Legit Reviews

There's a local story here about the fire chief not promoting people into 28 positions, and an activist group is complaining that the test he uses is racially biased... Does anyone know what that means? What sort of question would be "racially biased"???

I am seriously trying to find the answer here, so please respond ONLY if you know the answer (or think you do). I don't want this thread to get locked because of some stupid racial war -- I just want to know what would be considered a racially biased question.

Thanks!

I'm not sure about the US, but in Canada it can be something as simple as the Social Insurance Number. You can find out if someone was an immigrant based on the number. Therefore, it can be used to discriminate here. Here we have Employment Equity, so the government itself discriminates against those who are not a minority, handicap, or a woman.

moon111 wrote:I'm not sure about the US, but in Canada it can be something as simple as the Social Insurance Number. You can find out if someone was an immigrant based on the number. Therefore, it can be used to discriminate here. Here we have Employment Equity, so the government itself discriminates against those who are not a minority, handicap, or a woman.

Soon enough, caucasians are going to be a minority in some cities, I wonder if anything interesting will come of that.

I really don't know what could be racially biased, as the last I checked, the fire chief was black, but who knows, I sure don't..........

Most places used to do "race norming" or adjusting test scoring to even the field for minorities, its been illegal for a while.

White guy takes a test so does a minority, depending where the minority is from he/she gets spotted points depending on their origin.

Works the other way as well to un-even the field.

Wikipedia wrote:A famous example of alleged bias in the SAT I is the oarsman-regatta analogy question. The object of the question was to find the pair of terms that have the relationship most similar to the relationship between "runner" and "marathon". The correct answer was "oarsman" and "regatta".

The question relied upon students knowing the meaning of the two terms, referring to a sport popular with the wealthy. While 53% of white students correctly answered the question, only 22% of black students did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#Bias

There you go, an example of racial bias...then again, I wouldn't have had a clue as to the answer...

So, in that instance, it is more economically biased, and not necessarily racially biased?

I worked seasonally as a labourer for seven years. Worked hard, got along well with everyone. Knew the workplace, people, policies and procedures, could work independently. Permenant positions came up. They hired a guy with one arm, a deaf guy, and an overweight short woman. Have to make a repair on the airfield. They take 'my' job and I'm asked to train them how to do it. Deaf guy not allowed on airfield because you have to keep radio contact at all time. Guy with one arm can't run a jack-hammer. Woman couldn't and wouldn't run the jack-hammer. The work doesn't get done. This is employment equity. Now I'm also pretty good with computers etc... but do you think I can get a job in the office which has always been 100% women? The governement has basically said everyone but a health white guy can get a job. Well now I am a full-blown sexist racist. The only way I'd ever hire a woman, handicap, or minority if it was forced down my throat and I'd bend the rules to the maximum to make their lives a living hell. I wasn't the one who drew lines in the sand.

moon111 wrote:I worked seasonally as a labourer for seven years. Worked hard, got along well with everyone. Knew the workplace, people, policies and procedures, could work independently. Permenant positions came up. They hired a guy with one arm, a deaf guy, and an overweight short woman. Have to make a repair on the airfield. They take 'my' job and I'm asked to train them how to do it. Deaf guy not allowed on airfield because you have to keep radio contact at all time. Guy with one arm can't run a jack-hammer. Woman couldn't and wouldn't run the jack-hammer. The work doesn't get done. This is employment equity. Now I'm also pretty good with computers etc... but do you think I can get a job in the office which has always been 100% women? The governement has basically said everyone but a health white guy can get a job. Well now I am a full-blown sexist racist. The only way I'd ever hire a woman, handicap, or minority if it was forced down my throat and I'd bend the rules to the maximum to make their lives a living hell. I wasn't the one who drew lines in the sand.

I understand your pain... I've seen the same situations at larger IT companies... they are all about the minorities.

However, I think your reaction is a bit off... it is not the ones that get hired fault that the system benefits them... the only way to beat the system is to just hire the best man or woman for the job. I'm not going to hire a lesser qualified white man over a better qualified woman or minority... that just doesn't seem ethical either... more like sabotage to the company.

In the particular story I was talking about, it turns out that it wasn't the "test" that was the problem, but the process...still don't understand how it was racially biased? news story

I thought that the better than half of the cities fire department was black, but that news story says 45%.

The only thing that I can see that could be racial is the oral test, but there is a reason to the oral test for a fireman. The have to talk NORMAL to be understood, and for the officers they have to articulate due to the fact they talk to people out side of the department.

bubba wrote:I thought that the better than half of the cities fire department was black, but that news story says 45%.

The only thing that I can see that could be racial is the oral test, but there is a reason to the oral test for a fireman. The have to talk NORMAL to be understood, and for the officers they have to articulate due to the fact they talk to people out side of the department.

It's the same thing in my place if someone wants a job on the help desk. We don't care who they are, as long as they have some "cop-on" and they must be able to speak clearly, since they are on the phone.
We get lots of people from eastern europe looking for jobs, but when we say no to some of them, they try to claim it's racial, but in reality their english is so bad they can't even say the introduction script to take a call

Over here we have "Equal oppertunities employment"
Employers actually promote the fact they are an "Equal Oppertunities Employer" and even cavasing for your friend to get the job will get you sacked and your friend doesn't get the job (although this doesn't really happen)
Minorities get the same treatment as anyone else.

It's all about "The best man or woman for the job" period!

I can't stand when women and men get two different tests for the same job. To me, if a woman wants to be a firefighter, she should have to compete straight on with men. She can cry that women aren't as big so it's bias. Well small guys should be able to say the same thing then. "Hey I'm 110lbs soaking wet, I should be a firefighter too!"

A friend of mine has retired from the military. He said women were all upset because they weren't being allowed to join the airborne. Well they finally got their way... despite not physically being a real candidate. A few low level, rip-your-torso-off parachute jumps later, they all quit, couldn't physically handle it.

Men and women were never meant to compete. Same goes for races. We were put here to complement each others strengths and weaknesses.

ibleet wrote:Men and women were never meant to compete. Same goes for races. We were put here to complement each others strengths and weaknesses.

Uh, strengths such as blacks having increased resistance to skin cancer and malaria as compared to others?

moon111 wrote:I can't stand when women and men get two different tests for the same job. To me, if a woman wants to be a firefighter, she should have to compete straight on with men. She can cry that women aren't as big so it's bias. Well small guys should be able to say the same thing then. "Hey I'm 110lbs soaking wet, I should be a firefighter too!"

I've always said that women should be allowed in combat . . . as long as they can pass the same tests that the men have to. No sense in weakening our entire military to accommodate, right?

Amy wrote:

moon111 wrote:I can't stand when women and men get two different tests for the same job. To me, if a woman wants to be a firefighter, she should have to compete straight on with men. She can cry that women aren't as big so it's bias. Well small guys should be able to say the same thing then. "Hey I'm 110lbs soaking wet, I should be a firefighter too!"

I've always said that women should be allowed in combat . . . as long as they can pass the same tests that the men have to. No sense in weakening our entire military to accommodate, right?

I have two friends, both women, who do an outstanding job for the military. But neither should ever be considered for an elite fighting unit. I have seen combat fatigues made for pregnant women. That's just not right. LOL

I agree, everyone should have equal opportunity for everything, regardless of race or gender. The best person should get the job, not the person who will fill the correct minority requirements.