An Unlikely Source Triggers More Angst Over America’s Race Debate

Tal Fortgang

About a week ago, a white kid from Westchester (Tal Fortgang), made national news with a piece he penned in the Princeton Tory titled, “Checking My Privilege: Character as the Basis of Privilege.” (http://theprincetontory.com/main/checking-my-privilege-character-as-the-basis-of-privilege/)

He’s been lauded by some, had his essay republished in Time Magazine (http://time.com/85933/why-ill-never-apologize-for-my-white-male-privilege/) and vilified by others (http://m.thenation.com/blog/179675-no-one-cares-if-you-never-apologize-your-white-male-privilege), mainly the purveyors of the modern-day segregation of race/gender preferences.

So, THIS is what the pro-segregated standards advocates have retreated to, that "majority" males (since all existing societies are considered "patriarchal"), ethnic Chinese males in China, black males in Jamaica, ethnic Japanese males in Japan and white males in the USA derive some nebulous and ill-defined "privilege" from that majority position.

That's utter nonsense everywhere, but in the U.S. part of that "white male privilege" has been a half century of segregated standards on virtually ALL standardized exams, racial preferences that favor virtually EVERY other group over themselves AND being lectured by the truly privileged - both the recipients of those segregated standards and other assorted privileges, along with the political class," most of whom have never EARNED those positions, but merely won a variety of "popularity contests."

It’d be different IF the segregated standards of “Affirmative Action” (USA)/Positive Discrimination (UK) (depending upon how you prefer to euphemize such segregation) had existed only a decade...or maybe two, BUT five?!

Come on!

We've had a full half a century of segregated standards that are rooted NOT so much in the belief of white (and Asian) supremacy, but more aptly “black incompetence.” Today’s race-based preferences stem from the presumption that blacks (even well-off blacks from well-to-do families) cannot compete with whites and Asians, no matter what!

Regardless of how loudly SOME of its advocates howl, THAT is precisely the presumption that this modern day segregation is based on, just as surely as the pro-abortion-on-demand movement is rooted in the conviction that the poor (and ethnic minorities) will much more readily avail themselves of that  procedure than others...AND they DO! Blacks (appx. 12%) of the population account for over 35% of the abortions in America nationwide, a disparity that takes some doing. For the record, while I vehemently oppose race/gender preferences, I strongly support abortion-on-demand, at least through the 20^th week of pregnancy.

An example of how pervasive this anti-white male bias is can be seen in a recent and ongoing debate about the state of major league baseball (MLB) in America today. As many Latin and Asian players have flooded MLB, the number of black professional baseball players in MLB has sharply decreased, as has, interestingly enough, the number of white players, BUT the ONLY question being asked is, “Why are there so few American black players in MLB?”

Seriously?!

Now, I’m not a great sports aficionado. I've never had any season ticket packages for any professional sports franchise, nor even any pay-per-view sports package on cable, BUT, I follow the culture and I have never heard ANY arguments that blacks are somehow presumed better athletes than any other ethnic group and can only assume that the ONLY people who’d even make such an argument would be the SAME type of people prone to make arguments about blacks being innately less proficient cognitively. Since I won’t take such arguments seriously, I can ONLY chalk up this singular concern over the plight of blacks in MLB as indicative of the pervasive cult of anti-white bias and dark-skin privilege.

What else could it be?

ONLY in the "bizarro world" of the pro-racial preferences advocates the "privileged" are "the under-privileged." ONLY in that world is segregation (segregated standards) “fighting for racial equality.” Brainless, emotionally charged movements like those supporting segregation in the name of “equal opportunity” tend to be shameless as well.

Does The “Race Debate” Need to be “Rescued”?

In a recent New York Times article by Charles Blow (“Let’s Rescue the Race Debate”: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/opinion/20blow.html - pictured above) he charges, in effect, that whites who oppose race-based preferences and arbitrary and questionable challenges to long-existing, and verifiably necessary standards are motivated by anti-black bigotry.

There are a number of major flaws to Mr. Blow’s viewpoint.

First, the article by Charles Blow is predicated upon the highly questionable validity of a test (the IAT) that its own creators can’t even agree upon. (SEE: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/science/18tier.html?_r=1)

Second, his defense of “rescuing the race debate” (reinvigorating the black grievance viewpoint) is predicated on both that questionable test and two very flawed arguments; The first is, “...my question is the same one used by the right to defend the Tea Party against claims of racism: Where’s the proof? There’s a mound of scientific evidence a mile high that documents the broad, systematic and structural discrimination against minorities. Where’s the comparable mound of documentation for discrimination against whites? There isn’t one.”

Really?!

Fact is the ONLY form of government-sanctioned racial discrimination to exist in this country over the last half century has been the various affirmative action program’s that have granted preferences (discrimination) and set-asides based on race.

Beyond that, the current assault on standardized tests, despite the mountain of unquestionable scientific evidence AGINST the claims of “test bias”, based on the legally dubious criteria called “disparate impact” is based on blanket racial bigotry, by the proponents of disparate impact who are seeking to eviscerate useful, even necessary standards.

The second flawed charge is, “In fact, some on the right seem to be doing with the race issue what they’ve done with the climate-change issue: denying the basic facts and muddying the waters around them until no one can see clearly enough to have an honest discussion or develop thoughtful solutions.”

This is a very poorly framed argument, especially in light of what’s gone on within the global warming, or more aptly, the “anthropomorphic global warming” (AGW) debate.

Today, a growing majority of scientists disagree with the idea of AGW. Even Dr. Reid Bryson (the father of Climatology) refutes the view that man has caused or even exacerbated global warming over the last century. So it’s NOT “the Right-wing”, a charge that makes Mr. Blow’s ideological biases all to clear, but the vast majority of scientists who’ve challenged the idea of AGW.

Moreover, the evidence in the skeptics favor has increased, while the evidence in favor of AGW has waned, especially in light of the info dump at the CRU at East Anglia University, that showed how much of the research bolstering the “Al Gore view on AGW” was bogus, even retrofitted to pre-conceived outcomes.

In that regard, the AGW debate IS similar to the race debate that Mr. Blow looks at, in that in both instances, the purveyors of “man is bad” (in the AGW debate) and “whites are bad” (in the race debate) predicate their arguments on flawed data, questionable and highly subjective tests and then smear those who question that flawed data as “Right-wingers”, “Deniers” and “Skeptics”, when, in fact, it is they who are actually denying the actual verifiable evidence all around them.

Beyond all that, Charles Blow’s entire argument would, ironically enough, seem to boil down to an endorsement of the objective and identity-blind standardized exams like the SAT, the various professional licensing exams and the kinds of exams used in the Civil Service Merit System, as a way around the largely subjective interview process. At least those criteria would eliminate much of the unconscious, subjective biases that most concern Mr. Blow.

Moreover, what Charles Blow conveniently overlooks is how the parameters of “the race debate” have changed.

Where is “the race debate” today?

Lacking any verifiable charges of overt racial discrimination against blacks, “the race debate” has taken to challenging long-established and existing standards that certain ethnic groups tend to be less competitive on.

The “New Haven 20” weren’t Tea Party members claiming “anti-white discrimination,” they were a multi-ethnic group of New Haven, Connecticut firefighters who’d passed a Lieutenant’s exam and were denied promotion because “not enough blacks scored high enough to be promoted”.

The New Haven test was engineered by an outside consultancy that specializes in testing procedures, at great expense to that city and nothing on the exam itself was challenged as being in any way “biased”.

In New York City, another major front on the current “race debate”, the situation is even clearer. Black firefighters have claimed discrimination on the FDNY’s entrance exams and a Federal judge (Nicholas Garaufis) agreed citing that the exams have the same one standard deviation “disparate impact” that the Law Boards, the MCATs, the CPA Exam and other such professional standardized exams have.

The group opposing this, Merit Matters is also a multi-racial group that merely supports higher standards for the fire service. They have yet to charge anyone with any kind of bigotry or discrimination.

All such charges have been leveled by those looking to circumvent the existing (and already very lax) entry level standards.

Ironically enough, the Vulcans (a fraternity of black firefighters) would have you believe that New York City deliberately discriminates against blacks!

But if that’s so, how is New York City’s Municipal workforce 38% black, when only 25% of its population is black?

They’d also like you to believe that the FDNY (77% white) is “the single greatest embarrassment, in terms of ‘not looking like New York City’ among New York’s Municipal agencies”.

That too, is absolutely untrue.

Even if you take only the FDNY’s uniformed firefighting workforce (leaving off the EMS and office staff) and compare only that portion of the FDNY (90% white), they are nearly double their numbers in the city’s population (46%) and admittedly “don’t look like New York City”.

Fact is, there are no less than 7 New York City agencies in which there are twice as many black employees as there are blacks in New York City’s population. Starting with the Human Resources Administration is 61% black. (2.2X their numbers in NYC's population), the Equal Employment Practices Commission is 63% black (2.3X their numbers in NYC's population), the Department of Homeless Services is 64% black (2.3X their numbers in NYC's population), the Department of Probation is 65% black (almost 2.5X their numbers in NYC's population), the Department of Corrections is 65% black (also nearly 2.5X their numbers in NYC's population), the Administration for Children's Services is 67% black (over 2.5X their numbers in NYC's population), followed by the REAL "singular embarrassment", as far as "looking like the population of New York City" goes, the Department of Juvenile Justice at 78% black (nearly 3X their numbers in NYC's population)!

The closer you look at the modern “race debate”, the more Charles Blow looks like Al Gore, a layman, claiming that a scientific debate is over (no scientific inquiry is EVER over, as they’re all open to new information), while ignoring how dramatically the parameters of the subject have changed over the last few years.

In fact, Al Gore has recently come out and retracted his support for corn-based ethanol subsidies that he’s long supported as part of his environmental agenda.

Mr. Blow seems equally out of touch with how the “race debate” which he’d “save” has changed...and yet, he seems to feel comfortable blindly adhering to the “war on standards” that the proponents of “disparate impact” are currently waging.

The “Compassionate Blame Game” – Scapegoating, Liberal Style

There’s a game that upper-crust (almost exclusively white) liberals love to play. They like this game so much because it allows them to feign compassion for the very group they’re insulting and demeaning, while at the very same time, scapegoating that group to “the goobers” (their not at all affectionate term for working class white ethnics).

This game is especially popular among far-Left liberals because it undermines individual achievement by undermining common standards for achievement. Do you think the Gores’, the Bush’s and the Kennedy’s got into those Ivy League schools based on competitive merit?

If so, think again.

At any rate, this game starts off with our upper-crust liberals decrying how blacks, on average, do significantly poorer on standardized tests, from the PSATs and SATs, to the LSATs and MCATs, to various civil service entrance exams and private sector job performance and aptitude exams, and coming to the non-empirical conclusion that “it must be that something’s wrong with these tests.”

Fact is, there are numerous other disparate impacts (that is disparate or differing passing rates) between ALL ethnic groups - white, black and Asian.

Caribbean-born blacks tend to do significantly better on such exams than American-born blacks, and the various and sundry ethnicities among whites and Asians all have differing passing rates, as well.

Of course that fact is rarely, if ever mentioned, as it would ruin the game.

You see, “disparate impact” theory isn’t used to posit either (A) that since there are disparities in passing rates across all ethnic lines, we should advance what is most aptly called “proportionalism,” where every group must be represented exactly to its percentage of that region’s population, NOR (B) that any specific questions on such exams are demonstrably biased. To date, NO standardized exam has seen ANY specific questions shown to be demonstrably biased against any ethnic or racial group or groups.

What is apparently “biased” and/or “racist” about all these standardized exams are the outcomes, or results themselves – to wit, significantly less blacks doing well than whites.

But the purpose of that charge seems more about amplifying the poor performance of a particular ethnic group, by highlighting that blacks, on average, do less well than most other ethnic groups, than in addressing any actual “bias” in such testing.

But such group comparisons are invidious, as standardized tests are designed to measure individual performance and are only useful in comparing individuals to one another.

When we look at the outcomes of such exams by group performance, the results are effectively meaningless, given the myriad variables involved.

Not only do random groupings exhibit significantly differing/disparate passing rates on such standardized exams, but the results of any given exam is merely a snapshot in time of the sampling groups involved and the numerous and changing variables among those groups.

For instance, in New York City, one of the reasons given for the FDNY being so predominantly white and male is that more college educated whites take that test, some take only the emergency service exams (police and fire) and when that group tests out against a smaller pool of black and Hispanic applicants, with decidedly fewer College educated applicants, the results are skewed in favor of the white applicant pool.

Is it “racist” that more College educated whites are currently taking that exam?

Is that changeable and changing group dynamic somehow either “racist” or “unfair”?

At some time down the road, when there are more College educated blacks taking such exams than some other groups, will that also be “biased” and “unfair,” and if so, why, or how so?

As an example of how misguided these group comparisons are, back in February of 2009, the Justice Department (DOJ) sent a letter to Virginia Beach, alerting that Municipality that the DOJ had determined that the Virginia Beach Police Department had “engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination” against black and Hispanics applicants.

How so?

Because the Virginia Beach Police Department gave a very basic math exam to ALL of its police recruits. In fact, the only evidence of the “discrimination” cited, were the results of those very basic math exams that were given to all Virginia Beach police recruits. Those test results showed a wide gap between the passing rates for white applicants and the passing rates for black and Hispanics.

Apparently, the DOJ didn’t like the results of those basic math exams, in which approximately 85 percent of white applicants passed the math test from 2002 to mid-2005, compared with 66% of Hispanics and 59 percent of blacks. Personally, I don’t like those results either. No test should have such high passing rates. A “test” with any group achieving an 85% pass rate is really not a “test,” at least not a valid one.

So, I guess the DOJ must’ve concluded that there must be something wrong with basic math. After all, it couldn’t be that the applicants for those specific exams, at that particular time and in that particular place, differed in their performance for other factors unrelated to race/ethnicity like, more college educated whites taking those exams compared to other groups.

No, the unspoken conclusion of the DOJ, based on those results, is apparently that blacks and Hispanics are not capable of competing equally with whites and Asians because they are less able or intelligent. THAT is the unspoken, wrong-headed and pernicious rationale behind “disparate impact” and “protected groups.”

In short, this “game” allows these upper-crust liberals to feign compassion for blacks while at the very same time calling them “hopelessly incompetent” and “less intelligent” than other groups. That’s why I call their game, “the compassionate blame game.”

What’s been at least a little surprising to me has been how many blacks have bought into this “disparate impact” viewpoint built upon the dictum of “presumed black incompetence” simply because it delivers a little short-term gain.

But as those commercials say, “Wait, there’s more,” and it gets even better! The upper-crust liberals know that these arguments in favor of “disparate impact” and “protected groups” are not only both damaging and unfair, but that they inculcate and solidify the corrosive view of “black incompetence” (blacks being innately unable to compete) among both whites and blacks!

At nearly every turn, the games playing upper-crust liberals blame those poor and working class whites for, in effect, doing better than black applicants on these exams.

The government isn’t really blamed for designing the tests...and they deserve no blame for that! After all, there’s nothing wrong or “biased” about any standardized exam.

“Fairness,” or “equal opportunity” is, in essence, having everyone held to the same set of standards. So long as the rim is 10’ for us all, the fact that someone else worked harder, practiced more, and/or was born with greater natural athletic ability does NOT make the competition “unfair.” Forcing the better athletes to wear weighted vests, certainly would be unfair, but those who hold to that are today, derided as “bigots” by those playing “the compassionate blame game.”

A favorite aspect of this game is when “the goobers” (working class whites) oppose racial preferences, segregated standards and other “remedies” pursued due to “disparate impact,” they’re predictably called “racists” and “redneck bigots” for daring to support “equality before the law” (which the concept of “protected groups” violates) and “equality of opportunity” (which requires a single, common standard equally applied to all).

In every sense this game is as much a win-win for the upper-crust liberal pseudo elites as it is a lose-lose for the poor and working class, both black and white. Since most of today’s upper-crust liberals are the scions of yesterday’s exploiters, that age’s slave traders and plantation owners. It must be uproariously amusing for that group to see their penance pawned off on those who actually fought America’s Civil War, built its railroads, bridges and roads and dug its mines...funny stuff, indeed.

And they do this while at the very same time crippling American blacks even further by adding to an already ubiquitous and perverse entitlement-dependency culture, by hanging yet another albatross around the neck of black-America by highlighting via championing that group’s trumpeted “inability to compete” – further binding them in dependence to a State that is almost completely controlled by these self-same upper-crust Liberals.

What a game!

The problem is that it’s not a game at all. It’s a very real, vicious and cynical manipulation of the populace via a deplorable “divide and conquer” strategy, that keeps those with the least power and control, at each others throats and equally unaware of their both being had, by their so-called “betters.”

New Haven and “Race as Handicap”

The problem with race and gender-based preferences is the "presumed incompetence" they imply.

People are individuals, and individuals are as unique as snowflakes - no two people are exactly alike or equal.

It follows, then that if you take ANY grouping of people, be it a completely random group of strangers, or a grouping based on various racial, cultural or other traits, that you'll find measurable differences across a whole range of traits.

Group differences should NOT be at all controversial, primarily because people aren't judged as "members of a group," they are judged as INDIVIDUALS....that is how standards are applied on an individual basis.

For instance, what difference does it make to a German with a low IQ that his/her group may rank among the highest in IQ as a group?

It doesn't help THAT individual out one bit.

Standardized exams and stringent standards DO NOT discriminate against any specific group....they differentiate or discriminate between those who know the tested material and those who don't.

The introduction of "disparate impact" is a sham, rooted in an antithesis against common standards....AGAINST all individuals being judged on the SAME criteria, in effect, AGAINST "equality before the law" and "equality of opportunity."

Disparate impact has fallen out of favor with the vast majority of legal scholars and rightly so, because disparate impact, or a disparity in results does NOT prove nor even indicate any deliberate discrimination.

Ironically enough, the federal Appeals Court ruling in the New Haven case pitted race against disability and Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of race trumping disability.

Frank Ricci (pictured above), one of the plaintiffs, is dyslexic. He spent a couple hundred dollars on Fire Dept study books, then another $1,000 having someone read them onto CD, so he could study more effectively.

He improvised, adapted and overcame a disability to score among the highest on that exam. Those who didn't study as effectively as Ricci, those who didn't have his will, his drive and his devotion, have only themselves to blame.

If anything, it would seem that an exam like that is far MORE challenging to the Frank Ricci's of the world than it is to any ethnic or racial group.

And contrary to many reports, many blacks DID indeed pass that exam, none happened to score in the top 15. That result does NOT imply similar results going forward.

The same thing happens in most Engineering schools across the country today. Asians, who currently represent about 5% of the population, are earning over 60% of the seats in those schools.

Is that at all "bad for America"?

Absolutely NOT....and holding back high achieving Asians to "let others in", will only assure that the skills disparity that exists now between Asians and other groups continues in perpetuity.

If people were calling for more remedial help, that'd be one thing, but calling for ethnic proportionalism serves no useful purpose and leaves those supporting that, in the position of opposing the best candidates being chosen.

There's no way to make a rational case for that.

New Haven and Disparate Impact...

The case of the “New Haven 20” will be heard by the Supreme Court this summer.

This case has been covered to death, but for good reason. At issue is the warped and dysfunctional canard called “disparate impact.”

Being unable to show where ANY standardized exam “discriminates” against ANY specific ethnic group, the pro-quota/pro-racial preference side has hidden behind an inanity called “disparate impact,” which purports that “any standard that disproportionately impacts” an ethnic group proves de facto discrimination.”

Under the standard of “disparate impact” the mentally handicapped SHOULD be given the allotted number of spots in Harvard Medical school, proportionate to their numbers in society.

The perversity of “disparate impact” is a legal fiction that has been tolerated by the courts to achieve certain goals that otherwise probably wouldn’t have been reached, but it’s come at such a high cost that today, few legal scholars still support or defend that policy.

Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom put the case in this perspective; “The case poses a familiar question: Which road will lead to the racial equality most American seek: racial quotas or color-blind, meritocratic standards?”

In a free society, based on individualism and private property rights (as America IS), there is only one possible answer – Meritocratic standards, whether the outcomes on such temporarily favor one group or another.

There is and never has been any such thing as a “discriminatory test.” Tests are designed to “discriminate”/discern between the most able the less able. So at issue, “disparate impact” proponents argue, “What real difference is there between the most able, say the top ten scorers and, say, number 16, or 17, or for that matter, number 42?

Another thorny issue in the case is whether, as the Thernstrom’s put it, “May a municipal employer disregard the results of a qualifying examination, which was carefully constructed to ensure race-neutrality, on the ground that the results of that examination yielded too many qualified applicants of one race and not enough of another?"

In answering that, the Thernstrom’s note that, "All applicants took the same test, and the result was the same for all because the test results were discarded and nobody was promoted," she argued. But change the race of the plaintiffs from white (plus one Hispanic) to black, and the obtuseness of her reasoning is apparent. If a disproportionately large numbers of blacks would have been promoted and the examination results were tossed out for that reason, it would have been an open-and-shut case of blatant racial discrimination.”

TWO of the best articles on this issue: http://adversity.net/newhavenfd/default.htm

AND

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124035774411441127.html#

It Isn’t the Merit System That’s “Racist”

Renewed Attacks on the Civil Service Merit System

Without question, standardized tests DO indeed “discriminate,” at least in the truest, or strictest sense of that word. In fact, that’s what they’re designed to do – they “discriminate” against those who are less self-motivated, less prepared and less skilled.

The view that higher standards are arbitrarily better standards is rooted in the view that such standards tend to “weed out” LESSER QUALIFIED applicants, NOT merely UNQUALIFIED ones, and that seems so obvious, as to be self-evident.

It should stand to reason that any employer has a right to the best qualified workforce for its dollar, for that is delivering the consumer the best value for his/her dollar. The pernicious question that some have asked, in attempting to erode the efficacy of higher standards goes, “Is LESSER qualified the same thing as UNQUALIFIED?” That very question insinuates (correctly) that many people who COULD do various jobs are passed over, merely because some others do better on standardized exams that test a specific range of a given array of skills. The question further implies that standardized skills (reading comprehension, basic math, logic questions, special/layout memorizations, etc) do not necessarily prove one candidate “better qualified” than another, especially given that anyone could have a “bad day.” It also cynically implies that anyone who meets the minimum qualifications should be deemed “QUALIFIED” and considered without regard to any abilities beyond that minimum standard. It is this viewpoint that reduces that initial question to; “Why does one have to be THAT smart, THAT strong and THAT determined to do job A?”

And that really is, when you think about it, an invalid question, for the rightful counter question is, “Why doesn’t an employer have the right to hire the BEST qualified applicants and not merely a collection of MINIMALLY qualified ones, despite the fact that those MINIMALLY qualified applicants might also be able to do the job?”

Likewise, the opposition to higher standards, is not really rooted in opposition to the view that higher standards equals a higher quality workforce, BUT instead, that “There’s no proof that the higher quality workforces that such high standards bring about, have not been proven necessary to do the kinds of basic jobs that often “arbitrarily” require them.”

THAT is an absurd proposition, as it’s just as likely, just as valid that, by like token, a given organization has too few one-eyed, epileptics, or too few diabetics with IQs below 80, just as surely as it has too few black males, French females, or Danish midgets amongst its ranks. That kind of irrational proportionalism just doesn’t make any sense.

In fact, the ONLY group mentioned above that standardized tests actually deliberately discriminate against are those with IQs below 80. Sure, a skeptic might ask, “Don’t physical exams geared to people of average height and weight “discriminate against those midgets?”

Well, no, at least not deliberately and since widespread pre-test training is available to everyone, a candidate, who is also a midget, has the capability of preparing for and doing as well on those exams as anyone else.

There’s no question that standardized tests aren’t perfect, BUT, they’re the best we’ve got, in that they DO indeed measure one’s basic skill levels, and so long as the same standards are applied to all, they are in no way, ethnically discriminatory. Moreover, that system was put in place to rid government employment of a pernicious system of patronage, nepotism and cronyism that preceded it.

It’s the same with disproportionate passing rates for various ethnic groups. While there is, as we’d expect, disproportionate passing rates (disparate impact) among all the various ethnic groups, that is not, in and of itself, discriminatory, because it is not an intentional impact of that instrument. In fact, ethnicity and gender should remain NON-factors in such admissions standards.

A few weeks ago, Deputy Chief Paul Mannix wrote a letter to the Chief-Leader newspaper outlining some well-documented questions and concerns about the latest firefighter “written entrance exam,” which was so subjective, so rife with questions having multiple answers, that it amounted to little more than an opinion survey.

He was immediately branded a “racist” by the current President of the Vulcan Society (the black firefighter’s fraternity), firefighter John Coombs.

Ironically enough, according to Richard Steier, editor of the Chief, “The irony is that Firefighter Coombs has agreed with Mr. Mannix's contention that the most-recent Firefighter exam included far too many subjective questions to be a fair determinant of which candidates were best-equipped to be Firefighters. Noting that roughly 45 percent of the 195 questions on the exam had more than one correct answer, the Vulcan Society president said last April, "Answers should be 'a', 'b' or 'c,' not 'maybe.'” He called the test "poorly written" back then and said, "At the last minute things were added that candidates hadn't been told to study for."

Moreover, Chief Mannix seems to abide by one of America’s founding principles, “Equal opportunity (the right to compete under the SAME standards) for ALL, special privilege for NONE.”

Of course real bigots have taken to calling people who adhere to that view “racists,” as in their perversely, bigoted view, not supporting race/gender-preferences is “racist.”

Of course, the term “racism” implies a deliberate and overt racial bigotry and discrimination. Housing discrimination, where whites and blacks are deliberately and wantonly treated differently by realtors is an example of the overt racial bigotry or “racism.”

Disparate impact or disproportionate passing rates, drop-out rates, etc., are NOT examples of “racism.”

As Michael Selmi, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law said, “I think it is...clear that the disparate impact theory was based on two critical mistakes — that the theory would be easier to prove and that it was possible to redefine discrimination purely through legal doctrine. At bottom, that is what the theory sought to do — redefine our concept of discrimination to focus on unequal results."

Adding, “As we know from our lengthy battle over affirmative action, there is no widespread public support for defining equality or discrimination in terms of results or achievements.”

Moreover, the claim that standardized exams “discriminate” against any specific racial/ethnic group is tantamount to racial bigotry, as it implies that that group is unable to compete on an equal level with other groups! THAT view, in and of itself, is inherently bigoted!

Proportionalism (“the proportionate representation of each and every group in every field according to their exact numbers in society) is a ridiculous and impractical goal and arguing in favor of proportionalism to increase the numbers of any specific ethnic group amounts to nothing less than overt racial bigotry.

The facts are that neither rigorous standards nor traditional standardized exams discriminate against any specific ethnic group, or gender. Moreover, disparate impact does NOT prove either ethnic nor gender discrimination, neither overt nor de facto. Every standardized test results in “disparate impact” among virtually EVERY ethnic group – German-Americans differ in their passing rates from Irish-Americans, Hispanic-Americans from Italian-Americans, etc.. Disparate impact is the expected outcome of any standardized test.

To this day, no one has yet to prove that disparate impact is indicative of any verifiable racial/ethnic/gender discrimination. Without question, ALL tests are indeed designed to DISCRIMINATE. They “discriminate” against those who do not prepare as well, and those less able to process and matriculate information. Physical tests “discriminate” against those who either fail to prepare properly or lack certain specific physical attributes that exam is testing (ie. endurance, upper body strength, etc.) and those are very useful, even necessary purposes.

While Chief Coward chose, in an earlier response, to merely mock Chief Mannix, John Coombs upped the ante, in apparently calling for the city to somehow and for some unknown reason, sanction Chief Mannix for daring to oppose race/gender preferences and espouse that ALL applicants be subject to the same rigorous standards. What else could “If the elected officials continue to allow dangerous bigots to be the voice of any department, then those elected officials have failed us all,” be construed to mean?

Is that what firefighter Coombs is calling for, that the city and the FDNY should punish anyone who disagrees with the questionable views of the likes of John Coombs? John Coombs has upped the ante, in apparently calling for the city to somehow and for reasons, apparently known only to John Coombs, sanction Chief Mannix for daring to oppose race/gender preferences and espousing that ALL applicants be subject to the same rigorous standards. What else could “If the elected officials continue to allow dangerous bigots to be the voice of any department, then those elected officials have failed us all,” be construed to mean?

Is that what firefighter Coombs is calling for, that the city and the FDNY should punish anyone who disagrees with the questionable views of the likes of John Coombs? That certainly seems to be the implication of those remarks. So while firmly believing that the government should provide “affordable housing, health-care accessibility, employment...” (none of which are actually Constitutionally mandated, in any way), firefighter Coombs does not have nearly as much faith in say, the First Amendment.

At any rate, in neither case were Chief Mannix’s very real and legitimate concerns addressed and that is almost certainly because they CAN’T be, apparently, at least not by either Chief Coward, nor firefighter Coombs.

But if a past and the present Presidents of the Vulcan Society can’t make the case for lowered standards on a written exam, or how “standardized tests have traditionally discriminated against certain groups,” or that “race/gender preferences are a necessary tool in dealing with past injustices,” then who could be expected to do that?

In response to Chief Mannix merely pointing out a number of very well documented problems with the recent opinion survey/“firefighter entrance exam”, firefighter Coombs’ said, “Those who speak half-truths and lies only do it because they are afraid. They are afraid to openly compete. They are afraid that others will benefit from this career as they have, and mostly they are afraid that they will lose employment to the very people they so dislike.”

Well, first, John Coombs fails to show where ANY of Chief Mannix’s assertions were “lies” or “half truths,” and second, Chief Mannix, like Chief Delbert Coward, Chief Reggie Julius and Chief Augustus Beekman, all black men, passed four promotion exams, each generally requiring over 1,000 hours of study. Chief Mannix has already attained the highest Civil Service rank within the FDNY (Deputy Chief) and he’s done it, like Chief Beekman and Chief Coward did, on exams with extremely high standards. If high standards didn’t adversely impact the likes of Chief Coward, Chief Julius and Chief Beekman, then it would appear that high standards serve as no substantial barrier to black achievement in the FDNY.

Ironically enough, the Civil Service Merit System was put in place to thwart the overt “discrimination” of the rampant nepotism and cronyism of the Tammany Hall years.

Today that system is under attack by modern-day bigots, who are outraged that only certain city agencies “don’t look like the city.” The MTA, the USPS, and the Board of Education “don’t look like the city” either for any number of reasons – some being disproportionately female, some having Hispanics and Asians greatly UNDER-represented, and blacks over-represented.

The problem is NOT with high standards, it’s with people who oppose those standards because, at this moment in time, their own favored group is not performing as well on them as others. Arguing for proportionalism in order to increase the numbers of any specific group amounts to nothing less than overt and disgusting racial bigotry.

Am I Officially “Famous” Now?

.
.

Seems I missed this, but the folks at DiversityInc have track-backed to one of my articles about race/gender-preferences.

WhoooooHooooo!

Does that make me “officially famous,” now?

I hope not, because I don’t feel famous. In fact, if this is how “famous” feels, I kinda feel ripped off.

Anyway, here’s the DiversityInc article by Jennifer Millman;


The Hot News About Affirmative Action


By Jennifer Millman


What's next for Michigan? Affirmative action—yes or no? Did Gerald Ford really support civil rights? This week's top affirmative-action news has bloggers asking these questions and more. What are they saying? Like most things, it depends on whom you ask.

What's Next for Michigan?

What happened? A federal court ordered Michigan universities to stop using affirmative action immediately, lifting a six-month injunction of the voter-approved ban imposed by a lower court. One pro-affirmative-action group says it will appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but skeptics say their case won't hold ground.

What's in the blogs? Many bloggers support the federal court's decision, citing the 58 percent majority of Michigan voters (most of whom were white) who approved the affirmative-action ban. One blogger submits it would be hypocritical to allow the injunction, quoting the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, which another blogger claims is "the real hypocrisy." Read more.

JMK, a self-professed "working-class conservative" and FDNY firefighter, mocks Michigan universities' efforts to delay the affirmative-action ban. He says the primary problem with affirmative action is it's rooted in "presumed incompetence," which he believes is racism in its purest form. Read more.

Affirmative Action: Yes or No?

What happened? Long-time affirmative-action foe Ward Connerly recently was invited to speak before Wisconsin's special legislative committee on affirmative action, which has intensified national debate over its utility.

What's in the blogs? Inviting Ward Connerly to speak at an affirmative-action hearing is like asking a KKK Grand Wizard to speak before a committee on race relations, opines Joel McNally. He claims the United States was founded on affirmative action for whites, albeit not federalized, and cites President Bush as a beneficiary. Read more.

Did anything positive come of Connerly's visit to Wisconsin? Not only does one blogger say yes, he calls Connerly's appearance a "stroke of good fortune." Why? In a sarcastic invective condemning a pro-affirmative-action Wisconsin representative, Dan Kenitz calls for an end to "racial preferences." Why? Because "separate means unequal." Read more.

Another blogger denounces the anti-affirmative-action movement as a thinly veiled attempt to sustain white supremacy. While Connerly substantiates his efforts by espousing concern for "reverse discrimination," this blogger catches him on a vital point. There's no evidence, and Connerly knows it. Read more.

As James Collier points out in his blog Acting White, affirmative-action programs are needed to remedy past discrimination, but the negative press surrounding the term sets its beneficiaries up to fail. Read more.

Gerald Ford and Civil Rights

What happened? Everyone remembers Gerald Ford as the only president never elected, the man who helped the nation recover after Watergate and withdrew the last troops from Vietnam. Where did Ford stand on civil rights? He's an affirmative-action supporter who opposed busing to achieve school integration. (See also: Affirmative-Action Supporter Gerald Ford Dies at 93)

What's in the blogs? Some bloggers are wondering how he aligned these contradictory viewpoints, while others argue they're not contradictory at all. Affirmative-action foes blame the "left wing" for attempting to frame Ford's legacy around civil rights—a subject they claim was a minimal priority on his presidential agenda.

One blogger writes, "The American dream was never intended for black people to enjoy, and Ford maintained the status quo by approving initiatives that benefited white people, and kept white privilege alive." Read more.

Jeffrey Toobin, an Amherst Times writer, reminds the public that Ford was responsible for the amicus brief submitted by retired military officers in the 2003 University of Michigan cases—prose from which Sandra Day O'Connor adopted in her majority decision. This writer claims this brief, which Ford set in motion, may have been the most influential in the history of the Supreme Court.


http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1119print.cfm


Man, it pays to be famous....it don't pay much, but it pays!