Firefighters' Case Shouldn't Haunt Sotomayor (click here)
By Eva Rodriguez
Make no mistake about it: The case of Ricci v. DeStefano will come back to haunt Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. In a fair world, it wouldn't.
A sharply divided 5-4 Supreme Court this morning overruled a decision issued by Sotomayor and two colleagues on the New York-based federal appeals court. Sotomayor upheld New Haven, Conn.'s decision to throw out tests for leadership posts in its fire department. The city took the action after test results showed that only white or Hispanic firefighters scored high enough to qualify for promotion; under this test, no African-American firefighters made the grade....
The real question is, why have caucasians done so well in leadership and primarily caucasian males? Some of that 'equation' is a 'cultural' issue. Not socio-economic, but, the 'culture' of leadership in American institutions. And yes, business and government are institutions with different 'characteristics.'
We all know the expressions, "The Good 'Ole Boys Club," "The Glass Ceiling." They are real and not just expressions. They are real dynamics that provide barriers to accomplishments by minorities, including white women. As an example I offer 'The Good 'Ole Boys Over Reaching Club of Goldman Sachs.' (Correction : There may have been one token Black Man in the mix.)
When one looks at the men that come out of the institution to 'service' the government rhelm, they are all white men. So, I don't want to hear how there is NO problem in the USA with advancement of minorities, including white women, just because a 'limited' and 'hostile' Supreme Court made a ruling that is supposed to 'end it.' This does not 'end it.' It opens the country to a vulnerability of continued poor standards in the 'culture' of business and government.
The 'idea' of advancement in leadership should come with a well rounded background. But. Who provides the 'opportunity' to that background? Ideally, the 'process' should be as if the choice for a leadership position were blind to any dynamics, except, those needed for the leadership position. When a test is administered to 'find' advancement it should not be the do all and end all, but, a 'tool' for evaluation.Some people don't do well on tests, yet perform beyond any expectations in 'the field.' There is a reason for that. It was absolutely correct to eradicate the test as a 'tool' to 'decide' a new leadership position. When there is a stark difference in the scores of minorities to their majority peers all kinds of red flags should go up. Absolutely, without a doubt.
The underlying message to this Supreme Court decision is that everyone needs to study harder and with better concentration. What? It 'implies' those that did not do well are inferior to their peers that did well, hence a better leadership choice based on study habits. The Robert's Supreme Court today 'decided' to back 'a test' and not performance of someone that was to 'apply' 'knowledge' to leadership of a very dangerous profession. They literally 'dummied down' the options for achieving the best outcome. It is a hideous decision today. Absolutely.
Reading and writing has a place in determining leadership, however, that is a characteristic one needs to achieve to succeed at all. All to often 'tests' for 'placing' people in leadership positions are based in 'how to play the game.' In other words, 'What would your decision be if presented with X, Y, Z dynamics. As an executive what would be the best choice for 'organizing' decision making. Applying 'learned skills' to decision making based on 'what it best for the fire fighter' responding to a fire is not a matter of 'business decision making,' but, one of 'dynamic' decision making.Should there ever be a departure from that? Is there a position within leadership for fire fighters that should depart from 'experience' into a 'business' decision? Not in my opinion. Any fire fighter needs RADIOS that work. That decision to make the best choice of radio for fire fighters could have saved lives on September 11, 2001.
There is not necessarily 'right or wrong' dynamics, but, more 'learned experience' application to those decisions. I doubt seriously any written test, even in essay, could bring the 'knowledge' of fire fighting to bear equitably to a candidate. No fire fighter has the very same experience as another. The choices minorities are making in applying for employment might very well be with other minorities where cultural backgrounds are not issues when working together. After all, fire fighting is life and death to any person involved, be it the professional responding or the victim.
The choices of fire fighters to their particular interest in serving in the field are based on intimate dynamics. These people pratically live together and know each other's personality well. They have preferences in what their companies are composed. It was about a year, maybe more, ago that a gay fire fighter was literally beaten by a peer. I don't site that as a 'fact' to this case, but, as an example of the underlying dynamics to being a part of a fire company.
I am quite confident the State of Connecticut did not go out of their way to compose a test that was discriminatory, however, the application of the test to the candidates proved there were severe deficits to the ability of all the candidates to apply their experience and knowledge. With that reality comes a decision itself. That decision SHOULD have lead to 'first' an evaluation of the candidates that were 'excluded' from doing well and why. Why indeed were minorities performing poorly on a very important test that I am confident every one of them took seriously? It is a question even today that has not been answered.
Today, the Supreme Court prohibited that question to take place. It excluded 'statistics' based in race, religion, culture or gender to be a 'factor' in preparation of tests to advancement. That is dangerous beyond any imaginary 'line' that exists which acts as a discriminatory 'tool.' The decision today is one of the most horrendous ever made by the Supreme Court. The decision was minimally biased if not bigoted itself. From where I stand it was an act of anger against the 'melting pot' that complicates the landscape of the USA. Make no doubt about it, the landscape of the populous of this country does not allow for efficiency so much as challenge. The Supreme Court failed the challenge today. No doubt in my mind. Attempting to 'simplify' the USA only makes it all worse. It just doesn't work. It is the nature of the beast.
