(4) You can blog about this yourself to call attention to our efforts.

Original post here.

Doctors Without Borders

Congressional Directory

I almost feel like this shouldn't be necessary, but it seems like all the news Americans ever hear out of Africa is about victimhood and horror. So a couple of bits of news to remind us all that, there are many troubles in Africa, but that she is diverse and vibrant and evolving, like everywhere else, despite the difficult history, and present, of the continent:


S. Africa's 'Breakthrough' Succession Case
Ruling in Favor of Woman in Chieftaincy Dispute Seen as Victory Over Patriarchal Tribal Traditions

Phyllia Tinyiko Nwamitwa is one of the very few women among South Africa's 750 or so traditional leaders. (Photo By Karin Brulliard -- The Washington Post): Buy Photo

Togo institutes truth and reconciliation commission

Burundi senators reject bill criminalizing homosexuality
The government of Burundi's latest move comes in the context of considerable hostility to homosexuality in the East African region. Two-thirds of African nations maintain criminal penalties for consensual same-sex behaviour.

Tributes to a fallen giant
'He was a giant by any measure. He was genuinely committed to the liberation of our continent. Maybe after all, it was no coincidence he passed away on Africa's liberation day! Tajudeen kept the universal torch of Pan-Africanism alive.'

To be certain, not all good news -- but a more diverse look at news and an Africa on the ground that is similar and different to our world in ways we don't commonly appreciate. A last sample: although there is the "good news" of a program of activism against gender violence in South Africa, a variety of other stories of struggle, success, survival, hope and despair is available on Pambazuka News, "A weekly forum for social justice news in Africa".

Homework:
(a) Take action on the persecution, rape and torture of women in Africa.
(b) Find your own source of news about Africa that gives a holistic picture, positive and negative, everyday life and quotidian problems as well as the grand divides and challenges. It's harder than it seems! Report back, and show your work.

The Tragedy of the Hardin

Odds are, you've heard of the "tragedy of the commons." (If not: Let Google be your guide.) The (contemporary) source of the idea is an article written by ecologist Garret Hardin some time ago, laying out the seemingly logical proposition that (at base) -- people in a community will inevitably abuse a shared resource in order to try and maximize their personal use of it, such that the shared resource will eventually run out or be otherwise denuded.

Although in my own research, I've certainly read of cases where that did happen, it certainly is far from true that that always happens, or that the only ways to prevent it are: a) government coercion/restricted access, or b) complete privatization. He argues that one cannot rely on conscience or cooperation to regulate the wise use of a commons, as selfish people will inevitably exploit it.

We all know cases where such exploitation does happen, again, but it certainly isn't an "inevitable consequence" as Hardin implies. (A mentor of mine has re-phrased Hardin's proposition as "The tragedy of the privately owned sheep" -- based on the case Hardin used as an example, that of English peasants herding sheep with a commons providing forage for the sheep. Of course, if the sheep were raised in common for the village, it would again not be in their interest to denude the commons, theoretically bringing the system back in balance -- and certainly, it's easier to tell who is eating extra sheep and thus "conscience" and social pressure seem more likely to rule in that case. But I digress.)

Although the argument has grown considerably more complicated since Hardin (and I suspect before as well -- he was hardly the first to think of this), the raison d'etre of this blog post is this article here, pointing out that as written, Hardin's piece offered no actual proof, real-life context, or other essential elements of scientific reasoning, yet it has been hugely influential and widely quoted. The author implies that this is because it could be used to justify pre-existing prejudices, which it certainly did so for Hardin, who himself was something of a eugenicist and rather worried about the population growth of the poor masses (rather than the population growth of the huge, resource-chomping-like-it's-candy wealthy few). Anyway. Read. Tchau.

Palestine-Israel Peace prospects: Or not.

Perhaps Middle East Peace is farther away than ever -- due as much to past actions and "ground truths" ("For all intents and purposes, every Israeli under the age of 50 has grown up with the doctrine that the Green Line does not exist, that the West Bank is in fact Judea and Samaria... Currently, almost 10 per cent of Israel's Jewish population lives in settlements beyond the green line") as to present political figures and their attitudes:

The continued acceleration of Israeli settlement activity and the concomitant fragmentation of the Palestinian national movement have led many analysts and commentators to declare the impending demise of the two-state solution. Judging the point at which two states can no longer be carved out of the present reality is not an exact science, but it seems inconceivable that a realistic prospect for partition still exists... In this respect, it has become increasingly common to argue that a one-state solution (whether a binational entity or unitary democracy) is the logical alternative to the disappearing two-state paradigm. Yet this outcome - while admittedly the closest approximation of a just peace - is even less likely to materialise than a two-state settlement.

Unlike white South Africans, Jewish Israelis are not a small minority who can be expected to conclude that providing equal rights to the indigenous population within a democratic framework represents their only salvation...

The status quo is also increasingly untenable, and the more likely scenario for the coming decade, if not longer, is that Israel's determined efforts to perpetuate it will produce increasing - and increasingly existential, regionalised and bloody - conflict.

Read the whole article at Counterpunch.