« Konkatsu = marriage hunting | Main | Understanding the Ricci v. DeStefano majority opinion »

June 29, 2009



This is very bad news for Obama. Now the Republicans have the opportunity to paint Obama as the filthy diversity pimp, antiwhite bastard hr really is.

I only hope some Rs show some balls at the confirmation hearing. You never know.

Why does Harriet Meyers keep coming up? This probably gives more insight to your personality than Katherine Heigl.

Interestingly Red Sonja tried to duck the whole discussion but the case got dealt with at length here. And it was actually decided, not a wimp out.

Over at Volokh Conspiracy, there's some disagreement over whether or not this decision throws a significant wrench into disparate impact:



The claim of the City, upheld by Sotomayor, was that the very existence of a statistical discrepancy, was sufficent to prove illegal disparate impact. That's the most offensive part of disparate impact doctrine, and the part that leads most directly to de facto quotas. This opinion removes that plank.
6.29.2009 10:59am

What really lept out at me was this line from the dissent:

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

Because if this opinion does have staying power, we're in fat city. The Court basically rejected the fundamental argument of HBD-denialists, which is that all groups are equal and therefore if a test produces disparate results, there must have been discrimination at work.

re "disparate impact"

If I were a lawyer arguing on behalf of Ricci, I'd call Charles Murray to document the results in "Human Accomplishment."

Barry, it's not "disparate" impact, it's "scientific" impact, you AA-snatching embarrassment!

What sabril said. That line of Ginsberg's and her whole reasoning really are repugnant.

She grasps for the thinest of straws. The test was made by a professional company and review by an outside professional source in a different. State. No one in the Department saw the exam before it was given. That should be a good thing because it removes the possibility of department favoritism (which is she is Super Worried about since in 1972 the department was unbalanced).

But she sees it as bad.

Also there is this twisted logic:
"As a result of today’s decision, an employer who discards a dubious selection process can anticipate costly disparate-treatment litigation in which its chances for success—even for surviving a summary-judgment motion—are highly problematic."

Heh? She just went through all the logic why an employer can be sued for disparate impact even though they take every possible step to construct their exam fairly. And that was apparently ok.

Now she is worried about people be sued?

T, you have a point, but this is the most devastating part of the case: ALL the Supremes thought Sotomayor fucked up:

But this much is clear: the Court devoted 93 pages to a matter that Judge Sotomayor tried to dispose of in a summary order. Moreover, according to Ed Whelan, not a single Justice thought that Judge Sotomayor acted correctly in granting summary judgment for the City of New Haven.

Even Sailer agrees with my assessment:

Swing Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion is fairly narrow, yet broader and braver than my prediction that he'd merely send it back down for retrial on the facts. It's a sizable defeat for the Obama Administration and their Supreme Court nominee.

HS, I agree with your analysis about disparate impact, but the unwritten rule seems to be that an employer who uses an objective test for hiring and promotion is asking for a lot of trouble if the results are discriminatory.

The Ricci decision seems to be undermining this rule and giving employers a safe harbor from discrimination lawsuits.

[HS: Clearly the liberals WANT employers to be so scared of written tests they abandon them entirely. This is evident in Ginsburg's dissent which I have yet to fully absorb and write about.]

I made a similar point already on the relevant thread on Ta-Nehisi Coates's blog (here: http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/scotus_rules_for_ricci.php ), but the four-fifths rule raises this question for me: Why are different average results by group considered implicit evidence of bias on a firefighter test and not on, say, the military's vocational test (the ASVAB) or on standardized academic tests such as the SAT, LSAT, MCAT, etc.? It seems logically inconsistent for unequal outcomes to be implicit evidence of bias on (non-military) job-related tests and not on other standardized tests.

So if IQ tests (masquerading as job competency tests - just make sure all the questions use job-related lingo*) are an allowable way to get around the awful Civil Rights legislation, isn't this a huge ruling? At least if HBD is correct...

* - if all firemen are yooknows and some yooknows are doobahs, some firemen are doobahs (Yes/No/Not Enough Info)

"It seems logically inconsistent for unequal outcomes to be implicit evidence of bias on (non-military) job-related tests and not on other standardized tests."

Of course it is logically inconsistent. Never forget who you are dealing with. Go read what Sailer wrote:


Yeah, we're fucked...

No, we're not fucked. This is an opportune time to bitch slap Barry's pimpin' agenda. Sotomayor will be confirmed like a dirty dog.

Posted by: Joe | June 29, 2009 at 03:16 PM

The recent case was a holding action. Nothing more. If anyone thinks that a measly Supreme Court ruling is going to stop the anti-HBD, anti-white leftist agenda, they need to think again. I'm overjoyed at this ruling, but nobody should fool themselves into thinking that people like Bazelon, Obama, Sotomayor, Krugman, Ginsburg, Gore, etc...are ever going to stop. They'll only quit when they're dead.


I don't understand how you rationalize these two parts of your post. You say the following:

people [falsely] think that it’s always illegal to use tests to make hiring and promotion decisions

And then defend it by pointing to what the text of the law says, as if you believe that the text of what the law actually says is a good guide to how courts will find in actual cases. Then, in the same post, you say that:

The Court held that the generic IQ test was not “related to job performance.” [even though] IQ tests are . . . the best way to hire people for entry level jobs

So, if judges don't like what would happen if they apply the law as written, they make stuff up or selectively ignore stuff until they get the result which would follow if the law said what they wished it said.

You're not alone in this, obviously. Most lawyers seem to talk this way. But what does it mean to talk this way?

In the pre-Ricci world, if one were advising an actual client as to the actual likely outcome were they to institute an IQ test in hiring or promotion, what would a competent lawyer do? If the answer is tell their client not to use the test because of the extreme risk of losing a lawsuit, then the law actually is that IQ tests are forbidden, even if the pretty ink patterns on the pretty paper in the pretty lawbook look remarkably like they say the opposite.

Forbidden means "you get severely punished if you do it" not "some writing on some paper somewhere says no! no!"

If everything in your post is true, I think it is perfectly correct to say "IQ tests are forbidden in hiring and promotion."

[HS: The law is that a test needs to be job related in a way that's more concrete than all tests are g-loaded and g is correlated with job performance. The New Haven test was job related because it tested firefighting knowledge. This makes it more expensive to develop tests because you can't just buy an off-the-shelf IQ test, but any big corporation has the ability to develop tests if it believed in the benefits of testing. It only cost New Haven $100,000 to create it's test.]

Actually, this is more a problem of business culture than legal. Look at HR magazines: they always mention modern numerology (group dynamics, Meyer-Briggs, "competence interview", "fit
interview" and far other futilities).

The most stupid selection I ever did was a group test where I was asked to bring thrre objects and talk about them. It was for a teaching job. Probably, I did not bring the right objects, as I never heard of them again.

Even outside the USA and the political correctness, the HR personnel still thinks that endless interviews are far better than a job-related objective test.

In Europe, some governments, like France, hire through written tests. Why can´t the private sector do the same?


We have to make it very clear to the diversity pimps that we are fed up with their pimpin' ways. We need to have the cojones to ask Sotomayor the following questions:

1. Why do we need a wise Latina on the Supreme Court with 2d-rate writing skills who is obviously not intellectually exceptional?

2. Why is it important to have a diverse court if diversity requires vastly lowering standards?

3. Why do you think the test Ricci took was biased?

4. Do you think it is anti-American to deny an American citizen the right to advance himself?

5. Do you believe in the meritocracy?

6. What were your LSAT scores?

"It only cost New Haven $100,000 to create it's test."

Steve Sailer had a blog post a few weeks back talking about how custom tests are a growth industry.

"The answer is that the liberals have managed to convince everyone that tests don’t measure anything useful, despite the solid statistical evidence to the contrary, and that the business culture buys into the myth that you can learn more about a person by talking to them at a job interview than you can by giving them an objective test".

Actually, the problem is that HR doesn´t believe in written tests. When did you see a HR person defending them? Even outside America, who does written tests? Only the French government.

The worst of all was some years ago, when I was at a job fair and I heard lectures about two very stupid hiring

1- Astrology. Sigma, in order to be hired as a tax attorney, must be of the right sign and have the right astrological map. Where does Saturn meet Mercury? This question is fundamental to know if Siggy will have a good job performance or not.

2-Grafology: evaluating your handwriting. Where does you handwriting lean? Do you write, in a blank sheet of paper, oriented to the top or the bottom of the sheet? In order for Siggy to get the tax lawyer job, it is better that his handwriting is up to the standard (which is not necessarily the neatest handwriting). If you are a job seeker and you get grafology tests, better to buy a book on such tests and change your handwriting to be perfect according to the test standard.

3-Rohrschach test: lots of stains in some cards. Hope you get the right answers for the stains and not to show any interesty in violence or sex. Remember, however, that the use of the test is subjective. If both shrink A amd shrink B test Sigma and the latest gives the same responses to both tests, A and B will come to different conclusions about Siggy´s competence to be a tax lawyer.

Forbidden means 'you get severely punished if you do it' not 'some writing on some paper somewhere says no! no!'

I agree. If nothing else, Ricci is a big splashy example of the courts endorsing the concept that whites can dramatically outperform blacks on tests even in the absence of bias or discrimination.

Remember, the diversity pimp in chief's next selection will seal it for the pimpin' agenda. Let's be clear on this point. Sotomayor and Obama need to be thoroughly humiliated--NOW.

The comments to this entry are closed.