Patterico's Pontifications

4/11/2015

Stamford, Connecticut Kills Firefighter Exam As Biased Against Women and Minorities

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:48 am



What do you care about: getting the best firefighters, or making sure you don’t upset minorities and women? The City of Stamford, Connecticut has made its choice. As a result, some of the best firefighters may have to find some other line of work.

STAMFORD, Conn. — The city has to throw out its firefighter exam after an expert said it discriminated against women and minorities.

Officials announced Thursday they intended to send the matter to the Board of Finance in order to fund a $150,000 replacement exam.

Meanwhile, the city has already written to the 753 men and women who took the test, informing them that they could take the replacement, which will likely happen in early May. They will not have to pay the $35 examination fee again.

. . . .

As it turned out, the test was also highly slanted in favor of white men.

“In reviewing the exam results, the city discovered that the test had an adverse impact on minorities, in particular, on black, Hispanic and female candidates,” Mayor David Martin wrote to the Board of Finance on Thursday. “The results showed that 3.8 percent of black candidates, 20.8 percent of Hispanic candidates and 6.2 percent of female candidates passed the exam, a statistically significant difference from the 36.4 percent rate for Caucasian candidates.”

“Adverse impact” means these groups didn’t do as well on the test — presumably because it was filled with questions only white guys would answer correctly, like the correct number of sea salt shakers to keep in your pantry, or the best places to buy Ray-Bans.

In many of his books, Thomas Sowell makes the point that different groups have different scores on many different types of tests. There are many reasons for such disparities, which have nothing to do with discrimination or genetics, but instead include factors such as cultural priorities and habits, and other significant circumstances.

A test is not “slanted in favor of” one group because that group does better on the test. It could be that the group is better, as a whole, at answering the questions on the test. The real question is whether success on the test is an accurate predictor of success on the job. If it is, then the citizens of Stamford should not care whether certain groups do better or worse — except to the extent that they should want to draw their firefighters from the group that does better.

Why are we in this predicament? Kevin Gutzman, who gets the hat tip for bringing this article to my attention, explains that there are two squishy old white men who can take a lot of credit: George H.W. Bush and Anthony Kennedy.

For his part, Bush decided to sign 1991 revisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that had language making it easier to claim “disparate impact.” Discussing the 2009 Supreme Court case of Ricci v. DeStefano, Gutzman says:

New Haven had administered the test to 118 firefighters, 25 of whom were black. None of the blacks qualified for promotion to the 15 available positions, while all 20 of the white (including Hispanic) plaintiffs did. Black firefighters who had failed the examination threatened to sue New Haven if it considered the test in making promotion decisions. Their suit would be based on the statute’s disparate impact provision.

It was the disparate impact provision that Pat Buchanan and others had in mind when they accused President George H. W. Bush of having signed a quota bill when he agreed to revisions of the ’64 Civil Rights Act in 1991. The elder Bush’s critics said that if employers knew they could be successfully sued for using any measure that disproportionately excluded black applicants, they would seek measures that included proportionate shares of black applicants. That is, they would tacitly follow a quota system.

The facts of Ricci v. DeStefano vindicate Bush’s critics.

Ricci v. DeStefano was a case brought by white firefighters in Connecticut (sound familiar?) who sued after their fire department threw out the results of a promotional exam. According to the exam’s results, 20 white and Hispanic (grouped together for this example, natch) firefighters qualified for promotions, and no black firefighters did. So: the black firefighters threatened to sue, and officials relented and threw out the results. They obviously didn’t care that their actions were hurting a racial group as long as that group was white (and Hispanic) — until the lawyers got involved.

This is where squishy old white guy #2 comes in: Anthony Kennedy. The white firefighters won because the Court found that the officials who threw out the test couldn’t meet Kennedy’s squishy legal standard, designed to ensure full employment for lawyers for years to come. Writing in 2009, shortly after the Ricci decision was announced, Gutzman said:

Kennedy said in Ricci that before a government institution could throw out a promotion criterion with a disparate impact, it must have a “strong basis in evidence” that a disparate-impact lawsuit was likely. In other words, it must have good reason to think that if it came to that, Anthony Kennedy would favor the government’s action. Consider yourself a judge on an inferior federal court. Would you find that guidance useful?

Likely not. That is why the head of the New Haven black firefighters’ organization said in the New Haven newspaper on Tuesday that he was considering bringing suit against New Haven if it made promotion decisions on the basis of the examination and promoted an all-white group of firefighters to captain and lieutenant. New Haven taxpayers should at some point send Justice Kennedy a token of their thankfulness to him for the burden of ongoing litigation of the matter that they seem certain to have to bear.

So effective was Kennedy’s slapdown that the people who lost acted as if they had won. And now, six years later, the same situation is arising in the same state, and officials are doing the same thing that got them in trouble in Ricci. In other words, Kennedy’s “slapdown” was no slapdown at all, and it’s business as usual in the Connecticut firefighting biz, with quotas ruling the day. Same as it ever was.

No word on whether the folks who did well on the exam in Stamford have talked to any lawyers. In just six short years (the time between the promotional test in Ricci and the Supreme Court’s decision) they might get them some justice! or not!

Hooray for the U.S. Hooray for the rule of law. Hooray for treating the races equally. And hooray for Anthony Kennedy.

22 Responses to “Stamford, Connecticut Kills Firefighter Exam As Biased Against Women and Minorities”

  1. Patterico (9c670f)

  2. Not too long ago, I told my daughter about the Griggs v. Duke Power Co decision, which started this disparate impact nonsense. Her response was “They didn’t flunk because they were black, they flunked because they were stupid”.

    Any arguments?

    nk (dbc370)

  3. I think we could end the thread on that note quite nicely.

    Gazzer (eae5fa)

  4. Who was on the CA2 panel that issued that upheld the lower court’s granting of the motion to dismiss

    Who wrote the dissent in Shutte v bamm –

    None other than the wise Latino

    joe (debac0)

  5. To all the lawyers rejoicing: I wonder if the bar exam discriminates against blacks or women.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  6. Not too long ago, I told my daughter about the Griggs v. Duke Power Co decision, which started this disparate impact nonsense. Her response was “They didn’t flunk because they were black, they flunked because they were stupid”.

    Griggs was an interpretation of a statute by Congress. Congress has so far refused to repeal disparate impact.

    Michael Ejercito (d9a893)

  7. I wonder if the bar exam discriminates against blacks or women.

    There was some mutter on Al Gore’s internets about the Multistate part doing that not too long ago but I didn’t even bother to look.

    nk (dbc370)

  8. It does discriminate against the children of Chicago and Hyannis Port Irish political dynasties but that’s usually pointed out as an indicator that it’s honest.

    nk (dbc370)

  9. Stamford is caught on the horns of dilemma, the city has to hire at total of 24 new firefighters quickly (they’ve hired 8 already) or lose out on $3 million in FEMA grant money. With only 16 openings and 753 applicants taking the entrance exam about 1 in 3 whites, 1 in 5 Hispanics, and roughly about 1 in 20 women and blacks passed.

    Based on exam results all 16 open positions would most likely go to white guys, and therein lies the city’s dilemma. They’re under the gun to fill 16 positions or lose $3 million, and if they hire all white guys the diversity enforcers will burn their house down.

    But that’s only half the story. No matter how much money the city spends on a new test the results aren’t going to change all that much. And, while they retest, the clock keeps ticking. If the money goes away everyone loses.

    So, here’s one way out: Forget any more testing, or bureaucratic gymnastics, hire 12 guys (9 white, 2 Hispanic, and 1 black) and 3 women (1 from each category).

    ropelight (1be3c4)

  10. So really they don’t even need extra personnel, they just want to get on the gubmint teat. So what will these “free” firefighters cost the town over years in salary and pensions? Effin unions and gubmint will be the ruination of this nation yet.

    Gazzer (eae5fa)

  11. So, I say: “THROW OUT ALL THE BAR EXAM RESULTS!1!!!”

    Replace the exam with an essay question about “fairness.”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  12. You all think it is funny now, but just wait. They laughed at Phyllis Schlafly’s list of ERA horrors, yet they have all come to pass despite the ERA’s defeat.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  13. There are two basic reasons someone does poorly on a test:
    1. They didn’t study hard enough, or
    2. They really ARE stupid, and thus inferior and not qualified to do the job.

    Tom (3f4d38)

  14. The poll tax amendment did all the harm. Without it, we could have priced all the neer-do-wells and most of the women out of the franchise and we’d be fine even if we did not repeal the 14th, 15th and 19th.

    nk (dbc370)

  15. Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/11/2015 @ 1:27 pm

    YES!

    askeptic (efcf22)

  16. Michael Ejercito (d9a893) — 4/11/2015 @ 1:31 pm

    Because Congress knows that no matter which course of action – other than inaction – that they take, they will be accused of conducting a “WarOnxxxxxx”.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  17. A few years ago, some “community activists” in Savannah, Ga., complained about there not being “enough” black firefighters. The Savannah newspaper did some digging and came up with these figures:

    – In the previous year, 123 blacks took the written exam for firefighters

    – 19 of the 123 passed the written exam

    – 4 of the 19 who passed the written exam passed the physical fitness test

    – 3 of the 4 who passed both the written exam and the physical fitness test were selected for interviews, but only 1 of the 3 passed the background check

    I wouldn’t be surprised if there have been similar results around the country.

    BTW, during the Ferguson riots, Ann Coulter wrote a column that addressed the outcry for more black police officers. She cited a study that claimed whenever the standards for police officers are lowered, the quality of police work declines dramatically, which is not the least bit surprising.

    Whitey Nisson (79e3a8)

  18. My son is a firefighter (What used to be a fireman) and he took an exam that the city of Long Beach conducted about 15 years ago. He was in line waiting to be admitted along with the 5,000 other applicants when he heard two girls behind him in line talking about how the city FD had called them to be sure they would be able to find the site.

    He took the exam and scored in the top 5% who would be on the list to be hired.

    Then he found out that the Black Firefighters Association had gotten copies of the exam and were holding a coaching session. A guy he knew who was Hispanic heard about it and attended. The black guys saw him and threw him out of the session. He reported them and the whole exam was thrown out. The LA Times, of course got the story wrong in their usual way and I don’t know if the black firefighter group was ever exposed for having the exam ahead of time.

    He works for the state and has for 15 years,

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  19. I am now retired from a major urban police department. We were sued and entered consent decree with Justice Department over disparate impact on hiring & promotion. Original promotion process: written exam based on 8 textbooks (purchased at employee’s expense), statutes, etc = 85%, seniority = 15%. This was changed (after consent decree) to included a psychological portion which counted 25%, written 60%, seniority 15%. Psychological test was standard U of Chicago profile instrument, but for some minorities, any profile was acceptable, females 50% profiles acceptable, Hispanics 75% acceptable, etc. So depending on your ethnic group, you received 25 points, if you were a white male, you received 5 points maximum. We only learned this after a lawsuit which department lost. Since this failed, the process was re-written again, written test = 35%, seniority 15%, oral assessment center 50%, with oral assessors being selected by a black labor relations firm. Many assessors were fast food restaurant managers and very few were law enforcement professionals. More lawsuits, with process getting massaged for every examination, and lawsuits by every ethnic group on every exam. In the end, the municipality decided to just promote out of order, jumping some genders and ethnic groups to get to others on the list, with the result that sometimes, candidates who scored in the 90th percentile, were not promoted, while those who scored at the 50th percentile, were. There were also attempts at residency requirements, since the actual municipal population was not ethnically diverse, but there were difficulties finding applicants who could pass a background test. I think variations of this will be present in many major urban areas, but just not very well publicized.

    JCC (469de6)

  20. This blog entry coincides with my coming across an online article about a day or so ago that listed the US cities where tourists should avoid traveling to. One of them was New Haven, Connecticut, home of famous, prestigious Yale University. I did a doubletake and went “huh?!”

    Connecticut is one of the bluest of the blue states of America, and although the demographics of New Haven did surprise me (ie, I tend to have an outsider’s impression of it as being very bucolic and suburban, with a population to match), I’d say that may be a bit less relevant in understanding the dysfunction of a community than the fact we’re dealing with a blue-blue, true-blue, mindlessly blue section of America.

    businessinsider.com, June 2013: Connecticut cities Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford are all among the 25 most dangerous cities in America, according to our analysis of violent crime per capita. What’s wrong with Connecticut?

    First of all, the state faces a growing gang problem. Gangs are no longer a problem associated with big cities alone. Since the 1990s, their prevalence has been growing in smaller cities and suburban areas. FBI data shows that since 2009, gang membership increased most significantly in the Northeast and Southeast regions of the country.

    Bridgeport is especially dangerous. The state’s most populous city had 15 murders per 100,000 people in 2012 after a rash of gun violence. Residents interviewed by the Connecticut Post admitted that “something has to be done” about gangs in the city. At least 15 sets of gangs operate in Bridgeport, according to the newspaper.

    It’s not clear why gangs thrive in Connecticut, but research has shown crime is more prevalent in areas with high income gaps. And Connecticut has the starkest contrast between the rich and the poor, according to Census data analyzed by Bloomberg.

    ^ So what’s wrong with Connecticut? How about it not being so much a matter of income gaps as much a matter of it being as politically, ideologically foolish as, among other examples, Detroit, Michigan. BTW, I’m sure Obama’s open-door policy, where the borders are now more porous than ever before, should help alleviate issues like a US state’s problems with gangs.

    Lucky us, lucky America.

    Mark (4bad5a)

  21. Greetings:

    Long March through the Institutions, anyone ???

    Growing up in the Bronx of the ’50s and ’60s, I always did pretty well with “standardized” tests. In my Catholic high school, we took the Iowa Test of Educational Development every year, the PSAT sophomore year, the SATs in junior and if needed senior years. I also took the management version of the GRE for graduate school, the Army’s battery of tests, and a bunch of civil service exams for the City and State of New York and the Federal government’s Professional and Administrative Careers Examination (PACE).

    Back in the ’80s, I spent a handful of years in the Fed’s golden handcuffs and as I was reaching my exasperation point the attack on the PACE test was beginning. The immediate result was that the test was suspended and that resulted in an inability to hire college graduate level talent. While the PACE war was being somewhat fought, adjudicated, negotiated, or surrendered, things became a bit grim. Say what you may about the PACE test, if someone scored in the 90s, they knew stuff and how to use it examination-wise. Not a bad thing in a new hire.

    I slipped my golden handcuffs shortly thereafter and lost track of the issue before it was resolved or whatever the apropos word is. But in these days of Lois Lerner, et al., I can’t help but think that the PACE test’s demise was just another sub rosa part of the Long March.

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  22. We need more firefighters who are stupid, weak and have a sense of entitlement. Oh yeah, impossible to fire, but required to be promoted.

    Smarty (0289a9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0850 secs.