Racism Scopecreep in the Liberal Media

By Daniel Miessler on August 9th, 2009: Tagged as Intelligence | Political Correctness | Race

standards
Image from edweek.org

I like the New York Times; I think they produce an overall strong product. But sometimes the PC-bend is simply overwhelming. This piece on the New York Firefighters test is a case in point.

They argue that the firefighter’s test is racist in hidden, sneaky ways–like in requiring people to be good at reading comprehension. And when I say “good”, I mean at the primary school level. Here’s a quote from the NYT article:

On the surface, the tests — versions of which remained in use until 2007, according to the court — do not appear racially biased. Each exam consists of 85 multiple-choice questions about firefighting practices: the order in which a firefighter should don gear in an alarm; what the rear of a building would look like, based on its facade; the right situations in which to say “mayday” rather than “urgent” over the walkie-talkie.

But a closer look shows that the exams also required applicants to read and understand long passages, often containing technical terms, and then answer questions about them.

Seriously? Did you just say that? In print? And put your name on it?

Here’s the “racist” question in its entirety:

Which one of the following portable power saw blades must be put out of service?
A) A carbide tip blade missing nine tips
B) a carbide tip blade with three broken tips;
C) an aluminum oxide blade measuring 12 inches;
D) a yellow silicon carbide blade measuring nine inches.

So, do you know the answer? Right, me neither. But right above the question they had a 250 word piece of text that talked about blade saw safety. You know, kind of helper-text you had when you were learning to read in the sixth grade. That text included the following:

A saw blade must be put out of service (OOS) and sent to the Technical Services Division when the blade becomes worn or damaged. Carbide tip blades must be put OOS when eight or more tips are missing or broken.

Well, holy crap. They encoded the answer in anglo-speak! Well, not really anglo-speak, since Asians and Indians would blow the test out of the water. No, they must have encoded it in anti-NAM-speak. A NAM is a Non-Asian-Minority, which is what PC-types really mean when they use the word minority.

Basically, any sort of text in which NAMs score lower than Whites, Asians, or Indians, is racist. That’s it. That’s the new definition. Or, to put it another way, if Blacks and Hispanics tend not to be able to read a 250 word passage and answer a simple question about it, then the test is biased against Blacks and Hispanics.

This is unspeakably lame.

This is not just an affront to education, it’s a blatant insult against any Black or Hispanic person with an education. In a staggering twist of PC-based irony, the statement that reading comprehension skill requirements constitute a white-leaning bias equates to nothing less than a declaration of intellectual inequality. This type of rhetoric says, in a deafening scream:

“Any test that evaluates someone’s ability to read and understand basic instructions, at the elementary school level, is biased toward Whites, Asians and Indians, because Blacks and Hispanics tend not to be good at that stuff.”

Deplorable.

Fix the fucking problem. Don’t jeopardize the safety of the public because certain groups have cultural values that discourage the pursuit of education. When you take that route all you’re doing is telling those same people you’re trying to help that they’re inferior, when instead you should be encouraging them to embrace the culture that pushed the successful to succeed.

  1. Embrace standards.
  2. Require that everyone reach them.
  3. Find those who can’t, and help them until they can.

That’s the solution–for FDNY and for the country and the world. Lowering the standard helps no one in the long term–least of all those who need the help. ::

  • cooperati

    Let's apply this perspective;

    Where do you stand on Judge Sonya Sotomayor's affirmation to the Supreme Court, considering her previous ruling on upholding a lower court's ruling that threw out a case firefighter's brought against a county that denied them promotions on the basis that no blacks passed the for the promotions, hence it was biased and needed review.

    And, as President Obama nominated her, is this a new push to re-instate the era of affirmative action? How does this bode for the future of the president's other policies?

    -=T=-

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-David-Baucum/1447609630 Jack David Baucum

    I think you are confusing what it means to be PC. I think people often confuse what PC means, just like many confuse what it means to be a feminist.
    To me being a feminist is about respecting a woman's right to live her life the way she chooses, be respected just like everyone else, and to not have her choices artificially constricted based on preconceptions of potential and ability.
    Unfortunately there are many “femi-nazis” out there who call themselves feminists, but violate the ideals of feminism and just sit around playing victim all day.
    Likewise, I think the word PC gets a lot of bad press because of people, like whomever wrote the article you are referring to. To me being PC is about treating people, usually minorities or those who are somehow disadvantaged, with respect. PC is about giving all people the up front respect that they deserve. It is respecting cultural and ethnic differences.
    Being PC is not about placating people, or playing victim.

  • CarlM

    “Being PC is not about placating people, or playing victim.” Precisely.

  • CarlM

    You're right that the focus in cases like this is taken away from the real problem of unequal education (which is only PARTLY due to cultural differences .. that's an EXTREME oversimplification).

    You're also right that the subtext here: “any test that evaluates someone’s ability to read and understand basic instructions, at the elementary school level, is biased toward Whites, Asians and Indians, because Blacks and Hispanics tend not to be good at that stuff” is deplorable.

    However, IF blacks and hispanics do not have equal educational opportunity in their formative years, and IF reading and understanding long passages, often containing technical terms is not not a relevant skill in firefighting, then the test IS racially biased. I think that the solution is what you suggest:

    Embrace standards. (Defining appropriate and relevant standards is an additional and difficult part of this.)

    Require that everyone reach them. (Measuring standards is not always so easy. Measurement devices rarely measure only one thing in isolation.)

    Find those who can’t, and help them until they can. (Absolutely, and this isn't free.)

  • cooperati

    “However, IF blacks and hispanics do not have equal educational opportunity in their formative years, and IF reading and understanding long passages, often containing technical terms is not not a relevant skill in firefighting, then the test IS racially biased.”

    What about President Obama? Doesn't he stand as an example that Blacks and other minorities are capable of getting the same, if not superior education to the rest of the populace, despite racial demographics? (And he's not the only one, but the best example at present.)

    Because of him, I hope the rest of the nation can look at minorities and ignore skin color just a little more, and bring the arguments back to the ACTUAL merits each person can bring to the table.

    If I meet a black man, and he is dressed as I am, and I haven't heard anything from him, I won't say, “Well, he's less advantaged, I need to talk down to his level.” That's just totally insulting to him, and to me.

    -=T=-

  • CarlM

    I don't understand your point. I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but I don't see how it applies to anything I wrote. My point is not that individuals within any racial group are incapable of getting a decent education. My point is that the groups do not have equal access to education.

    From Wikipedia: “In 1971, he returned to Honolulu to live with his maternal grandparents, Madelyn and Stanley Armour Dunham, and attended Punahou School, a private college preparatory school, from the fifth grade until his graduation from high school in 1979.”

    That's not the typical educational opportunity for minorities in this country. Certainly it's not the typical opportunity in NYC. I stand by my statement that “IF blacks and hispanics do not have equal educational opportunity in their formative years, and IF reading and understanding long passages, often containing technical terms is not not a relevant skill in firefighting, then the test IS racially biased,” and I'll explicitly add the assertion (that I didn't actually make earlier) that not all American children have equal access to educational opportunities in their formative years and that some minority groups are disproportionally disadvantaged.

  • cooperati

    “I'll explicitly add the assertion (that I didn't actually make earlier) that not all American children have equal access to educational opportunities in their formative years and that some minority groups are disproportionally disadvantaged.”

    Then do you hold the belief that minorities should be talked down to, generally speaking, and take it that most minorities you meet on the street are less educated than most non-minorities, and this circumstance demands that they have unequal treatment?

    And, to correct the innate pro-white bias, when do we start treating them unequally, at highschool, gradeschool, or birth?

    (I'm very curious of your perspective.)

    -=T=-

  • CarlM

    Of course I believe nothing of the sort. I don't believe that ANYONE should be treated differently than anyone else. Indeed, to prejudge an INDIVIDUAL based on their minority status is abhorrent. I was stating the FACT that access to education is not equal to all and that in particular some groups are disproportionally disadvantaged.

    Here is my chain of logic:

    (1) Schools are not all created equal. (This is a VERY SERIOUS problem and one that needs fixing.)

    (2) For whatever reasons schools in minority neighborhoods are more likely to be substandard than schools in non-minority neighborhoods. (I suspect that the largest part of this is linked to poverty — the cycle of poverty that we talked about in an earlier discussion, but the reasons for the differences are not important to the chain of logic I'm using here.)

    (3) A test that requires a level of education that is more difficult to acquire in minority neighborhoods is therefore racially biased. Please note that the word BIAS does not denote any intent. Indeed, I'm not saying that this is intentional. In fact, I'm fairly confident that it is an unintended consequence of unequal access to education, but the fact that it's an unintended consequence doesn't make it any less real.

    By the way, I'm not saying that the fix is to throw out the test results. I said nothing at all about the remedy. There are other ways to handle the current applicants. But the fix for the future is to guarantee equal access to a good education.

    —
    Let me give an example that will shed some light on my perspective here.

    There were (perhaps still are) fire departments that had different physical fitness requirements for women than they had for men. I believe that this is inappropriate. I think that standards for physical fitness should be determined based on the ACTUAL needs of the job (and not just be a high bar left over from the days that the department was trying to weed out some applicants). Ideally, those who make this decision should not even know the average strength of men or women. That should NOT be a part of the decision process that goes into making the standards.

    Now, once it is determined that a particular level of physical ability is NECESSARY for the job, then that standard should apply to ALL who apply for the job. There should NOT be gender differences in the standards.

    —-

    Similarly, there should not be any racial differences in the standards for the job (and by the way, to my knowledge, nobody is suggesting that a lower test score be accepted for minority applicants). If reading and understanding long passages, often containing technical terms is a NECESSARY part of the job for which the applicants were applying, then I have no problem accepting the results of the exams (though this doesn't change the fact that there is a racial bias). If reading and understanding long passages, often containing technical terms is NOT a necessary part of the job, then the test is measuring something other than what is necessary for the job and is measuring something that is (because of the unequal access to education) racially biased.

    Please don't miss the most important sentence in there: “If reading and understanding long passages, often containing technical terms is a NECESSARY part of the job for which the applicants were applying, then I have no problem accepting the results of the exams.”

    I do not believe in using different standards for different groups, but it is important to understand the fact that assessment of skills is not a trivial task, and it is very easy for unintended biases to creep into the assessment. That's the issue.

  • http://danielmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

    Ok, so I think the key here is the word “bias”.

    One way to look at this word is to say that the test was designed to filter out Blacks and Hispanics. That's the way most people think of the word, I would say.

    You're using the word in the more technical sense, meaning based on RESULTS. In other words, there was no bias going into the test questions, but the results show that certain groups do better, therefore there is, by definition, bias in the exam.

  • CarlM

    “One way to look at this word is to say that the test was designed to filter out Blacks and Hispanics. That's the way most people think of the word, I would say.” Perhaps, but that's not the definition that is used in a legal context. Of course I agree with your suggested solution to the problem, but it doesn't address current applicants.

    Let me go back to my physical fitness example. In at least some departments, there were artificially high physical fitness requirements that were not put into place to discriminate against women but that had that effect. I believe that the solution was NOT to introduce a different standard for women but rather to introduce a new standard that is based on actual job requirements.

    —–

    Similarly, if the test assesses ONLY things that are legitimate requirements of the job, then it is an appropriate test. It should be held up to show one of the unintended consequences of unequal access to education. BUT, if the test assesses things that are NOT legitimate requirements of the job, then I believe that it should be changed to assess only relevant things. Once again, I do NOT think that different standards should be used for different groups, nor do I think that any legal opinion has suggested one (if I'm wrong on this, send me a link to evidence).

  • http://danielmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

    The problem isn't groups creating two standards–one for those that do well and one for those that don't. No, the problem is that when the “perform poorly” groups fail, the liberal establishment demands that the standard fall in order to include them.

    In other words, if group 'B' fails at a certain thing, remove that thing because it's biased against group 'B'. It's a perversion of the very concept of a standard, and of testing against one.

  • CarlM

    See reply at top level to avoid ever narrowing paragraphs.

  • CarlM

    DANIEL: “The problem isn't groups creating two standards–one for those that do well and one for those that don't.”
    —-
    CARL: I was responding directly to cooperati's question about whether “this circumstance demands that they have unequal treatment”. My answer is that there should be no unequal treatment.
    —-
    DANIEL: “No, the problem is that when the “perform poorly” groups fail, the liberal establishment demands that the standard fall in order to include them.”
    —-
    CARL: No. You're missing the point. While there may be those whose motives are what you imply, I don't believe that this is the main force behind the issue.

    Once again, I'll go to my physical fitness example. Suppose that there was a requirement that applicants can run a mile in less than 6 minutes. This requirement would be easier to be met by reasonably fit young men than by reasonably fit young women. So, there is a gender bias to the requirement. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. (Note to Daniel: Please read this next bit carefully because it's the part of my point that you're either missing or deliberately ignoring.) IF there is evidence to suggest that being able to run a mile in less than 6 minutes is a legitimate part of the job, then the fact that such a requirement has gender bias is irrelevant. If instead, there is evidence that being able to run a mile in under 8 minutes is sufficient for the job, then THAT ought to be the standard. Note that the 8 minute requirement would still have gender bias, but as long as it represents a legitimate requirement for the job, then it's a fair requirement. There's a threshold at which NO female applicants who weren't serious athletes could pass the fitness test. Imagine a department that has a standard set at being able to run a 4:45 mile. If the standard was artificially set at this level, it would almost entirely eliminate the chances of a likely female applicant qualifying for the job. I'm not suggesting that the standard needed to be put into place to weed out women, but it nonetheless would have that effect. (Maybe they just wanted to brag that their firefighters could run faster than any other precinct.)

    ***** IF the requirement has a prejudicial effect AND can not be justified as a measure of a legitimate job requirement, then it SHOULD BE CHANGED. *****
    —-
    DANIEL: “In other words, if group 'B' fails at a certain thing, remove that thing because it's biased against group 'B'. It's a perversion of the very concept of a standard, and of testing against one.”
    —-
    CARL: That's not the argument that's being made. At least, it's not the argument that's being made in the successful legal challenges. You've ALMOST got it, but not quite .. and the difference (though subtle) is a VERY important one.

    If group 'B' fails at a certain job requirement and if it can be shown that this requirement contains systematic bias AND IF THIS CERTAIN JOB REQUIREMENT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE JOB, remove that job requirement because it is unintentionally discriminating against group 'B'.

    “It's a perversion of the very concept of a standard, and of testing against one.”

    No. It's not. Standards are wonderful things .. important things, but testing against them is not a trivial thing.

    Suppose that as part of a job interview you were required to take a test on general programming skills and had to write all your answers using COBOL code (because the test hadn't been changed to test currently appropriate job skills). Would your failure on such a test indicate your ability to do the job? Perhaps if would if the job required COBOL programming, but if the job required only general programming skills, then the test would be biased against those who had no exposure (or only minimal exposure) to COBOL. It would be entirely appropriate for you to gripe about the stupidity of a test that was measuring irrelevant things and that was impeding your ability to display your relevant talents. This example is not meant as a full analogy, but I suppose that you could say that the test was biased in favor of programmers who were over 50 years old.

    The issue here is whether the test was testing skills that are real requirement for the performance of the job. If it was, then the test (biased though it may be) is a fair job requirement.

    ***** If the exam was testing skills that are NOT requirements for the performance of the job, and if those additional skills being tested discriminate against a group that it is illegal to discriminate against under EEOC regulations, then there is a legal argument that the test is required to be changed. *****

  • http://danielmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

    I get your point about the standard being a VALID requirement for the job. Noted. Agreed. I wasn't addressing it because I agreed with it. Once again, I don't think we're disagreeing here.

    Violent agreement seems to be our thing.

  • cooperati

    “Of course I believe nothing of the sort. I don't believe that ANYONE should be treated differently than anyone else. Indeed, to prejudge an INDIVIDUAL based on their minority status is abhorrent. I was stating the FACT that access to education is not equal to all and that in particular some groups are disproportionally disadvantaged.”

    You have reaffirmed the reasons for my confidence in you, Carl. I shouldn't have doubted you. (It's just so easy to see so many people are brainwashed into a sort of quasi-sensitivity, where logic fails to float properly.)

    “…and it is very easy for unintended biases to creep into the assessment. That's the issue.”

    It is very much the issue. There is problem in this culture where people believe that their sensitivity to certain topics empower them over others. It actually clouds the matters at hand much more than seeks any resolve.

    Also, I did not take the use of the word “bias” as any sort of loaded term, as the context did not define for whom or against whom the bias acted. We naturally assume that it was against minorities, but it could just simply have been for caucasians, and hence been the product of a eurocentric testing structure.

    America being a fundamentally european country, it's hard to imagine that eurocentrism is by itself biased against any particular demographic, just centrally in favor for the better understanding of those in the demographics of the originating culture.

    -=T=-

  • cooperati

    “Violent agreement seems to be our thing.”

    Once again, you miss the point, and fail to understand…

    -=T=-

  • CarlM

    I'd like to think that we're in agreement. So, you concede the point that changing standards (and the way in which standards are assessed) is not necessarily equivalent to lowering the bar to let disadvantaged groups through the door with substandard abilities?

    The crime is that school systems graduate students from high school who can't read at the level necessary to pass that test.


Top

Popular

Information Security / Technology

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Technology & Science

Culture & Society

Miscellaneous

Arguments

Projects

Collections

Twitter

What I'm Reading

Favorite Books and Essays

Top Blog Categories

Inputs