May 27, 2009

Slate: Well, actually, it isn't a mystery why Sotomayor voted against Ricci

Yesterday's Slate article on Sonia Sotomayor and the Ricci case was so clueless that Slate is back today with a better informed article on the case by a Stanford law prof:
Bad Test
Sonia Sotomayor rejected the New Haven firefighters' claim because it threatened to burn down civil rights law.
By Richard Thompson Ford

New Haven's decision may sound like blatant racial favoritism, but in fact the city rejected the firefighter exam because the test violated Title VII, the federal civil rights law that prevents discrimination in employment. Title VII requires employers to consider the racial impact of their hiring and promotion procedures in order to prevent discrimination that's inadvertent as well as intentional. Ricci's claim is that the city's effort to comply with Title VII is itself race discrimination (under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and under Title VII itself).

This argument would undermine an important part of modern civil rights law. Some of Sotomayor's critics argue that, in the era of Obama, we no longer need such proactive policies to promote racial equality. But racism isn't a thing of the past yet. In fact, we haven't corrected the lingering effects of racism that is in the past. It's precisely because overt racism is no longer the main impediment to racial equality that the law against inadvertent discrimination is arguably now the most important part of civil rights law.

Well, that's one way of putting it.

Another way of putting it is that there isn't much actual discrimination going on anymore. What there is a lot of these days, however, is below average performance by non-Asian minorities.

There are two ways an employer can discriminate according to Title VII. He can intentionally discriminate by making race a factor in employment decisions—choosing a black candidate over a white candidate because he is black. Frank Ricci claims the city intentionally discriminated when it threw out the exam results because most of the people who scored high were white. An employer can also discriminate by using a selection process that has a disparate impact—in other words, that screens out a particular group for no good reason.

Yes, but what if there is disparate impact for a good reason that is unmentionable: that blacks, on average, aren't as smart as whites? We are supposed to constantly act as if the racial gaps seen on the New Haven firefighters' written test were surprising when they are exactly the same as those seen on, say, graduate and professional school exams. As I wrote in VDARE.com:

On the Lieutenants’ exam, the mean black score would have fallen at the 20th percentile among whites. (Hispanics scored the same as blacks). On the harder Captain’s exam, the mean black score fell at the 10th percentile for whites, while the average Hispanic scored at the 18th percentile. (You can see the individual test results at Adversity.net.)

And, as I wrote on VDARE.com earlier, on the five major grad and professional school tests (GRE, LSAT, MCAT, GMAT, and DCAT), blacks score at the 10th to 18th percentile of white scores.

New Haven claims that the test it tossed out had a disparate impact. Eight black, 25 white, and eight Hispanic firefighters took New Haven's test for promotion to captain; three black, 16 white, and three Hispanic candidates passed. Nineteen black, 43 white, and 15 Hispanic firefighters took the test to become lieutenant; six black, 25 white, and three Hispanic candidates passed. This result counts as discriminatory under the rules of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

I.e., the EEOC's (should-be, but isn't) notorious Four-Fifths Rule. If the highest scoring group passes at, say, a 50% rate, then the lowest scoring group better pass at a 40% or higher rate or the federal government will want to know the reason why? Since there is a one standard deviation difference on average in cognitive ability, only about one-third of blacks score above the white median, not four-fifths. The Four-Fifths Rule assumes the average black IQ is about 96 (when the average white's IQ is assumed to be 100), when it's more like 85.

By the way, have you noticed how ignorant the Four-Fifths rule is simply in terms of simple statistical numeracy? Personnel selection differences should be measured in standard deviations, not in percentages. Using a simple-minded fraction like Four-Fifths invites catastrophic game-playing. For example, the city of Chicago has recently gotten around the Four-Fifths Rule by setting the pass rate so low that 85% of applicants passed the fireman's entrance exam and policeman's promotion exams. This allows the pass rate for blacks to be Four-Fifths of the white rate, but it means that really stupid whites and blacks get important jobs.

We'd get better firemen and policemen with outright quotas.

New Haven was right to worry about the possibility of a lawsuit from black firefighters if it accepted the results of the tests.

The city was also in a bind because its agreement with the firefighters union required that the [written] exam count for 60 percent of the decision about whether to promote each candidate and because a city charter rule required that every promotion go to one of the three top-scoring candidates.

In other words, collective bargaining agreements and Civil Service laws designed to prevent politicians from rigging the test are such a nuisance when the goal is to rig the test.

These rules magnified the disparate racial impact of the exam—no black candidate and only one Hispanic candidate was eligible for promotion, even though several of them passed the test. More reason for the city to worry about a lawsuit by the African-Americans who were to be passed over. ...

But, properly applied, disparate impact law doesn't excuse poor performance, nor does it require quotas. Instead it smokes out hidden bigotry and requires employers to avoid unnecessary segregation of the work force. Suppose an employer wants to keep women out. Knowing that he can't just put a "women need not apply" sign in his window, he might use a proxy, such as a weightlifting test, knowing that women on average have less upper body strength than men.

In other words, the law says that we should be suspicious of any fire department that looks for upper body strength in firemen, and we should force each and every fire department in America to prove, over and over, that being weak is a genuine detriment in fire fighting.

The law against disparate impact discrimination is designed to reveal such hidden bias. Now, suppose an employer has no desire to discriminate against women but uses a weightlifting test simply because he thinks, all other things equal, stronger employees are better than weaker ones. Disparate impact law also prohibits this: It requires the employer to reconsider job qualifications that favor one race or sex, unjustifiably.

Of course, there might be a good reason to prefer people who are physically stronger—or who score higher on a written exam. The law gives employers a chance to prove that the discriminatory criteria are job-related. The idea, then, isn't to make an employer hire less qualified women or minorities over more qualified men or whites. It's to make sure the employer is testing for job qualifications, not unrelated ones.

The theory is that just as it's better to let a guilty man go than to convict an innocent man (so the burden of proof is on the prosecution), it's better to discriminate against a man than against a women and better to discriminate against a white man than a black man.

That's arguable, but let's accept it for now.

In practice, however, the way it actually works out is to encourage permanent de facto quotas for NAMs. If vast mechanisms exists for searching out and punishing those who unwittingly discriminate against NAMs but the punishment for discriminating against whites is haphazard and rare then, well, what do you know!, lots of employers will wittingly (if surreptitiously) discriminate for NAMs and against whites.

But Ricci isn't attacking the timing of New Haven's decision; he's attacking the city for considering the racial impact of the exam. And that's exactly what disparate impact requires an employer to consider. Ricci's position threatens to burn down one of the nation's most important civil rights laws. Even in the improved racial climate of the Obama era, that should set off alarms.

Perhaps in the unimproved economic climate of the Obama era, the fact that one of the nation's most important civil rights laws promotes the hiring of less competent employees should set off alarms.

My prediction for Ricci is that Anthony Kennedy will uphold Disparate Impact in general, but send the Ricci case back to the district court for retrial on the facts on the grounds that the city refused its testing company's offer to perform the validation study included in its $100k contract. Frank Ricci will get the promotion he earned in 2003 around 2012, but the overall system across America will continue more or less the same.

Also, Sonia Sotomayor isn't going to go down over the Ricci case. But it just shows how intentionally ignorant the press is about the realities of civil rights law that Slate could blunder into this like it has.

82 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Collective bargaining agreements and Civil Service laws designed to prevent unfairness in hiring are just such a nuisance when the goal is to achieve unfairness in hiring."

And the continued existence of white males who aren't working 14-hour-days in the salt mines is a nuisance to those who want to end Western culture. By nominating Quota Queen Sotomayor, Obama asked for a declaration of war. It is up to the Senate to back him, or begin the march back to racial peace.

Mike M said...

1 SD from the mean is 34.1%. If one group is 1 SD below the mean of the another group, then the fraction of the first group above the median of the second group is just under 16%.

Anonymous said...

i didn't understand this sentence - you might want to clarify? (second to last paragraph.)

The theory is that just as it's better to let a guilty man go than to convict an innocent man In practice,

anony-mouse said...

Isn't Ricci going to be decided by the Supremes before un-Sottovoce gets on the Court?

Dave Lincoln said...

"Another way of putting it is that there isn't much actual discrimination going on anymore."

Excuse me??? How about discrimination by the New Haven, CT fire department against any white fire fighter in job promotions.?

How can you forget that, when that is what your post is about?

Richard said...

Perhaps a possible solution would be to make the test anonymous (I wasn't able to find anywhere whether or not it this was the case).

If my house was burning to the ground, I wouldn't care one whit about what color the guys manning the hose are, only could they put the fire out successfully. I'm guessing most people wouldn't care either.

Steve Sailer said...

I presume the written test was graded automatically or anonymously. The oral test, of course, was not graded anonymously in terms of race.

Svigor said...

But racism isn't a thing of the past yet. In fact, we haven't corrected the lingering effects of racism that is in the past.Can he prove this? I assert that he cannot.

Svigor said...

Perhaps a possible solution would be to make the test anonymous (I wasn't able to find anywhere whether or not it this was the case).

Huh? That would return us to race-blind merit, which would be "epic fail" in the eyes of liberals (something they're fully aware of, btw).

testing99 said...

The problem is that the long run and short run politics run opposite of each other.

Short run, not just Blacks/Hispanics but the legions of White Women employed in Government offices or adjuncts, require Affirmative Action to get hired or to get promoted. It's a zero sum game and SOMEONE has to lose in order for them to win: Straight White Men.

This is why Ricci will be upheld, dead on that Kennedy will uphold it, and no, Ricci's case will NOT be sent back and Ricci will NOT get his promotion ever.

But long term, we have morphed in about six months from a mostly private-sector economy to one totally dominated by government hiring or indirect control. That means that pretty much MOST jobs will female/Black/Hispanic dominated to the exclusion of White Men. Who will be marginal welfare cases or seriously underemployed under the Obama Government Regime.

That creates huge long-term pressures to simply dismantle the entire Welfare System and create fairly chaotic, demand-driven skills-based hiring ala the Dot Com bubble. Among White Men.

Couple that with explicit challenges abroad as enemies see Obama as a pushover, and it's a big swing electorally in 2010, and a hardening of gender lines.

Ricci is just the proxy for the real fights: women would rather a small marginal risk of incompetent fire fighters and other government workers than an existential one of having to compete with White Men for government jobs, the only ones around these days.

Tanstaafl said...

Ricci's position threatens to burn down one of the nation's most important civil rights laws.

Translation to plain English:

Ricci's position threatens the most important anti-White laws.

All this jibber-jabber about discrimination and disparate impact, intentional or not, is a transparently hypocritical layer of execrable BS over patently anti-White premises.

No mystery at all.

Anonymous said...

"IQ Tests" was the 4th most popular search on Yahoo yesterday, just behind "Sonia Sotomayor."

Shouting Thomas said...

The battle against racial and sexual quotas seems to be completely lost.

What does this mean for the future?

Or, am I wrong? Is there any point in even continuing to object to the imposition of racial and sexual quotas?

rast said...

"Since there is a one standard deviation difference on average in cognitive ability, only about one-third of blacks score above the white median, not four-fifths."

Who are you, and what have you done with the real Steve? He would have known that it is one sixth, not one third.

Zylonet said...

--The idea, then, isn't to make an employer hire less qualified women or minorities over more qualified men or whites. It's to make sure the employer is testing for job qualifications, not unrelated ones.--

There is something deeply flawed with the human character when a Stanford Law professor can be so ignorant of economics. During the hiring process, only the manager can determine what should be the relevant qualifications. These qualifications may or may not vary depending on the hiring prospect. Some prospects may open new avenues of profit but bring forth a massive ego, while others may be dull but dependable. Only the manager is able to guess as to relevant qualifications. Moreover, the hiring manager's assessment of necessary qualifications may not reflect a direct profit motive, but could reflect some idiosyncratic ideal understood by no one but him. To that end, only the market can determine if the manager has hired appropriately and only through the success or failure of the business. The fact that a Stanford Law professor is unable to recognize the fluid nature of "qualifications" demonstrates how intelligence is a measure that falls short when evaluating the ability of individuals. A man must also see reality.

Zylonet said...

Quick question: when do white guys get to sue the NBA and it's teams for disparate impact? Surely, the NBA has yet to enact diversity hiring fairs and similar endeavors that might increase the white head count. Moreover, maybe the lack of hiring focus on general analytical ability is discriminatory against white and Asian candidates. Who is to argue that a team comprised of intelligent men would not do well.

Cliff said...

The test is flawed, not reliable and not valid. There is error in measurement and especially tests that are not assessed well for how it performs. The test scores can not determine mastery.

Dennis Dale said...

I noticed something in Kennedy's wording of the decision in an unrelated case, involving a lawsuit arguing that widespread arrests and abuse in custody of Muslim men following 9/11 was discriminatory.
The logic in rejecting the lawsuit, as I recall it, will make sense to iSteve readers but piss off self-described liberals.

He seemed to argue the accusation of discrimination was specious but the maltreatment of detainees, if proved, was actionable (and it shows how screwy we are regarding this stuff that plaintiffs arguing they were denied habeus corpus and abused in custody feel compelled to pursue remedy not for this, but for the "discriminatory" manner in which rights were denied).

The wording he used to explain the understandable proportion of suspects from Muslim nations (who were nonetheless entitled to due process, if only their lawyers would make the case) was "disparate, incidental impact".
That incidental struck me as downright subversive, considering the Ricci case's proximity on the docket and disparate impact's essential logic--that any outcome producing something that doesn't look like a Benneton ad cannot be "incidental".

Anonymous said...

Bill O'Reilly just said that Kerry got 53% of the hispanic vote in 2004, and even more inaccurately that 'Hispanics voters put Obama in the White House'.

And then he repeated the idiotic lie that without hispanics Obama would not be the presidents a few minutes later talking to Dick Morris.

Never mind that research by AnaMaria Arumi clearly shows that hispanics were not needed for Obama's victory.

In a counter-factual world in which there were no Latino voters, both New Mexico and Indiana would have switched into the McCain column. But Obama would've still won the electoral vote.

Anonymous said...

Americans really need to understand the benefits of meritocracy for all people. We expect meritocracy in sports, and enjoy being able to see the best athletes in the world compete against one another as a result; why then, don't we allow for meritocracy in our broader economy so that we may reap the benefits of people's merits and accomplishments?

Liberals are so busy trying to socially engineer a just, fair, egalitarian society that they seem to forget just how much poorer people (white, black, latino, et al)have benefited as a result of merit based success. Think of the discoveries, inventions, and innovations that have occurred over the past 300 years -- think of Einstein, Edison, Henry Ford, A.G. Bell, Elisha Otis.

If blacks and latinos want to do as wells as whites and asians (and there are plenty of whites and asians who also don't do well), they would be much better served by studying math and science more, instead they vote for democrats who, rather than explicitly ask them to be more intellectually rigorous, enact policies such as affirmative action and welfare programs to raise their standard of living. This does great detriment to blacks and latinos as well as everyone else in america.

America's greatest domestic challenge going forward is to get blacks and latinos to have as high a level of intellectual rigor as do whites and asians (preferably higher, the higher the better for all). And as long as blacks listen to music that is misogynistic and glorifies ignorance, and as long as poor, low-skilled, low-educated latinos come into the united states illegally and increase crime and put a strain on schools, I don't see this increase in intellectual rigor taking place soon.

ben g said...

How much does this test correlate with job performance as a firefighter? New Haven's case seems to hinge on that.

From what I've read, cognitive tests correlate with job performance in every area. But I'm not sure how that plays out here.

AmericanGoy said...

http://americangoy.blogspot.com/2009/05/sotomayor-racists-and-sexists-view.html

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

combined with...

"Growing up, all of my family, except those that remained in Puerto Rico, lived in the Bronx within miles of each other. From technological advances, our children will have more opportunities to enjoy, but it will be harder for them to hold on to their ethnic identities. But hold on to them [ethnic identities -AG] we must because Latinos and all minority and women's groups, despite what part of the country we live in, face enormous challenges in this society. Affirmative action, human rights, and civil liberties permeate our societal discussions,"

=

Sotomayor (in her own words).

Solar Ipod Prius Mac Cafe said...

Because it's infused with the leftist "culture of critique" approach to journalism Slate doesn't have much use for any inconvenient facts on the big issues. Funny how leftwing sites like Slate are very much in tune with the neocon concept "we create our own reality".

Slate website (like huffington's) is heavily sprinkled with People or US Magazine type fluff content. It looks like all of these struggling msm media sites are using the Daily Mail UK playbook: all viewing pages should contain at least one column of trashy celeb news story links for the ladies.

(first slate editor) Kinsley must never read Slate anymore. It's a frankenstein today sort of like they are trying to meld an internet version of his old CNN political discussions with a panel of E Entertainment paparazzi hosts plus some ambulance chasing Headline News style lawyer chicks and then a pinch of Popular Mechanics thrown in.

Isn't the entire issue/topic magazine industry just a place for wealthy assholes to pump their personal politics into the mainstream through the mechanism of second rate writers trying to earn some rent money? And I guess the other function for a lot of these publishers is "office as dating pool" aka "bitches in my stable".

clem said...

OT: Mixed-race patients struggle to find marrow donors:

"At a time when the number of multiracial Americans is rising, only a tiny fraction of donors on the national bone-marrow registry are of mixed race...."

"'The truth is, when people of different backgrounds marry and produce offspring, it creates more types that are harder to match,' said Michelle Setterholm, the program's director of scientific services. 'The probability just gets lower when you have people of mixed ancestral DNA.'"

"Populations in different parts of the world developed certain proteins, or markers, that are part of the body's natural defenses. These markers help the immune system determine which cells are foreign and should be rejected."

"A match between two people who share many markers will reduce the risk of the donor and recipient cells attacking each other. Because certain markers tend to cluster in particular ethnic groups, matches are most often found among people of shared backgrounds. Multiracial patients often have uncommon profiles and a much harder time finding a donor."

Wow, good thing race is only a social construction, or that could be a real problem....

Anonymous said...

By the way, have you noticed how ignorant the Four-Fifths rule is simply in terms of simple statistical numeracy? Personnel selection differences should be measured in standard deviations,

Ummm, do you seriously expect the legal profession to understand standard deviations?

They can't even understand that 33% from 2.3% is disparate impact.

Anonymous said...

team obama chose this supreme court nominee because her bedrock political principle is 'get whitey'. when they first saw it obama & ackerman & rahm emmanuel loved the video clip of sotomayor dissing white male judges. they love that stuff. that is 100% alinsky. the whole psy-op program being run from the white house is designed to advance an overt in your face 'get whitey' culture as the new american standard. this is bolshevik revolution 2.0 and whitey is the new ethnic russian the new kulak the evil obstacle blocking utopia for the masses.

Robert Byers said...

I am Canadian.
Have the Americans forgotten the great God given natural right of a man in his own nation to get exactly what his abilities can bring him.?!
It is a great moral and legal demand that no citizen can be interfered with in their efforts to achieve because of their identity. Save special segregated cases like men/women sports and so on.
Yet on the issue of identity it is the law that all Americans are equal and not to be denied equality because of biology.
This is the great right of inheritance of ones ancesters in America or of contract with immigrants.
The great hue and cry of blacks , women, etc is that this law was not enforced and it was theirs to gain the good things of America.
These civil right laws are immoral and illegal period.
America its time to take a stand that history records.
Time has come today.
No interference with fair and square results.
None of these ethnic/women groups ever see a problem when they are over represented in something.

To stop discrimination they discriminate?
What's been missed here is that they are making a accusation and judgement without trial.
They admit they can't discriminate . Then they do. so they are saying they found guilty someone. Did they? Was this a fair trial? To make such a great decision to deny rights they must have a trial. That would stop these frauds of quotas.
The American needs and needs better lawyers.

Anonymous said...

"Americans really need to understand the benefits of meritocracy for all people."

I completely agree with your post.

Imagine two families, each with two sons.

In the first family, the older brother becomes an NBA star. The younger brother gets jealous, and decides to write a scandalous book about his brother to get fame for himself. The star's career is ruined, and the brother gets his 15 minutes of fame. In the end, they are both stuck in mediocrity.

In the second family, the older brother becomes an NBA star, and the younger brother is just a regular working stiff. He supports his brother and enjoys all the benefits his brother gives him. In the end, the elder is a star and the younger is a nobody, but they both benefit from the elder's success.

The wealth of America was built in the way of the second family. There was a high degree of inequality, but we all profited from the innovation and efficiency.

Today's politics of "equality" resemble the first family. Rather than cheering on the successful, we tear them down out of jealousy. We try to horn in and get "our piece of the action". We are more "equal", and all worse off as a result. We are killing the goose that laid so many golden eggs.

Ronduck said...

By the way, have you noticed how ignorant the Four-Fifths rule is simply in terms of simple statistical numeracy? Personnel selection differences should be measured in standard deviations,

I've gotta agree with the anonymous above, most legal professors, if not almost all humanities professors will probably be ignorant of statistics. I know I've had trouble with the standard deviation concept since the only time I've ever encountered it is on this blog. After thinking about it I think I get it, but I'm not to the level where I would apply on my own to analyze data.

Besides, even if a liberal arts professor understood the concept of standard deviation, most are still liberals, and thus would still support anti-White discrimination.

One STDV said...

I wrote this on a forum which basically sums up the whole affirmative action support:

Equality of racial collective achievement rates is more indicative of a just society than the ability of a qualified individual to achieve social mobility according to his own merit.

Anonymous said...

"From what I've read, cognitive tests correlate with job performance in every area. But I'm not sure how that plays out here."


Who do you want coming to your place when it is burning, the guy who failed the test but got in because he's black?

Ronald Reagan said...

Short run, not just Blacks/Hispanics but the legions of White Women employed in Government offices or adjuncts, require Affirmative Action to get hired or to get promoted. It's a zero sum game and SOMEONE has to lose in order for them to win: Straight White Men.
_____


Well, there he goes again.......

wonder woman said...

"And I guess the other function for a lot of these publishers is "office as dating pool" aka "bitches in my stable".

I think the word you want is "mares." You appear to be mixing metaphors in the struggle to sound coherent and macho at the same time.

And they wonder why "feminism" ever rained on this parade. I mean stable.

Anonymous said...

"From what I've read, cognitive tests correlate with job performance in every area. But I'm not sure how that plays out here."

Linda Gottfredson, where are you? Take a break from Half Sigma and comment here please.

Linda is the only reason I read HS's comments.

Ivy said...

Off topic, but if anyone wants to get involved in a racial/HBD debate, there's a raging convo going on here:

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe-election-politics/706525-oh-man-conservative-radio-host-really-stupid-55.html

Drosselmeier is basically Cornel West in disguise. I'm 'dontno'. I need help! I can't keep up with this jackass and his unsupported arguments about white racism.

Just read the last 5 pages to get the gist of it. There's other stuff going on, but the important stuff is basically only posted by dontno (me) and Drosselmeier. you have to sign up to post.

Danindc said...

Most of this is nonsense.....everyone knows a firefighter's main job all day is to sit around and comb each other's moustaches

Axl Rose said...

Steve, I don't think you've ever discussed the Bilderberg Group on your blog, but did you catch this: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13738

Merely talking about the Bilderberg Group seems to put one in Alex Jones conspiracy territory and gets you dismissed from any respectable opinion. But I don't think you can just dismiss the fact that all these people are gathering for a frickin' meeting. I mean it's not like they're getting together for a barbecue.

And if you read about what might've gone on in those meetings, what they discussed, etc., it's amazing to note that how mundane the ideas (world treasury, world currency, world gov't, world everything, etc.) are by now, despite how distasteful they are to conservatives or just plain ordinary Americans.

Anonymous said...

Get rid of affirmative action and the growing Hispanic population revolts. Keep affirmative-and let it flourish-and White Males revolt.

It will get worse over time. The 1965 Immigration Reform Act has interacted with affirmative action in very toxic way.

It is an unworkable situation. What is the most likely outcome?

Richard Hoste said...

"Linda Gottfredson, where are you? Take a break from Half Sigma and comment here please.

Linda is the only reason I read HS's comments."

Are you joking or was it ever determined that Linda from HS is Linda Gottfredson?

Anonymous said...

I don't think White males have enough group cohesion to revolt. However, would the 4/5's rule apply to professional sports? If so, what a cool way to hammer home the absurdity of the rule than by having a bunch of white guys who didn't make the cut for professional basketball teams argue that the tryouts involved tests of disparate impact.

Anonymous said...

I have no great hopes for Sotomayor, but I do want to point out a very interesting quote that occurs in the same "wise Latina woman" speech that everyone is talking about:

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."Um, taken at face value, she seems to be saying something that I wouldn't have expected....

ben g said...

Who do you want coming to your place when it is burning, the guy who failed the test but got in because he's black?All things being equal, the guy who passed the test. But it's not clear to me how much this test predicts performance under those conditions.

Anonymous said...

"I don't think White males have enough group cohesion to revolt."

Not now, but soon.

Hockey Puck said...

To "Wonder Woman":

You are aware that the character you comment under the name of was created primarily as a vehicle for the expression of William Moulton Marston's private bondage fantasies, right?

Anonymous said...

"I don't think White males have enough group cohesion to revolt."

True. That's because white males and females have never felt the need to be a tribe so they aren't organized as a tribe. Feeling has to precede organization, and non-black males and non-Hispanic males are in the "feeling" stage. Women aren't quite there yet.


The American white woman isn't paying attention to the words of a Sotomayor right now. She's busy working and raising kids.

It's up to the Orrin Hatches of the judiciary committee to bring Sotomayor's comments/beliefs to light to the point that the MSM covers the story in a big way, and only then will women think, "That's my son's future she's screwing around with." You get to the woman's vote through her children.

In addition to getting non-Hispanic, non-black women to consider how such policies impact their sons, the opposition really needs to go after the press. In large part, isn't the arrogance of power, whether it was the run-up to the Iraq War by the Bush Admin or the creation of the messiah status of Obama, the result of the failure of the 4th Estate to keep their covenant with the people?

I don't think we can underestimate how the deterioration of journalism has contributed to what's been happening to the country.

Anonymous said...

inadvertent discrimination is arguably now the most important part of civil rights law.
--------

This is the theme of Michelle Obama's college paper: White students did not even KNOW they were being racist towards her!

Anonymous said...

but uses a weightlifting test simply because he thinks, all other things equal, stronger employees are better than weaker ones. Disparate impact law also prohibits this: It requires the employer to reconsider job qualifications that favor one race or sex, unjustifiably.
-------------

AAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA

Can I sue such a Fire Dept when the female they send in can't lift me up to carry me out and I suffer injuries or death????

Anonymous said...

Of course, there might be a good reason to prefer people who are physically stronger—or who score higher on a written exam.
-------------

YA THINK???

Typical Leftist b.s. flip back and forth on the issue. Just look for that final "but....."

David said...

Anon. said:

- America's greatest domestic challenge going forward is to get blacks and latinos to have as high a level of intellectual rigor as do whites and asians -

It's not my greatest challenge. Trying to turn lead into gold at great expense to myself, my family, and my people - to hell with that.

"Americans" over the past 40 or 50 years have sacrificed already their polity, and trillions of dollars, for this project that you seem to have newly discovered. (Perhaps you even believe that you came up with it yourself, just now, being the twentysomething Master of the Universe that you are.)

Do *you* want to help the po NAMS?

Then do it yourself. Include me out.

Anonymous said...

For example, the city of Chicago has recently gotten around the Four-Fifths Rule by setting the pass rate so low that 85% of applicants passed the fireman's entrance exam and policeman's promotion exams. This allows the pass rate for blacks to be Four-Fifths of the white rate, but it means that really stupid whites and blacks get important jobs.
-------------

The last Chicago Police Sgt promo test given the applicants had to take the test IN PENCIL! Name and Social Sec # on the front of the booklet IN PENCIL. Social on the top of each page IN PENCIL. All questions were short answers IN PENCIL, subjectivly graded by hundreds of different proctors.

The results took a year to get back. Applicants cannot get their answer bookets back or know which answers they got wrong or what was the correct answer!!

F- U- New Haven, CT. Learn how to do it right and you won't have any pesky lawsuits!!!!

MQ said...

Steve isn't getting the point here AT ALL. The issue is that *even if disparate impact is wrong from a policy sense*, that's really a legislative decision...it would be a huge thing, basically making law from the bench, to simply overrule it as unconstitutional based on race discrimination principles. *Maybe* the Supreme Court, the traditional home for such big sweeping "law-making" judicial decisions, might do it, but it's inappropriate for an appeals court to do it. Really, a legislature should make the decision of how exactly to implement anti-discrimination principles. Even if they really screw it up, it's not necessarily appropriate for a judge to "fix" it. Sotomayer refused to be a judicial activist who made law instead of interpreting it.

Of course, conservatives like activist judges who make law so long as it's conservative judges making conservative law.

Anonymous said...

Is standard deviation an arbitrary measure of deviation-from-the-mean? I don't understand the need for squaring and unsquaring. Why not just average the deviations and use that measure?

Lucius Vorenus said...

Zylonet: Who is to argue that a team comprised of intelligent men would not do well.

Cue "Truth" et al to start screaming at me in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 seconds, but if you enforce the rulebook, then white guys can actually compete in the game of basketball.

If you were really cynical & devious, then you could sue David Stern & the NBA under just that pretense: "Enforce your rulebook!"

Of course, the entire purpose of the racial-spoils industry [and the broader movement of cultural Marxism and, beyond that, Nihilism in general] is precisely to do away with any idea of "rules" [much less entire books filled with "rules"], at least in any sense of the word "rule" that our forefathers would have understood.

Lucius Vorenus said...

Anonymous: If blacks and latinos want to do as wells as whites and asians (and there are plenty of whites and asians who also don't do well), they would be much better served by studying math and science more, instead they vote for democrats who, rather than explicitly ask them to be more intellectually rigorous, enact policies such as affirmative action and welfare programs to raise their standard of living. This does great detriment to blacks and latinos as well as everyone else in america.

This post probably won't make it through Komment Kontrol, but the sad fact of the matter is that blacks & aboriginal hispanics can study "math and science" from now until the day of reckoning, but it won't do any good for the overwhelming majority of them - their IQs are just too low to grasp any of the concepts involved.

From the purely Darwinin/GNXP/Nihilist point of view, the racial-spoils system is actually a pretty good biological survival strategy for the NAMs.

As long as they can convince Whitey to keep sending them that welfare check every month [to the tune of $22,449 per household per year] which keeps them in the baby-makin' bidness, they're living the devolutionary high life.

Their problem, of course, is that Whitey ain't makin' any babies of his own, and in another generation or so, there won't be enough Whiteys left to keep the ship of state afloat.

Cf. ZA Sucks, Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe, etc etc etc.

Eric said...

Equality of racial collective achievement rates is more indicative of a just society than the ability of a qualified individual to achieve social mobility according to his own merit.

Says you. I think that's just about as wrong as wrong can be. Thank you for turning my country into Lebanon.

Grumpy Old Man said...

There was a time when we didn't pretend that some multi-guess test picked the best fire captains. We had a spoils system. The jobs went to deserving Democrats (mostly) or Republicans, friends of the ward boss.

For some moralistic reason we got rid of that system. In fact, I believe the Supremes have held it to be unconstitutional. Too bad.

Now, if you're going to se a multi-guess test and throw out the results if the wrong color people get picked, bad juju results.

"Let us prey" is still the rule, but it's less open and more cumbersome nowadays.

Victoria said...

Clem said:
"Populations in different parts of the world developed certain proteins, or markers, that are part of the body's natural defenses. These markers help the immune system determine which cells are foreign and should be rejected." And from the article:
"If Nick Glasgow were white, he would have a nearly 90 percent chance of finding a matching bone marrow donor who could cure his leukemia."
======

This does deserve a WOW! In reading this, it seems so obvious, but this is another one of those "hatefacts" that should be buried because it serves no "social good." Hush!

The young fogey said...

You've made me think.

The unmentionable may well be true.

All people are equally valuable in the sight of God but of course egalitarianism is false and unfair. All are not the same.

What stops the unmentionable from being racist is...

The solution is... 'So what?'

Have one standard for all.

Not discrimination on behalf of whites.

Not quotas or reverse discrimination favouring non-whites.

Merit, objectivity, good old boring rule of law, which Obama, Sotomayor and the rest of the left seem not to believe in.

I think we're on the same page on this.

bartiromo said...

On a more positive note, here's a funny pic of Korean riot police training, training to "do battle":
http://rokdrop.com/2009/05/28/picture-of-the-day-riot-police-training/

Cat Patrol said...

"Get rid of affirmative action and the growing Hispanic population revolts. Keep affirmative-and let it flourish-and White Males revolt."

I don't think so. Most White men are still too fat, happy, and quite frankly, nutless. In time, that may change. But by then, it will probably be too late.



Actually, I have sort of a theory why White nations tend to be the ones which allow their lands to be overrun with foreigners. Although all people have the capacity to be racist and to resent and compete with others unlike them, I believe only the White race developed a strong sense of empathy. This sense of empathy often negates the natural racist tendencies of White citizens in White nations, thus they put down their guard permitting in nonWhites who ultimately will do great harm to them

John Mansfield said...

Wouldn't it be great if Frank Ricci were invited to testify at the Sotomayor confirmation hearing, especially since an understanding of how judicial rulings affect real people is supposed to be one of her special qualifications? The Ricci case is great because it is so unlike the usual government intervention story where there is some small identifible group that is a lot better off and the vast rest of everybody else that is a little worse off. With Ricci though, a small group of firefighters who passed their tests didn't get promoted, but neither did anyone else. No one is better off.

ben tillman said...

Get rid of affirmative action and the growing Hispanic population revolts.Not a chance. AA is simply not a big deal for most Hispanics.

Truth said...

"Actually, I have sort of a theory why White nations tend to be the ones which allow their lands to be overrun with foreigners. Although all people have the capacity to be racist and to resent and compete with others unlike them, I believe only the White race developed a strong sense of empathy...."

Yeah, "empathy", that's it; oh, and a love for cheap labor.

Anonymous said...

"Is standard deviation an arbitrary measure of deviation-from-the-mean? I don't understand the need for squaring and unsquaring. Why not just average the deviations and use that measure?"

You seem very sincere. You need a math class (or two, or more).

Maximilian said...

It looks like all of these struggling msm media sites are using the Daily Mail UK playbook: all viewing pages should contain at least one column of trashy celeb news story links for the ladies.

The Daily Mail is an odd mix. Most of the stories are "trashy celeb news," e.g. which actress looks fat in the telephoto pictures from the beach, but then mixed in are conservative stories telling women that they will be miserable unless they marry and have children. From the American point of view it seems to be a strange assortment of agendas.

Anonymous said...

Cat Patrol,

Not to rain on your parade but someone has already articulated your theory. See "Race, Evolution and Behavior" by Rushton.

PR

Jim O said...

I think Cat Patrol has just made a point that's sort of been buzzing around my head, but I've never actually realized it. OK, so I did't get into Princton and Harvard Law to study with Sonia and Michelle, so I shrugged it off, went to where I got accepted, and got on with my life. I didn't get promoted to Fire Lieutenant, so I kept my side job working construction and went on with my life.
Guys Like Ricci and Allan (sp?) Bakke are rare. Too rare. I wouldn't say we're all fat and happy, though. I'd say we're frogs in a pot that's getting hotter very, very, gradually. Ricci actually wants to do something about it.

Anonymous said...

"Wouldn't it be great if Frank Ricci were invited to testify at the Sotomayor confirmation hearing"

That's a great idea.

rec1man said...

Should there be a Ricci on spelling bees

7 out of 11 finalists for 2009 were upper caste Indians

dc watcher said...

Merely talking about the Bilderberg Group seems to put one in Alex Jones conspiracy territory and gets you dismissed from any respectable opinion."

Does it? If so, that's how "they" want it. The Bilderbergers get together once a year for a secret meeting -- no press, people sworn not to talk about the proceedings -- a secret meeting comprised of the richest and most powerful people in the world. Every president in the past 30 years attended the Bilderberger meeting the year before nomination.
Apparently to take note of this, and demand a transcript, brands you as a "conspiracy theorist." There are conspiracies and there are theories. The two words do not necessarily go together.
History has been made of countless trails of conspiracies. Only a fool thinks otherwise. So who exactly forces the press to ignore some stories, and not others? The current occupant of the White House is entirely there because of crazy press promotion to the exclusion of asking any questions of him that weren't pre-approved. Why?
The only answer is that those who wield power are behind the scenes and attend secret meetings, otherwise President B.O. would make some kind of sense.
We like to think we have all the facts out there for our perusal--it's comforting and that's the American way. To have stuff kept from us and to feel that we are pawns in the game, that we cannot accept.
We go into denial and sneer at anyone who raises their head above the fog and tries to see whats really going on.
Really, as realtively independent thinker, no one here should be unaware of all this.

Svigor said...

Yeah, "empathy", that's it; oh, and a love for cheap labor.Truth's got you there. On the other hand, he's not going to explain why we don't handle the matter the Saudi Way. I.e., where's the profit in manumission?

Svigor said...

Yeah, "empathy", that's it; oh, and a love for cheap labor.

Oh, almost forgot, if love of cheap labor is enough, where's the Great African Empire? They've still got slavery there today, but I don't see anyone trying to immigrate.

OH WAIT, that's right, empathy, love of cheap labor (human universal), and the ability to create advanced civilization.

The Chinese love cheap labor. They love it so much they seem to be planning to only bring a minority of their citizenry into the 21st century. That'll leave plenty of peasants (not a euphemism) to exploit, so no need to import millions of third-worlders. Greedy whites all went and got rich and left nobody in the slave caste.

Lucius Vorenus said...

Truth: a love for cheap labor

Svigor Truth's got you there.

Actually, Truth's right.

Komment Kontrol won't let me say this, but - well - whatever.

MacSweeney said...

Oh jeez, I thought there was no way this post could be an opportunity for rec1man to talk about how superior Brahmans are, but there it is.

ben tillman said...

OH WAIT, that's right, empathy, love of cheap labor (human universal), and the ability to create advanced civilization.

...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms.

rob said...

MacSweeney, we lower IQ whites should be happy the brilliant Hindoos are spending their time learning little autistic savant tricks. Otherwise, they'd TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!

Anonymous said...

Sonia Sotomayor rejected the New Haven firefighters' claim because it threatened to burn down civil rights law
=============

Why cant they just say it like they mean it:

....Burn down anti-Whites law.

Grow a pair already

Truth said...

"On the other hand, he's not going to explain why we don't handle the matter the Saudi Way. I.e., where's the profit in manumission?"

The Saudi's still have slaves?

"Oh, almost forgot, if love of cheap labor is enough, where's the Great African Empire? They've still got slavery there today."

Where did I say that cheap labor was enough? BTW they have slavery in Europe today as well, only they call it "Brothels."

Svigor said...

Truth: a love for cheap labor

Svigor Truth's got you there.

Actually, Truth's right.


From whence the "actually"? I agreed with him. I simply pointed out that there are paths to satisfying a desire for cheap labor and a desire for national integrity, if empathy doesn't get in your way. And that cheap foreign labor is only necessary if you can't get cheap labor domestically, which sorta goes hand-in-hand with having a rich/advanced civilization.

Anonymous said...

The issue is that *even if disparate impact is wrong from a policy sense*, that's really a legislative decision...it would be a huge thing, basically making law from the bench, to simply overrule it as unconstitutional based on race discrimination principles.



Right, because the courts have zero track record of overruling racially discriminatory laws, and it would be just unprecedented "judicial activism" for them to do so now.

What color is the sky in your world? If there is one thing the courts have been consistent on it is that racially discriminatory laws are unconstiutional. Granted, they are oddly selective about this - only striking down laws which discrimiante against "minorites" for the most part. But according to their own language, and the language of the actual statutory laws as well, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race. It would not be judical activism for the courts to strike down the practices in New Haven, it would be upholding the law, the constitution, and the courts own precedents.

None of which a smelly little bigot like you cares about.

Anonymous said...

Why can't Japanese-style automation fill the demand for cheap labor?

Truth said...

"Why can't Japanese-style automation fill the demand for cheap labor?"

It can, but it can fill the demand for cheap consumers or cheap taxpayers.