The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Serious Ricci question
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 1st, 2009 12:50 AM Author: Exhilarant Awkward Foreskin Is it simply presumed that any test or requirement that produces a disperate impact is discriminatory?
Is it presumed that there is intent to discriminate?
edit: holy shit, I am finally getting around to reading this thing and New Haven did everything they could to rig it so the african americans would do well on the test and, in the end, none of them even made the cut. 2/3 members of the assessment panel were minorities and 40% of the grade was an oral exam. If that is not putting a huge finger on the scale I don't know what is.
edit two: (this is referring to an expert on standardized testing) He stated that “[n]ormally, whites outperform ethnic minori-ties on the majority of standardized testing procedures,” but that he was “a little surprised” by the disparity in thecandidates’ scores—although “[s]ome of it is fairly typical of what we’ve seen in other areas of the countr[y] andother tests.” Id., at A1028–A1029. Hornick stated that the “adverse impact on the written exam was somewhathigher but generally in the range that we’ve seen profes-sionally.” Id., at A1030–A1031.
Actual results (percentages added by me): Candidates took the examinations in November and December 2003. Seventy-seven candidates completed the lieutenant examination—43 whites, 19 blacks, and 15 Hispanics. Of those, 34 candidates passed—25 whites (58%), 6 blacks (33%), and 3 Hispanics (20%). 554 F. Supp. 2d, at 145. Eightlieutenant positions were vacant at the time of the exami-nation. As the rule of three operated, this meant that the top 10 candidates were eligible for an immediate promotion to lieutenant. All 10 were white (100%). Ibid. Subsequentvacancies would have allowed at least 3 black candidates to be considered for promotion to lieutenant. Forty-one candidates completed the captain examina-tion—25 whites, 8 blacks, and 8 Hispanics. Of those, 22 candidates passed—16 whites (73%), 3 blacks (37.5%), and 3 Hispanics (37.5%). Ibid. Seven captain positions were vacant at the time of the examination. Under the rule of three, 9 candidates were eligible for an immediate promotion to captain—7 whites and 2 Hispanics. Ibid.
edit 3: the african american's expert concedes blacks ALWAYS do worse on exams
The final witness was Janet Helms, a professor at Bos-ton College whose “primary area of expertise” is “not withfirefighters per se” but in “race and culture as they influ-ence performance on tests and other assessment proce-dures.” Id., at A1060. Helms expressly declined the CSB’soffer to review the examinations. At the outset, she noted that “regardless of what kind of written test we give inthis country . . . we can just about predict how many peo-ple will pass who are members of under-represented groups. And your data are not that inconsistent with what predictions would say were the case.” Id., at A1061.
|
 |
Date: July 1st, 2009 12:55 AM Author: abusive corner i think there needs to be something in the test that can be pointed to as the cause of the disparity. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12129862) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 12:56 AM Author: Exhilarant Awkward Foreskin Such as? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12129871) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:06 AM Author: abusive corner Kennedy says there needs to be a "strong basis in evidence of disparate-impact liability" which I take to mean that there needs to be something that makes the tester liable for the disparity. But I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure someone else here can give you a better answer.
http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2QwNmU1NGI5MTU5Mzg3YTJlZTZiYzhjNmU0NzU5NWE= |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:25 AM Author: multi-colored saffron stage Quote the 10th grade reading level part. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130182) |
Date: July 1st, 2009 12:51 AM Author: Erotic cracking orchestra pit hissy fit Yes. If you suggest otherwise you imply that there is a gap in the abilities of the races. Liberals will never allow this (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12129835) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 12:56 AM Author: Exhilarant Awkward Foreskin I see. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12129868) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:19 AM Author: Avocado alpha The silent majority of smart liberal-minded people accept a gap in the abilities of the races. Ginsburg is 75 years old. She still thinks she's on the intellectual forefront by championing civil rights. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130109) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:22 AM Author: spectacular blood rage but how come in AA arguments those liberals don't support the rational point that such a gap exists, and instead let their illogical brethren blow ridiculous, unsupported shit based upon the initial premise of absolute equality between the races' intelligence? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130147) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:25 AM Author: Avocado alpha The silent majority have no choice to be silent. The dumb but zealous minority control, just like in Iran. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130178) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:59 AM Author: Filthy vengeful main people Do you mean the Republicans, who held near-total control of our government since 2001, are the silent majority or are they the dumb but zealous minority? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130512) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:15 AM Author: Duck-like Locale serious answer: ricci is rightly decided. anybody who thinks otherwise is a deluded faggot liberal retard who needs to stop reading marx and chomsky and start living IRL. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130055) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:16 AM Author: Exhilarant Awkward Foreskin I think it is wrongly decided because it should have been decided on the constitutional issue. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130068) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:17 AM Author: Erotic cracking orchestra pit hissy fit This
The final showdown between disparate impact and the constitution is coming. Scalia is right about that`
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:22 AM Author: Exhilarant Awkward Foreskin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IliwQImJrYE (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130151) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:25 AM Author: abusive corner i've never seen a cello player headbang quite that much (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130188) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:18 AM Author: abusive corner marx and chomsky... I've never actually read any marx, can these guys be grouped by any commonality other then "left"?
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:38 AM Author: fishy soul-stirring incel its a pretty retarded statement (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130814) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:21 AM Author: Mind-boggling carnelian tanning salon ratface you don't need discriminatory "intent." impact is enough. intent doesn't need to be inferred from impact either (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130129) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:22 AM Author: Exhilarant Awkward Foreskin So why is impact sufficient? What is the theory underlying this?
As I understand it based on reading Ricci, nearly any objective test will have a disparate impact (conceded by the BC prof on blacks and testing), so the employer has to prove that the test is a business necessity and there is nothing less discriminatory.
I think the end result is that in order to have anything approaching a level of minority canidates consistent with the population at large, employers will pretty much have to do away with test (see also UC system) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:27 AM Author: Duck-like Locale the theory underlying this is that whackjob asshole william brennan decided to legislate from the bench and made up a rule saying that even if there is absolutely nothing to indicate a discriminatory intent, if blacks dont score well enough on exams, we're a bunch of racist assholes who need to do everything all over agian. griggs v. duke power, etc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130208) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:54 AM Author: Mind-boggling carnelian tanning salon ratface this is true but then congress ratified brennan's rule. so no question as to democratic legitimacy or intent (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130473) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:28 AM Author: multi-colored saffron stage The theory is based on the supposition that the races are equal and the white man is a tricky fucking devil who can hide his bad intentions extremely well. If there's a difference in outcomes, it's not because there are input differences; it's because cracker cheated. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130218) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:29 AM Author: spectacular blood rage Do liberals who reject the possibility of an intelligence gap between the races also reject the fact that there are physical and athletic differences between the races? If not, why do they insist upon equality in mental faculties? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130233) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:34 AM Author: Duck-like Locale just like they insist that the death penalty has ZERO effect on deterring criminals, that "torture" never works and that it is wrong in any and all circumstances, that a woman's 'right to choose" should be absolute and unfettered and a fetus in the womb (even at 8, 12, 16, 20 weeks) is not a "human" yet legally, so we can suck its brains out, etc.
(i.e. because they've made up their mind and will refuse to listen to anybody say anything to the contrary) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:02 AM Author: Filthy vengeful main people (1) No one says the death penalty has no deterrent effect, just that it isn't worth it because we will kill innocent men.
(2) Torture does not work better than alternative methods of interrogation because it induces its subjects to just make shit up. Would you support torturing Americans? No, just terrorists, right? Why do you think this?
(3) An embryo is a fully formed life so abortionists should be murdered, right? |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 3:39 PM Author: Cocky Vivacious Box Office Personal Credit Line Dood, stop.
You are making too much sense and you're speaking logically.
You need to make ad hominem attacks and call people "Conservative neo-facists" and take a jab at Republicans otherwise nobody will take you serious.
Civility is not welcomed around these parts. |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:02 AM Author: Emerald Lodge Well, that can't be, I always thought it was the Republicans who were waging a War on Science!!!??? LOL. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130548) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:05 AM Author: Mind-boggling carnelian tanning salon ratface "woman's 'right to choose" should be absolute and unfettered and a fetus in the womb (even at 8, 12, 16, 20 weeks) is not a 'human' yet legally, so we can suck its brains out, etc."
well the brains aren't capable of cognition or probably even sensation so seems to make good sense |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:34 AM Author: Avocado alpha yes, generally they reject physical and athletic differences as well. they've even invented a theory that there's no such thing as race--it's just a societal construct. it's not worthwhile to analyze this nonsense; some people will believe whatever they want to believe. the religiosity gene or set of genes is really a broader zealotry gene or set of genes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130288) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:02 AM Author: Filthy vengeful main people I am against AA. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130552) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:05 AM Author: Emerald Lodge Then you are a racist.
Conservatives who are against AA are being consistent with their principles. But why would a liberal who is pro-abortion, anti-waterboarding, anti-death penalty, pro-wealth redistribution be all about personal responsibility on affirmative action only? |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:06 AM Author: Filthy vengeful main people Why do you think abortion, torture, state-sanctioned murder of innocents, and a progressive tax system have anything to do with personal responsibility?
Tell me this. You are all about personal responsibility. So do you think Bush should take any of the blame for the economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
A KKK member or a neo-Nazi is being consistent when he does what he does. So you think that they're not racist?
Good job, fag lord. |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:11 AM Author: Mind-boggling carnelian tanning salon ratface "Why do you think abortion, torture, state-sanctioned murder of innocents, and a progressive tax system have anything to do with personal responsibility?"
yea he's pretty dumb.
would have to go something like this:
dumb women deserve to be forced to carry babies to term, even though termination is otherwise morally neutral (fetuses can't think, probably can't feel, etc.)
most of the people we torture deserve it
most of the people we kill deserve it (this one is actually probably approximately true)
people who make a lot of money are good peeps and shouldn't be forced to pay in a manner commensurate to fortune |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:14 AM Author: ruby seedy background story TTT reasoning. I hope you haven't attended LS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130644) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:05 AM Author: ruby seedy background story Here's how it works. Under Griggs, any non-employment related test (e.g., IQ test) that has a disparate impact on minorities -> unacceptable. The idea is that the test that is likely to have latent racially discriminatory content.
Under Ricci, if you have an ostensibly employment related test that produces a disparate impact, you have to show that the test is bad before tossing out the results.
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:08 AM Author: multi-colored saffron stage My explanation of the supporting theory was much better. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130593) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:12 AM Author: ruby seedy background story You're biased. Cracker. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130631) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:13 AM Author: Mind-boggling carnelian tanning salon ratface "The idea is that the test that is likely to have latent racially discriminatory content."
no, this is wrong |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:14 AM Author: ruby seedy background story Explain. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130652) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:20 AM Author: Mind-boggling carnelian tanning salon ratface it's not about intent, overt or latent, but rather about effect and nothing else. intent is not presumed from effect; it's just immaterial (wrt to the disparate impact test) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130694) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:26 AM Author: ruby seedy background story I never said it was part of the test. It's the underlying rationale. Were this not the case, there would be no reason to distinguish between tests that relate to work and those that do not. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130741) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:28 AM Author: Mind-boggling carnelian tanning salon ratface "there would be no reason to distinguish between tests that relate to work and those that do not."
sure there would be: job-related tests are more efficient, providing a countervailing trump card |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:30 AM Author: ruby seedy background story I don't think this is empirically sound. The bell curve discussed employment related tests at length and concluded that they are substantially less efficient.
The real problem with abstract tests is that it's more difficult to demonstrate there's not a systemic bias against minorities. |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:33 AM Author: Mind-boggling carnelian tanning salon ratface ok dooder i'm not a big fan of the disparate impact horseshit (i'd prefer aa on the backend) but that's the rationale. the assumption is that job-related tests are more predictive (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130782) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:36 AM Author: multi-colored saffron stage "the assumption is that job-related tests are more predictive"
If you say so. |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:37 AM Author: Mind-boggling carnelian tanning salon ratface no, really, that's the thought (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031208&forum_id=2#12130804) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:38 AM Author: multi-colored saffron stage That was an excellent contribution.
Thank you. |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:48 AM Author: ruby seedy background story I guess it's two sides of the same coin (if you increase predictiveness, you decrease the window for wrongful discrimination). That said, economic efficiency did not seem to be the focus of the opinion. Rather, it was about eliminating wrongful discrimination. While I think that your analysis leads to the same conclusion (zero sum game wrt statistics), I disagree with your framing.
Under my view, a test that has a disparate impact isn't accepted as being racist as fuck, but economically efficient. It's deemed an objective sign of under performance by whichever minorities find themselves with the short end of the stick. |