We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The incredible bit was Justice Ginsburg's statements on "disparate impact." How can you design qualitifications so that "impact" is identical for every imaginable grievance group based on their great, great, grandparent's ethnic or national background?
The whole purpose of qualifying exams was to eliminate biased selections and cronyism.
Furthermore, after reading some comments around the intertubes, I have two questions:
1. If you even wanted to, how would you design a firefighter test to make black folks do poorly? How?
2. New Haven is a black-controlled Dem machine. The last thing in the world they want to do there is to discriminate against blacks. It's a ridiculous notion.
I was surprised the SCOTUS got it right. I thought the purpose of 'qualifying exams' was to disqualify white men? I thought that is why New Haven would not proceed with the results, because the tests did not do that.
"Under Title VII, New Haven was prohibited from intentional acts of employment discrimination based on race. This is called disparate treatment. Title VII also prohibits policies or practices that are not intended to discriminate but in fact have a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities. This is called disparate impact. Disparate impact is often demonstrated with statistical analyses.
"The facts of this case set the two types of prohibited conduct against each other. New Haven could either intentionally discriminate against the successful white and Hispanic candidates or its firefighter promotion policy (based on the test results) would have a disproportinately adverse impact on black candidates."
I get why we would have the second test, the "disparate impact" test, because it can be so hard to demonstrate intent directly. But it strikes me that, when these two tests collide, it's pretty obvious we should say: When you devise a remedy for disparate impact, find a way to do it that doesn't blatantly require intentional discrimination on the basis of race.
How hard is this? If a written test really isn't tailored to the actual job requirements but sneaks in a lot of irrelevant stuff that white men are supposedly better at, it should be possible to demonstrate that directly.
As Tom Marr said today while hosting Mark Levin's show, Affirmative Action was OK when it was a remedy, but when it became a "right" . . . [OK, I'm paraphrasing, due to my poor memory] . . . some elements, the race mongers among them, turned Jim Crow into Crow Jim.
We've been living with this crap in NH for almost thirty years now, the land of Rosa DeLauro.
I have said this before--maybe now it might seem plausible:
during her review by the congressional panel--Ginsberg kept putting her hand up to her ear. She only did this after a question had been asked and before she answered. If you can get your hands on one of those tapes you will see that MZ Ginsberg is an intellectual fraud, as well as person willing to commit criminal acts in order to gain power. She may be frail--but she is not nice!