sbl...@ubishops.ca wrote:
> Michael (Smith) rejoined:
>> It seems to me, people who can't read shouldn't be hired as firefighters
>>
>
> Not necessarily. When my house is burning down, among the skills I'd like
> to see in those who arrive to put the fire out, an ability to read
> wouldn't be tops on my list. I'd put bravery, skill, decisiveness, and
> strength higher.
How about knowledge about putting out different kinds of fires? Where
does such knowledge come from? Almost certainly books.
> Also, resistance to heat. Give me Asbestosman any day
> over Nerdy Readerman for that particular job.
>
> But the question itself is interesting. As the Black workers were denied
> promotion, perhaps the test wasn't of fire-fighting ability but of
> ability to push a pencil.
This wasn't basic fire fighting test. It was a test to be promoted to
captain. I'm guessing by the time one gets to captain, one already know
a lot about fire fighting. This is more of an administration and
leadership position.
> I imagine that the Supremes decided the case on narrow issues of law
> rather than considering the validity of the test. But if the test does
> poorly in selecting who would be best for the job but produces results
> which diverge by skin colour, wouldn't it be discriminatory to
> nevertheless use it for selection purposes?
>
I'm guessing all the various court levels decide these cases on the
basis of (their interpretation of) the law. I'm also guessing that the
US supreme court is currently packed with a lot more arch-conservatives
("strict constructionists" is the polite legal term) than the
Connecticut court. Sotomayor replacing Suitor will change little.
(Funny how "strict constructionism" doesn't seem to extend to the
continuation of slavery. That's how the "Founders" saw things. If the
constitution isn't a "living document" -- if we are not able to discover
particular implications of general principles that even the framers, in
their wisdom were unable to see (or unwilling to accept) -- then there
can be no legal justification for abolition. It seems to that
"constructionists" are only "strict" from about 1964 on.) :-)
Chris
--
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada
416-736-2100 ex. 66164
chri...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
==========================
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
