Hardly.

Hmmm...affirmative action...no, what would've been much better is for the fire department to promote unqualified personnel into leadership positions because of their race.

Do you really believe that, Clay? I seriously hope not.

And yet another racist policy bites the dust...

"The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small..."

Justice prevails

If it is wrong for the government (a municipal fire department) to discriminate against black people due to the color of their skin, then it is just as wrong to discriminate against white people for the same reason.

What is truly amazing is that four justices somehow conjured up "justification" for this blatant act of discrimination, carried out using funds taxed from citizens of all races and colors.

Then again, five of them voted to gut private property rights in Kelo v. New London, so it's amazing that this case didn't go the same way.

If an "appropriate" percentage of the black candidates had passed the test, would everybody have then assumed the test was therefore unbiased? If anybody can explain in any sensible fashion why the white candidates did better, I'd love to see it. I don't buy for a second that it's simply because those who failed were black. That's an insult to all blacks.

Affirmative action may have nearly run it's course and history will be debating it's usefulness for years to come. My guess is that without it we would probably have progressed beyond dual water fountains and restrooms but not as far in schools, jobs and social acceptance as of today. Unfortunately we may have replaced race segregation with class segregation which is so prevalent in other countries.

Rereading my post above, I think I haven't had enough coffee. I may have implied agreement that the test was biased. I don't agree. The city was in a no-win position caused by affirmative action. They were going to be sued regardless so they took their chances with the politically correct approach and threw the white (and one Hispanic) candidates under the bus. The bottom line is there were those who did better on the test - period. They were entitled to the fruits of their work. If a test is indeed not an appropriate measure, the city should have thought of that before they got results that scared them silly because they might not be politically correct.

To make the claim that whites scored higher than the blacks or Hispanics who took this test is not an insult, it's a fact. That's not an indictment of either of the underperforming groups, it's an indictment of the test. There is a school of thought that believes (and shows statistical proof) that certain tests are biased towards one group over another. This seems to be the issue in the New Haven case.

Of the 41 firefighters who took the captain's promotional exam, 25 were white, 8 were black, and 8 were Hispanic. If you look at the appliacnts with the 12 highest scores, 10 were white and 2 were Hispanic. If this test was the only determining factor, New Haven would have filled the seven open positions with six whites and one Hispanic.

Now, if you look at the applicants who had the lowest 12 scores on this exam, 5 were black (62% of the blacks who took the exam), 4 were Hispanic (50% of the Hispanics), and 3 were white (12 percent). Considering these numbers, It seems to me, it would be an insult to the black or Hispanic applicants, if you DIDN'T look at the test as unfair.

By civil rights employment law, it's incumbent on a municipality to throw out any testing that seems to be inherently biased in nature. That's what New Haven did. And they did so in an attempt to come up with a fairer testing system.

I agree with the dissenters from the Supreme Court in their support of Sotomayor's ruling. The New Haven Fire Department was about to promote six whites and one Hispanic. They were about to promote 24 percent of the whites that took the test, 12% of the Hispanics, and 0% of the blacks. Looking at those glaring statistics, the city had every right (in fact, they had an obligation) to eliminate that testing method on suspicion of racial bias.

I agree with OllieH that the Judge's in the appeals case (Sotomayer, et al) were following the law as it was written.

Now the law has been rewritten, for better or worse.

A troublesome aspect of this case is that no testing of the test was ever conducted by an independent group.

If we would like to quote statistics, it is statically likely that there will be outcomes like this from a test, even if the test were perfectly fair. Randomness does not insure equal distributions every time. In fact, perfectly equal distributions are as likely as distributions like this one. It's only when you average all distributions that you can see the larger trend.

So... we don't know if the test was biased or not.

At this rate, we never will. It will be interesting to see how the town conducts promotions in the future.

Either way, this is a blow to affirmative action, for better or for worse.

C'mon, OllieH, the test was vetted well ahead of time and examined six ways from Sunday by at least one independent test-evaluation group. NO racial bias was found -- NONE. The city was very aware of this since they contracted for the eval. Had the resultant been any different, you may rest assured the city would NOT have given the test. Which is exactly how it should be...

The city did NOT throw out the test because it was "inherently biased in nature" but because they didn't like the outcome and therefor promoted no one. The only "racial bias" in that decision was that shown by the city.

Sotomayer et al incorrectly agreed with the city's position. The SCOTUS overruled her.

What you, Sotomayer and the SCOTUS dissenters imply is that two or three different standards or tests might be created, each biased toward the target racial group. That's like lowering physical strength and endurance standards to allow women to compete with men. Or giving college placement preference based SOLELY on race and flying in the face of lower test scores. Race [or gender] has nothing to do with it...either you know the information [meet the goals] or you don't.

Try something else...

Using a sample wtih a size of 41 firefighters that took the test, 8 black, 8 hispanic, and 25 white, you cannot come to the conclusion that the test was racially biased. The hispanics didn't do bad on it. Maybe the whites and hispanics that took the test prepared themselves for it and the blacks did not.

Affirmative action just creates racism, in the opposite way, that it was intended to prevent. The Supreme Court ruled in the correct way. By throwing out the test that determines who is qualified and hiring based on race, the city has discriminated against the whites that scored well on the test.

If you want to find if a test is racially biased, then you need to get a larger group to sample. You cannot jump to a conclusion from a test that had 41 people take it and only 8 were from the "discriminated" group. Anyone who knows anything about statistics knows that you cannot draw conclusions from that.

Now, we need to completely do away with affirmative action. We have moved past racism for the most part. I mean we have a black President. That has to say something. There still are some that are racist but not that many, and those people will find other reasons not to hire those they discriminate against.

And all posters take their usual positions lol individual freedom and common sense vs nanny state politics and political correctness :) have a nice day

I agree with OllieH and the minority opinion of the court.

This Fire Department has a long and UNdistinguished history when it comes to discrimination in it's hiring and promotion practices.

Back in 1973, a group of black firefighters challenged almost every aspect of the New Haven department's hiring and promotion practices. Specifically, the group alleged that the department's entry exam, minimum requirements, promotional exam and use of supervisory recommendations for promotions followed a pattern of 'willful discrimination'. The courts agreed with the black firefighters and the issue lead to a consent decree requiring the department to increase minority recruiting, create entrance and promotional exams that were job-related and modify other practices to diminish the adverse impact on black firefighters.

In 1989, the fire department's long-standing practice of disproportionately promoting white firefighters was challenged. The courts agreed (AGAIN) with the black firefighters and ruled that the practice violated civil-service laws.

In 1998, black firefighters sued the New Haven department yet again. This time, they took exception to how the department used lower-ranked officers to fill positions budgeted for a higher ranking firefighters. The practice created a disproportionately large pool of white candidates for captain exams, and resulted in blacks getting fewer promotions. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the practice violated civil-service laws.

In 2007, a study argued that New Haven's diversity record as it relates to supervisory positions was still poor, citing that Blacks held about a third of all entry-level positions, but only 15 percent of all supervisory positions.

This most recent case seems pretty consistent with a pattern of racially discriminatory behavior on the part of the New haven Fire Department. But this time, instead of being sued like all the times before, the city decided to withhold the promotions on the grounds that the test was discriminatory. That move was then upheld by a three-member panel of the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that included Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Please note that is was not Sotomayor's decision alone, but a three judge panel. Also, it was not Sotomayor (rather 4 sitting justices) who made those same arguments against the fairness of the testing in the Supreme Court case. Sotomayor's opinion on this matter was consistent with over four decades of legal and constitutional precedent. So, who are the 'judicial activists' here- Sotomayor and the Supreme Court's liberal minority, or the five conservative justices who just wrote new law?

When it comes to something as important as firefighting acumen, we should all be equally vested in seeing that the tests of proficiency are rigorous and complete. This is certainly how we treat those who would become our doctors, lawyers, nurses, dentists, emergency responders, pilots, etc. These tests should be administered with exacting standards in mind, not the test-taker's race. In overturning Sotomayor's decision, the US Supreme Court did the right thing for the affected firefighters and for all Americans who want to hold our public servants (and those who provide us life threatening/saving services) to the highest standards. If the best firefighters are all black guys (or ladies!), great; if they are all white guys (or ladies!), that is fine too. The point is that they be the best a city's firefighting units can provide its citizens. Please lets move past the race stuff! We are all better off when we hold all people to higher standards.

Ok, let's get a little partisan action going. This affirmative action toon was initiated by the Sotomayor firemen ruling. Now that Senator-elect Franken is official which, along with the independents, gives the magic 60 seat margin to prevent a filibuster. This just upped the probability that Sotomayor will be confirmed as well as pave the way for passage of many of the Democratic agenda items.

The black firefighters had just as much of an opportunity to study for the test as the white and hispanic firefighters. They have no one to blame but themselves for not passing. But thanks to out dated legislation they probably felt they didn't to worry about it. They were probably expecting to get it no matter what purely based on their skin color. Affirmative action, much like welfare in inner cities, teaches a group of people that hard work doesn't pay off.

Would the same people supporting Affirmative Action be in favor of Affirmative Action for white athletes in the NFL or NBA?

Sorry EaTn - Sotomayor was going to be confirmed with or without Franken. Want to try another one? Health insurance, guns - nah guns issue, despite being back in the news, is worn out. I'm sure there are others lol

As an editorial cartoonist, I wonder if Bennett has ever competed with minorities for a job or a promotion as have the New Haven firefighters? How many members of the TFP editorial staff are minorities? Further, what percentage of the TFP are minorities, excluding clerical and maintenance workers?
Just asking.