April 2010

Bridgeport Police Case

by lbarber on 04/29/2010

in Judiciary

Connecticut seems to be a hot spot for federal discrimination claims these days. First New Haven (Ricci v. DeStefano), now Bridgeport.

In 2008, 12 white firefighters filed suit against the city of Bridgeport for re-scoring a lieutenant exam, because too few minorities scored high enough to qualify for promotions. The case was settled last year.

This week, a federal appeals court allowed a group of white police officers in Bridgeport to intervene in the settlement of a discrimination case over 30 years old. In 1978, a group of black firefighters sued for discrimination. As a result of the case, the Bridgeport Police Department has been under supervision by a federal court. Intervening will allow the police officers to challenge any court action that impacts them. An excerpt:

“But the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals panel in New York City — consisting of Judges Jose A. Cabranes, a former chief district judge in Connecticut; Barrington D. Parker, who sits on several Yale University boards; and U.S. District Judge Carol Amon of Brooklyn, N.Y. — didn’t stop there.

“The panel questioned why the 32-year-old Guardians case, which resulted in the federal court overseeing operations of the Bridgeport Police Department’s dealings with black officers, is still active.

“Parker, in a strongly worded final paragraph, writes: ‘this case was filed in 1978 … the world has turned over many times since then. Except in highly unusual circumstances, it is the business of cities, not federal courts or special masters, to run police departments. At some point in time, this litigation has to be ended.’”

Blacks now account for 15 percent of supervisors in the department, and racial minorities comprise a third of all supervisors.

Download the 12-page case (PDF).

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Ward Connerly on the UCSD Controversy

by lbarber on 04/28/2010

in Ward Connerly

An excerpt of a Minding the Campus article by the American Civil Rights Institute‘s Ward Connerly:

“Although my years of service on the University of California (UC) Board of Regents were the most tumultuous years of my life, my pride in the Board and the university that it serves has, until now, never wavered. But, a recent meeting and action by the Board has caused that feeling of pride to diminish.

“At several UC campuses, a variety of incidents occurred several weeks ago that were characterized as creating a ‘toxic’ racial climate for black students. The source of the ‘toxicity’ came in the form of an off-campus party called the ‘Compton Cookout’ and a noose found hanging inside the library at the UCSD campus.

“In a little over a three-week period, racial epithets were allegedly directed at black students at UCSD; and, at other UC campuses, a swastika was carved into a Jewish student’s door and derogatory graffiti was found at the gay and lesbian students’ center.

“These alleged incidents resulted in a delegation of students, faculty members and UC staff attending a meeting of the Board of Regents in late March to complain that the Regents weren’t doing enough to create a climate that nurtures ‘inclusiveness,’ for minorities, such as blacks and gays/lesbians. With no effort to validate the assertions, several regents gushed into a state of apologia, as is customary for university governing board members in such circumstances.

“Somehow, and not surprisingly, the apology fest about ‘campus climate’ veered into the issue of the number of blacks enrolled at all UC campuses. This was familiar terrain for Regent Eddie Island, whose singular focus as a regent seems to be the circumvention of the California Constitution and its prohibition against race preferences.

“The cause of my growing disrespect for the board was the comment by Island that ‘it is our own standards and slavish adherence to grade point averages and SAT scores that have put us in this dilemma.’ He continued, ‘We value those things higher than we value other human qualities that are just as important and that can make a contribution within the UC environment.’

“UC President Mark Yudof chimed in that he would seek changes in admissions policy as well as the creation of scholarships for underrepresented minorities in order to ‘improve diversity.’ Yoduf stated that all UC campuses needed to employ a holistic review – currently employed at UC Berkeley and UCLA – when screening applicants, rather than focusing on SAT scores and grade point averages in making admissions decisions.

“The University of California is regarded, indisputably, as one of our nation’s premier systems of higher education. In virtually every category, one or more of UC’s ten campuses ranks within the top ten nationwide. This has happened precisely because of UC’s ‘slavish adherence’ to academic excellence, not because of other so-called ‘human qualities.’

“It is not uncommon for racial incidents and so-called hate crimes to be nothing more than pranks perpetrated by students in search of a little fun after a beer party. Worse, there have been many occasions in which individuals and organizations (who need not even be students) fake incidents of racism and hate to promote their own agenda by getting the attention of the university. Although these stupid and malicious acts can cause a lot of misery for many students, they do not warrant wholesale changes in admissions, apologies by regents for something over which they have little or no control, and pandering to the extent of providing special benefits for ‘minority’ students.”

Read the full article.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Update on New Haven Briscoe Firefighter Lawsuit

by lbarber on 04/27/2010

in Judiciary

FDNY firefighterIn Ricci v. DeStefano, over a dozen white firefighters and one Hispanic scored high enough on a promotion exam to qualify for promotions. Because no blacks scored high enough to qualify, however, the city threw out everyone’s test results for fear of disparate impact lawsuits. The U.S. Supreme Court called foul and said the move was unconstitutional.

After the firefighters requested their promotions, a group of black firefighters tried to block them. Despite the Supreme Court’s decision, they contended, they still had the right to challenge the test’s validity. Eventually, the qualified firefighters were promoted.

In a separate suit, a black firefighter in New Haven named Michael Briscoe claimed the promotions exam had a disparate impact on blacks. Specifically, he said that giving more weight to the written part of the exam over the oral was a disadvantage to blacks. The written portion of the test was weighted 60 percent; the oral 40 percent. Briscoe scored higher on the oral than any other exam taker.

Last week, a federal judge dismissed Biscoe’s suit. The court hasn’t released the opinion yet.

Try to understand what Briscoe and others who sue for disparate impact are saying. Look beyond the superficial surface-level discrimination claim and see the real claim. When blacks who earn lower scores on civil service exams sue under disparate impact, they’re implying that blacks can’t or shouldn’t be expected to compete with whites on pencil-and-paper civil service tests. Not the LSAT or the MCAT, but civil service tests. They are broadcasting a belief that they’re inferior. They are telling the world it’s discriminatory to even expect them to read and write well.

In our backward, PC world, requiring every applicant for a firefighter’s job and candidate for promotion to take an objective hiring or promotion exam, regardless of race, is suspect. The government used to do the opposite and make subjective, race-based judgments about who to hire and promote. The civil service exam was designed to end this practice. Now, such exams are perceived as tools of discrimination. And people go to court and publicly make the claim!

Some blacks pay lip service to equal treatment, expressing the desire to be seen and judged as an individual instead of “black person,” but in practice, they seem to abhor it. How sad. It takes courage to be free.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Linda Chavez on UC’s War on SATs

by lbarber on 04/26/2010

in Achievement Gap,UC

Linda ChavezLast year, the University of California’s (UC) Board of Regents voted to eliminate the requirement for applicants to take two SAT subject tests. Effective 2012, applicants with a GPA of 3.0 or higher who’ve completed at least 11 of 15 required college prep courses by their junior year and taken the ACT with Writing or SAT Reasoning (SAT-R) exam will be considered for admission.

The Center for Equal Opportunity‘s Linda Chavez informs readers that UC has changed the standard again. “Now [the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools] is taking aim at the SAT directly. What makes the action more suspicious is that BOARS’ own report notes that the SAT-R was developed specifically in response to testing principles it promulgated and that the new test ‘adds significant gains in predictive power of first year grades at UC.’ Nonetheless, BOARS is now recommending that students forgo the SAT in favor of the less-popular ACT. [emphasis added]

“Both tests have been accepted for more than 30 years and do a good job of predicting first-year grades. So why is BOARS now signaling preference for one test over another? After reading the report, it’s hard to come away without feeling that the real target is standardized testing in general…It’s not too far-fetched to wonder whether BOARS’ effort to discourage students from taking the SAT may be the first step in getting rid of standardized tests altogether.”

That’s exactly right, Ms. Chavez. When schools slouch toward eliminating standardized tests, it’s typically because racial minorities tend to score lower on standardized tests. When admissions officers assess applicants under an objective standard, the pattern is obvious; hence, racial preferences and a subjective eye to compensate for the deficiencies.

We agree on the solution to the disparity problem. Watering down tests and lowering standards for racial minorities are not the way to go. The solution involves “improving the skills of those students who lag behind,” and that’s a tougher proposition, because it involves parents taking a tough stand and students finding and maintaining motivation. Holding someone to a different standard, especially based on his/her skin color, does not motivate.

Chavez reminds us that it’s illegal in California to grant preferences to and discriminate against individuals or groups on the basis of race in government hiring, contracting, and admissions. Since the law passed in 1996, the state government has attempted to get around it. In fact, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill last year that blatantly violated the law. (See Schwarzenegger Signs Racial Quota Bill) The bill directs state departments to award government contracts to the lowest responsible bidder subcontracting 15 percent of the work to minority-owned businesses and five percent to female-owned businesses. The contractor who fails to do so will be rejected, even if he’s the lowest bidder.

Always lowering standards, never raising. Few people seem concerned about this hair-trigger reaction in academia and in the workplace. To pro-preferences folks, the offense lies not in the thing, but in speaking against the thing. Backward.

Chavez wraps up on a good note:

“What [UC Berkeley and UCLA] failed to notice is that black and Latino enrollment system-wide is up over the levels when racial preferences were common,” Chavez writes. “The students now enrolled under more race-neutral standards are doing just fine, graduating in higher percentages than they were when racial preferences admitted many students to campuses where they couldn’t compete with their peers because their grades and test scores were substantially lower.”

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Firefighters Case in Mobile

by lbarber on 04/21/2010

in Judiciary

Race and age are the focus of a discrimination case in Mobile, Alabama. A white firefighter claims the department promoted a lower-scoring black man and a lower-scoring younger white man over him.

William C. Hunter scored second highest on a promotions test, but a black firefighter in sixth place and a white firefighter in third place were promoted. For his high score, Hunter received nothing. An excerpt:

“Andy Rutens, an attorney for the city, could not be reached for comment but issued the following statement: ‘The city denies that age or race played a factor in the promotion process. The city promoted three highly qualified individuals.

“According to the suit, Hunter began working for the Fire-Rescue Department 38 years ago and steadily rose through the ranks until he became fire services district chief in 1995.”

Blacks as a group score lower on standardized tests than whites, on average, and employers devise ways to get around strict test score assessments. In Mobile, the department chose from among the top 10 scorers to fill three vacant positions, rather than select the three highest scorers. Hunter also accused the department of watering down standards to hire more blacks, and switching from objective to subjective exams.

Do fire and police departments across the country use similar tactics? Most likely. If departments hired and promoted on an objective highest-scores standard, minorities would sue, claiming disparate impact. When departments hire and promote based on a subjective standard, higher scorers who’re shut out of jobs and promotions are justifiably resentful.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Berkeley High Science Labs Update

April 21, 2010

Remember the Berkeley High School (BHS) science labs controversy? The school’s Governance Council, a body of teachers, parents, and students, proposed to eliminate before- and after-school science labs and divert resources to narrowing the intractable racial academic achievement gap. (Also see Berkeley High May Drop “White” Science Labs) BHS has the widest racial academic achievement [...]

Read the full article →

Supreme Court Hears Religious Student Group Case

April 20, 2010

You may have read news stories about a case before the U.S. Supreme Court involving the Christian Legal Society (CLS) at the University of California’s Hastings School of Law. The CLS, a group of Christ followers, wants to exclude from membership homosexuals and people who don’t follow Christ. Although the issue is whether a tax-supported [...]

Read the full article →

‘Racially Identifiable’ Schools the New Plague

April 20, 2010

Parents with children in Walthall County Schools in Tylertown, Mississippi, may request transfers for their children. Last year, about 250 whites and 50 blacks exercised the option and transferred their children from predominantly black Tylertown High School to predominantly white Salem Attendance Center. (Source) Based on the numbers, it seems more white parents than black [...]

Read the full article →

Racial Realism and Remedies

April 15, 2010

Interesting piece of news: the University of Pennsylvania’s Black Law Student Association (BLSA) held a panel discussion last week titled, “Revisiting Race and Remedies: Should the Government Play A Role in Eliminating Racial Disparities in Education and Employment?“ A search for mainstream media news articles about the panel turned up nothing. Of the four panelists, [...]

Read the full article →

Justice Stevens’s Reversal on Racial Preferences

April 13, 2010

The retiring Justice John Stevens, although appointed by Republican President Gerald Ford, favors the practice of admitting and rejecting students based on race in government-supported institutions of higher learning. But not always. In 1978, he voted with the majority in part in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which declared the school’s racial [...]

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Read the full article →

← Previous Entries