Chicago Belatedly Begins to Address the Horrific Effects of Segregated Standards/Race-Gender-Based Preferences

Chicago's Mikva Commission

Last Summer (August 18th, 2014) the Chicago Tribune’s Editors published an editorial calling for a return to merit based hiring for firefighters in that city. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-chicago-fire-test-discrimination-edit-20140818-story.html)

“Ten years ago this summer, Chicago debated preferential treatment for some firefighters. In the wake of a killer fire at an office building owned by Cook County, a commission headed by former federal Appellate Judge Abner Mikva not only criticized several Chicago Fire Department commanders, but implicitly questioned how they got their jobs. Mikva's panel essentially said the department had ill-prepared leaders battling a blaze in which six people needlessly died. Commission member and retired Judge Sheila Murphy said several of the fire officials "did not know what they were doing."

“This was treacherous ground, as members of the so-called Mikva Commission knew when they called for promotions based on competitive exams and merit. We wrote at the time that acrimony over preferences — be they driven by raw patronage, ethnic politics, City Hall clout or affirmative action — is frequently evident in this sharp-elbowed city, although not often calmly discussed.”

That editorial ended with this reasonable call, “Any of us, trapped in a smoke-choked stairwell, would have three questions on our minds: Is the person who's assigned to save my life the BEST firefighter the city of Chicago COULD hire? Is his or her boss the best-qualified commander? And can I trust that neither one will let me die?”

Nor is this an isolated incident, Philadelphia is STILL investigating the December 9th, 2014 fatal fire that killed firefighter Joyce Craig, the first female firefighter to die in a fire in that city.

Some have called that fire a “perfect storm of errors.” In that blaze, firefighter Craig was paired with an inexperienced young firefighter who’d reportedly struggled through the Fire Academy. That woman, sources said, is related to a highly placed member of Mayor Nutter's administration.

That firefighter, who has not been named because she hasn't been charged with any infractions, was immediately transferred to fire headquarters after Craig's death, according to reports

These aren’t isolated incidents, they are trends. Trends that result when well-intentioned people embrace the notion that basic cognitive and physical standards amount to mere “barriers to diversity.”

Proof That U.S. Law DOES NOT Codify Disparate Impact

Title VII of the Equal Opportunity Employment Code reads:

"...it shall NOT be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority or merit system, or a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production or to employees who work in different locations, provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin...”

That paragraph makes clear that an employer CAN legally apply different standards (different compensation, terms, conditions, privileges of employment etc. UNLESS they can be proven to the result of a deliberate intention to discriminate against any given group.

That makes clear that the burden of proof is on the person alleging discrimination and disparate impact (disproportionate results) do not, in and of themselves prove any kind of DELIBERATE, or intentional discrimination.

More importantly, that law goes on to state, “...nor shall it be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”

That paragraph makes clear that it is NOT unlawful for an employer “to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results IS NOT DESIGNED, INTENDED or USED to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”

That also makes clear that the burden of proof is on the party alleging discrimination AND that disparate impact is, in and of itself, NOT proof of intentional or deliberate discrimination.

NONE of that implies, as some claim, that a “refusal to implement tests in which whites scored higher than minorities...was following law that were established by civil rights act.”

.
So, contrary to what many EEO and “Diversity specialists” claim, there is NO existing law states that "tests in which ANY ethnic/racial group (ie. whites) outscores another (ie. blacks) should be invalidated."

That would clearly violate the most basic principle of this government, equality before the law, so that claim (that tests that render disparate outcomes must be invalidated) is without any merit.