Chicago to hire 111 Black Firefighters

[Telemachus Rex]

The goal of affirmative action, apparently, is to be racist in a good way, and to gloss over the possibility that this may serve to extend the underlying problem further into the future.

The motto might as well be "Affirmative Action: Racism done right!"

The better way to handle it is legislative initiatives that correct problems before the fact, not after the fact, combined with lawsuits in which acts of actual invidious discrimination is proven to have played a role (not merely the existence of a "disparate impact" on a minority or female population). Many people disagree with that, but they are wrong.

 

[S.A.M.]

We are individuals and should be treated as such.

Then lets see it

Separate, Unequal, and Ignored
Racial segregation remains Chicago's most fundamental problem. Why isn't it an issue in the mayor's race?

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicag...pulation-census-community/Content?oid=3221712

The goal of affirmative action, apparently, is to be racist in a good way, and to gloss over the possibility that this may serve to extend the underlying problem further into the future.

The motto might as well be "Affirmative Action: Racism done right!"

The better way to handle it is legislative initiatives that correct problems before the fact, not after the fact, combined with lawsuits in which acts of actual invidious discrimination is proven to have played a role (not merely the existence of a "disparate impact" on a minority or female population). Many people disagree with that, but they are wrong.

I don't see it as an either or situation. Legislative suits are fine, but blacks can't wait forever for whites to recover from racism - the caste system for example went on for thousands of years and its only affirmative action that has finally made the difference.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of things that can be done, both as a personal responsibility and as a civic duty to ensure that racism becomes untenable enough that blacks do not need to depend on affirmative action simply to participate in the society they live in. Especially since such induction still leaves them at the mercy of racists

Chicago 1988:

Last year residents of Cicero, a Chicago-area community notorious for its racism, called the police to report that a black man was impersonating a police officer, wearing a police uniform and driving a squad car. That was patrolman Wesley Scott, the town's first and only black policeman. Almost ! daily, he endures racial insults and humiliation, not only from the people he has sworn to protect but also from some of his fellow officers upon whom his life may depend.

Four miles away in Melrose Park, a working-class suburb of modest but tidy homes, live Donald and Stephanie Sled. This summer they packed up their few belongings and moved out of Chicago's westside ghetto, delighted to have found an affordable apartment in Melrose Park. In their excitement to escape the squalor and fear of the ghetto, the Sleds gave little thought to what it might mean to be the first black family in their neighborhood. "This was like heaven," recalls Donald, a 44-year-old handyman who sometimes stutters when excited. "It was so quiet and peaceful." But the Sleds have found anything but peace in Melrose Park. Instead, their new home has been under siege. Vandals have taunted them with racial slurs. They have shattered their windows, punctured their tires, torched their car and driven a blazing cross into their lawn.

The Scotts and Sleds are stark reminders that despite the enormous civil rights gains of the past three decades, even the rawest forms of racism persist. Reports to the Community Relations Service of the Justice Department indicate that racial incidents nationwide increased by 55% from 1986 to 1987, and more than 400% since 1980. In the first six months of 1988, racial incidents against blacks were recorded in at least 20 states, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. There were 4,500 housing-discrimination complaints last year in the U.S., up from 3,000 in 1980. Racism is most likely to erupt when white homeowners feel threatened. Neighborhood segregation in northern cities is the most stubborn remnant of racial division in America. Often the bias is subtle. But on the front line are families such as the Sleds and the Scotts, whose experiences are shard-sharp examples of how overt and brutal racism in the U.S. can still be.

In March 1987, two days after Wesley Scott graduated from the police academy and joined the force in suburban Cicero, he discovered a photo of the Ku Klux Klan pasted to his locker. "Who's going to kill Wesley?" one of the robed Klansmen in the picture asked. Another replied, "I'm going to kill Wesley." Across the bottom was written "The Ku Klux Klan is going to kill you." Recalls Scott: "A few of the guys were shaking their heads, but a lot of the guys were laughing." Scott did not report the incident to his superiors, one of whom was among those laughing. Stephen Zalas, deputy superintendent of the Cicero police, said he was unaware of the incident. "Rookies do put up with some harassment," he said. "Some of it might be in bad taste."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,968701,00.html#ixzz1VRzl25Ud

Chicago 2008:

A delegation of Chicago activists are in Geneva, Switzerland to demand that the
U.N. consider human rights violations in Chicago in light of Mayor Daley’s bid for the 2016 Olympics.

The Chicago activists are part of a broader delegation demanding accountability from the United States at a hearing of the United Nations Committee overseeing state parties’ compliance with the International Convention to Eliminate all forms of Racial Discrimination. The U.S. delegation of over 100 activists is led by the United States Human Rights Network.

Here’s an update from the Chicago delegation’s latest dispatch:

Human rights attorney Standish E. Willis of the National Conference of Black Lawyers/ Black People Against Police Torture and Jewish Council on Urban Affairs representatives, Brian Gladstein and Nancy Bothne have presented an extensive record of racially motivated human rights violations in Chicago.

“Hear the screams of those who suffered at the hands of Jon Burge”, testified attorney Standish E. Willis. Willis provided testimony about the police abuse of African American men in Chicago, who continue to suffer the effects of torture perpetrated by police officers led by former Police Commander Jon Burge. Willis asked the Committee to recommend that reparations be provided those victims, and that US action be taken to end the impunity from prosecution enjoyed by Burge and others.

“Often community leaders throughout Chicago don’t feel that their voices are heard by our local government. This is well documented in our Report Card for Chicago 2006. This is why we are here. To represent those that are being victimized by our government’s discriminatory policies and practices,” said Brian Gladstein from the Jewish Council on Urban Affairs.

“The city of Chicago wants to host an international Olympics but has yet to learn the international language of human rights” added Nancy Bothne, human rights consultant. “Consider the impact on low income people of color who have no housing options. Over 19,000 public housing units have been demolished and fewer than 2,000 have been built to replace them. Communities are decimated and families destroyed.”

The Chicago shadow report, part of the official record submitted to the Committee, documents that people of color in Chicago are disproportionately poor and disproportionally affected by a system that perpetuates historical patterns of discrimination in housing, education, economic deprivation, and police abuse. The cost of political corruption is a denial of human rights to those in need.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2008/02/activists_go_to_un_to_discuss.html

Chicago 2028?

 

[Tiassa]

A different angle ....

Sure, we've (meaning you and I) discussed affirmative action before. So what? You stated your opinion. I stated mine. No one was convinced and we went about our day.

Now this topic is once again in the news so I brought it up again. Perhaps this time the discussion will be more productive.

Well, just for instance, have you abandoned your Ricci inquiry, or did I miss your answer about how the Chicago outcome is supposed to jibe with the Ricci decision?

Because, just for example, in the context of Quadraphonics' complaint that you don't acknowledge past discussions, I would think that, given the amount we discussed the case and decision, you would at least remember that it wasn't intended to set any precedent.

"Furthermore, how does this jibe with the Ricci decision by the Supreme Court? In that case, the city of New Haven decided to not use the test results due to minority candidates doing poorly. They were subsequently sued by the candidates who did perform well on the exam and would have been promoted had they not been thrown out.

The Supreme Court sided with the passed over applicants which would seem to suggest that throwing out test results based upon the racial makeup of the top performers is not allowed under US law. Yet in this case the city of Chicago was sued (and lost!) for not doing what the New Haven Civil Service Board was sued for doing."​

Did you forget? Were you not paying attention? Was your topic post deliberately intended to misrepresent the Ricci decision like that? What happened?

And in this sense, yes, I find myself agreeing with our neighbor that your failure to acknowledge prior discussions of related subjects is problematic. In your topic post, you asked a question—"... how does this jibe with the Ricci decision by the Supreme Court?"—that doesn't really apply; its factual foundation, the implication that the Ricci decision was some sort of precedent, is untrue.

How were you not aware that Ricci was an unusual decision bucking forty years of case law without setting any precedent or striking any part of the CRA?

Or maybe my memory is wrong. In all your reading on Ricci at the time, and in all our discussions, perhaps you never encountered the proposition that Ricci set no precedent. To me, that would be unusual; the fact of the decision itself along with the idea that it was not supposed to change a damn thing about the over four decades of case law it deviated from is one of the things that makes the decision stand out.

But you asked a question that really isn't applicable—"... how does this jibe with the Ricci decision by the Supreme Court?" That sticks out, I suppose, in light of Quadraphonics' note.

If you had acknowledged in formulating your question previous discussions on the subject, perhaps you would not have asked the question at all, but, rather, found something relevant or, at least, applicable.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Well, just for instance, have you abandoned your Ricci inquiry, or did I miss your answer about how the Chicago outcome is supposed to jibe with the Ricci decision?

My answer? That was the question.

Because, just for example, in the context of Quadraphonics' complaint that you don't acknowledge past discussions, I would think that, given the amount we discussed the case and decision, you would at least remember that it wasn't intended to set any precedent.

Did you forget? Were you not paying attention? Was your topic post deliberately intended to misrepresent the Ricci decision like that? What happened?

No, I don't remember that. Justice Sotomayer, for instance, didn't feel that way:
Supreme Court's Ricci Ruling Set Up New Precedent, Sotomayor Argues

"The Supreme Court, in looking and review that case, applied a new standard," Sotomayor said. "In fact, it announced that it was applying a standard from a different area of law and explaining to employers and the courts below how to look at this question in the future."​

And here's another article discussing the precedent set by Ricci:
In Ricci, A Flawed Supreme Court Decision

Other than you, I find no source stating that Ricci was not intended to set any precedent.

Or maybe my memory is wrong. In all your reading on Ricci at the time, and in all our discussions, perhaps you never encountered the proposition that Ricci set no precedent. To me, that would be unusual; the fact of the decision itself along with the idea that it was not supposed to change a damn thing about the over four decades of case law it deviated from is one of the things that makes the decision stand out.

I don't know whether or not you made such a claim in the past, but if you did I blew it off as so much rhetoric. Other than the Bush/Gore decision, I've never heard of a Supreme Court case meant to be applied in only one situation and then ignored.

 

[Tiassa]

So what was that precedent?

Other than you, I find no source stating that Ricci was not intended to set any precedent.

Perhaps you could tell me what precedent it sets.

I can't tell from either of your sources what that precedent is.

There is, of course, a reason for this: there is no precedent. Identify in either article you provided exactly what precedent the author is claiming the Court set.

I don't know whether or not you made such a claim in the past, but if you did I blew it off as so much rhetoric. Other than the Bush/Gore decision, I've never heard of a Supreme Court case meant to be applied in only one situation and then ignored.

Well, I was making a point to someone else.

The NHCSB followed the guidelines laid out in the CRA and forty-plus years of case law.

It is unclear what, aside from a simple, "We choose not to believe anything you say," attitude on the part of the majority, what the decision is based on. Even one of the articles you pointed me to says that: "Justice Kennedy's opinion fails to give sufficient weight to a legitimate effort by the New Haven Civil Service Board to avoid a lawsuit for race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act" (Carolan).

That is the whole of the precedent. So how can anything jibe with the Ricci decision? You ask how does it jibe with the Ricci decision, and I ask how it's supposed to.

I have a feeling you won't be able to tell me. Largely, that's because nobody can.

So tell us, sir, what precedent did the Ricci ruling set as relates to the Civil Rights Act, the forty-some years of case law, and the proposition of racism in employment?

The "precedent" Sotomayor describes, after all, isn't really that kind of precedent. What she is criticizing is the behavior of the majority, which threw out the relevant case law, ignored the standing law, and wrote its decision. Had the case set any legal precedent, it would have affected something other than the city of New Haven.

But it doesn't.

I would also note that the word "precedent" does not occur in Carolan's article.

Even searching right now, as I write this, I cannot find anything that tells me what legal precedent Ricci set.

"The Court's order and opinion, I anticipate, will not have staying power."

—Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg​

____________________

Notes:

Carolan, Bruce. "In Ricci, a Flawed Supreme Court Decision". Forbes. June 30, 2009. Frobes.com. August 18, 2011. http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/30/ri...ntributors-connecticut-firefighters-race.html

 

[w1z4rd]

I live in a country where this type of state sanctioned racism is common. We call it Affirmative Action and Black economic empowerment. The biggest proponents of these policies are the Black Management Forum and the Black Business Forum (imagine how racist whites would be called if we called a management forum in South Africa the Whites Management Forum). Anyways, so even though we have laws that integrate racism into our society and even though white people are basically at the bottom of the hiring ladder we still continue.

It leads to some amazing antics, like us getting told that Rugby is too white, and we have to get rid of the best players of that sport cause theyre white so that we have the most politically correct team to compete instead of the best team.

I understand this is to address the economic equality created by the past, but you would think after almost 20 years... if you havent worked out your stuff after pillaging the public coffers for that long... ure never ganna get it.

Some black people in South Africa find AA and BEE insulting. It implies theyre too stupid to get the job on merit.

 

[quadraphonics]

Sure, we've (meaning you and I) discussed affirmative action before. So what? You stated your opinion. I stated mine. No one was convinced and we went about our day.

Now this topic is once again in the news so I brought it up again. Perhaps this time the discussion will be more productive.

There's no way it can get more productive if you refuse to aknowledge all of the work that's already gone in. That doesn't mean that you have to agree with what others have argued previously. It does mean that you can't speak from a position of obliviousness to such.

Racism without discrimination is nothing but a thought crime.

Fair enough - but what about discrimination without racism?

There are other reasons to discriminate based on race, than the belief that one or another race is inherently better or worse. As we've discussed at length, previously.

It is the discrimination that is bad, not the racism.

Are you asserting that discrimination is the only avenue through which racism can cause any negative outcomes?

Even if you are (and it were true), consider this: the thing about being racist, is that you will inevitably find ways to discriminate. They can be very subtle - such that you may not even have to admit to yourself what you are really doing. You may even be able to set up perverse situations where you can claim to be opposing any and all racial discrimination, but in the process working directly to advance racial inequality and the privilege of your own race (which is a form of "discrimination," no?).

Please provide some openly racist quotes.

You're doing that adequately already, as I said.

A general discussion of a cultural phenomenon among a certain group is not racist.

It is if that certain group is a race, and you are speaking in terms of attributing inherent qualities to that race, as you were.

And, again - the supposed foundation of your principled opposition to racial discrimination, was that it violates individual autonomy. Yet you turn around and speak in openly stereotypical terms - Asians are like this, etc. If discrimination is bad because it violates individual agency, then stereotyping is too, by the exact same reasoning.

If said demographic had a unique subculture (like the Amish, for instance) it would probably be reasonable to have people on the job who understood that culture. I would imagine that a test could be given that would test one's knowledge of the culture or subculture in question, thus avoiding an openly racist hiring policy.

So, you build a test with a proxy for race - that gets you nowhere worth going. It's just a cheap pretense to avoid admitting what you're doing, that won't fool anyone.

And in the first place, you assume that "knowledge of the subculture" is all there is to the qualification to work with it. That's silly, and overlooks the obvious: membership in the subculture may be crucial to effectively working with it, irrespective of "knowledge." We aren't talking about writing sociology studies here, but actual direct social work.

However, I will admit that that might be a rare situation in which race could actually be a legitimate consideration. Even then, we're really talking more about knowledge and familiarity with a particular subculture than race. Some black kid from the suburbs would probably be just as clueless when it comes to dealing with people from the inner city as a white kid from the suburbs.

But that doesn't mean the black kid wouldn't be inherently more effective at working with black inner-city kids, despite his absence of superior knowledge, simply by virtue of his race. In dealing with subcultures that are themselves racist or racially segregated, this stuff can go directly to effectiveness at the job.

Off the top of my head, by designing the test such that it tests knowledge and skills one will actually need on the job.

But most jobs - and pretty much every job worth working hard to get - cannot really be assessed through standardized testing of "knowledge." You may have noticed that standardized testing plays very little role in hiring, and most people never take another standardized test after the SAT. Most jobs are not simply matters of raw "knowledge," but require all manner of less readily quantifiable skills - time-management, dealing with people, creativity, etc. Jobs that are simply matters of accumulating and regurgitating "knowledge" can be done by computers.

So this whole idea that we're going to create a post-racial America by handling everything with standardized tests is pretty loopy. It's an interesting consideration if we're talking about primary and secondary education, or a few very specific jobs, but basically an irrelevancy to the larger question.

By being sure that everyone has access to the same study materials.

That should be "equal access to the same study materials," in light of the issues we've previously discussed along these lines.

By assessing the predictive power of the test and fine tuning it over time to better separate the high performers from the low ones.

Again, this assumes that the relevant job performance can be saliently predicted via some standardized test. That is simply not true, for the voerwhelming majority of jobs. Unless, of course, the "test" is "we hire you and see how you actually do." But that's not a standardized test, and there is no systematic way to expunge racist considerations from the subjective scoring implied there.

Race should not be a factor in admissions at all.

I can agree with that statement as written, but would draw a markedly different inference: for race to not be a factor in admissions, it requires more than color-blindness on the part of the admissions committee. It also requires race to cease to be a factor in academic preparedness in the first place - for actual racial equality to already exist.

Otherwise, color-blindness on the parts of admissions committees doesn't result in race "not being a factor in admissions at all." Instead, the admissions process simply ends up entrenching the racial factors expressed in the applicant pool. Hence, affirmative action.

And since racial equality does not yet exist, the insistence that admissions committees be totally color-blind is not at all an insistence that race not be a factor in admissions. It is the opposite: a demand that admissions work to entrench and perpetuate racial inequality.

All we want is to be given a shot at equal opportunity,

No, they don't. They most certainly do not want to be given the same set of opportunities that, say, black people are generally afforded. What they want, is the freedom to leverage their lifetimes of privileged opportunities to further their own advancement, without being hindered by considering those who suffered under drastically lesser opportunities.

You'll notice that they aren't interested in advancing equal opportunity in any instance other than the specific one where it might hold them back. They aren't out there demanding better primary schools for inner-city black kids, or doing anything to address the various massive, systemic inequalities in opportunity that don't harm them directly.

I believe in equal opportunity.

So you'd support, for example, the forced redistribution of all funds dedicated to education (whether public or private) to equalize the total per-pupil funding provided to every, say, primary school in the country, then? Because otherwise, you have an entire system of unequal opportunity, maintained exactly as such. If you believe in equal opportunity, then you can't support allowing people to systematically manufacture opportunities for their own. It all has to be done equally.

Or do you only believe in equal opportunity to the extent that race should be "ignored" in college admissions?

What do you actually favor doing, to meaningfully equalize the opportunities available to individuals in our society? Race-blind college admissions? Anything else?

We are not interchangeable automatons to be manipulated by bean counters who allocate benefits based upon random physical characteristics such as skin color, ancestry, or religion.

So you favor breaking down the various systems of white privilege that allocate benefits and opportunities based upon race, then? Great.

Or is that stuff okay with you, since it isn't administered explicitly by "bean counters?"