Comments on: Ricci v. DeStefano

By: Adam Zimmerman

Adam Zimmerman — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:43:15 +0000

Mariner and Edie: thank you for your comments, we appreciate you taking the time to let us know your thoughts. We agree that there is no place in our society for any kind of discrimination and that increasing opportunities for women and minorities must only be done on the merits and in accordance with anti-discrimination law; we expound further upon that view in more detail in our position paper on affirmative action. In fact, it is precisely because we oppose discrimination that we signed an amicus brief in favor of New Haven’s position in the Ricci case. Based on the test results, as well as their understanding of statutory law and court precedent, New Haven officials believed that the examination had a disparate impact on the minority firefighters who took the test. The decision to throw out the exam results was not to discriminate against Frank Ricci or any of the other applicants who passed, but rather to ensure that every New Haven firefighter was granted the same opportunity to qualify for promotional opportunities. In addition to the case facts at hand, we signed onto the brief to support the important concept of employers being able to take voluntary steps to reduce discrimination against their own employees. The position we took in this case was affirmed initially by the federal district court, then by the second circuit panel – and four of the nine Supreme Court justices wound up agreeing as well. AAUW looks forward to the day when men and women of all backgrounds are given a fair shake on an equal playing field, and we will continue working toward that end.

By: Tyler

Tyler — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:42:51 +0000

There’s a long history in this country of tests being used as a way to keep minorities out – for example, elaborate “literacy” tests designed to keep black people from voting in the South. There are also issues with tests written only by white people. I can recall taking an intelligence test in which one question dealt with putting in order a sequence of steps of how a sailboat would move. Obviously kids from a white, wealthy country club family will have had more opportunity to see a sailboat than kids from a poor, urban minority family. So starting from the assumption that ‘there’s no problem with the test’ is a big assumption when, historically, there have been a lot of problems with tests. Mostly what tests tell you is who is a good at taking tests, not who is good at an actual job. This is why the whole question of tests as a way of determining promotion continues to be litigated.

By: Mariner

Mariner — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:24:33 +0000

I totally agree. Reverse discrimination is as wrong as it’s counterpart. The people of New Haven deserve the most qualified people regardless of race. I can’t believe that AAUW would promote and support discrimination.

By: edie

edie — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:03:12 +0000

This post makes no sense nor does Justice Ginsburg’s dissent. What does any prior discrimination (never mind that none was shown to have existed in New Haven’s fire department) have to do with whether these tests were job-related. Let’s assume the tests were fairly related to the job – what are we saying – that unqualified people should be elevated to command positions because blacks suffered discrimination long ago? That just sounds wacky – just because blacks didn’t qualify and meet legitimate criteria doesn’t mean the criteria are discriminatory, no more than Justice Ginsburg’s law clerk hiring criteria are “discriminatory” because all the law clerks she has deemed to meet that criteria happen to be white.