Socialist Action

 

SOCIALIST

ACTION

 

 - home page

 - newspaper
 - subscribe
 - distribute

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Supreme Court Takes Sides

by Joe Auciello  / September 2009

 

The practice seems straightforward enough: Let a civil service exam, open to all, determine who will be eligible for promotion in city and state departments. Those with the highest scores receive the available positions.Certainly this more objective method is preferable to the old system of racial and ethnic discrimination, corruption, patronage, and getting ahead by “who you know.”

 

So, to qualify as a teacher of English, I was required to take the literature portion of the National Teachers’ Exam.Questions included selections from poetry, such as the following: “Hail to thee, blithe spirit / _____ thou never wert.” One scored well by remembering that the correct word for the blank was “bird.” Additional points were gained by remembering that the author was Percy Bysshe Shelley.

 

The key word here—and the basis for success on the National Teachers’ Exam—is “remember.” The prime value on the test, the most decisive quality, was factual recall of specific information. The test did not determine one’s aptitude to interpret poetry well; it did not show whether a teacher candidate had any love of poetry or the ability to impart those skills and feelings to students. In short, the teaching test did not measure the ability to teach.

 

As it turned out, I fared quite well on the National Teachers’ Exam.  Nonetheless, a 98% score was not sufficient to land a job in the Boston public schools. Black candidates who scored even 20 points lower were hired instead. 

 

Choosing to hire minorities despite test scores was the right decision.  For years, Boston city schools were largely closed to minority teachers. A policy of de facto segregation worked to the advantage of whites. To correct that injustice, to restore some element of fairness, the advantage had to be tipped in favor of Blacks. That was the sensible, practical decision.

 

The same principle applies in a recent affirmative action-type conflict in New Haven, Conn. As part of the requirements for job promotion in the fire department, candidates had to take a multiple choice objective test which counted for 60% of the total examination. The resulting test scores largely favored white candidates; though Black candidates passed the exam, none performed well enough for the 15 available officer positions.

 

This result was entirely predictable.  For reasons that are beyond the scope of this article, it is well known that, as a group, Blacks score lower than whites on standardized tests. (For an insightful analysis, see Richard Rothstein, “Class and Schools”). In addition to the questionable value of a multiple choice exam, then, the test was almost certain to show skewed results on the basis of race, as, in fact, it did.

 

Consequently, the Civil Service Board in New Haven threw out the test results. Eighteen firefighters—17 whites  and one Latino—promptly sued the city. These individuals, who might otherwise have been promoted, claimed they were victims of racial and ethnic discrimination.

 

Their case was rejected by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, a court that included Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Last June, in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled (5-4) against New Haven ’s decision and reversed the findings of the Court of Appeals (see the August Socialist Action for a report on the case). 

 

The court majority’s judgment rested on false reasoning. The court concluded that the exam was valid because it was “job related.” No doubt this is true, but, as the National Teachers’ Exam shows, “related” may not be relevant. The court did not question whether the pencil and paper test actually revealed the skills necessary to function effectively as an officer in a city fire department.

 

To accept the test scores as the key factor in promotion meant advancing no Black candidates to lieutenant or captain in a city almost 40% Black. The resulting adverse social effects of that decision cannot be measured by a multiple-choice exam. New Haven was right to discard the test results and look for a better means of job promotion.  The city should have done so in the first place.

 

Nor does it matter that multiple-choice testing was the preferred choice of the firefighters’ union and part of their contract. This provision was included decades ago at the initiative of an all-white fire department.  While the racial and ethnic composition of the department has changed, the procedures for promotion have not.  Here is another way in which bias is hidden.

 

The question, ultimately, before the Supreme Court were the issues of fairness and racial preference. The court had to decide whether race was still a significant factor in limiting success for Blacks in American life. Despite ample evidence to the contrary, the conservative court said no, that in the “land of the free” every individual is equal before the law. In effect, the court said that institutional racism does not exist, that inequality in everyday life is of no real consequence. Racism, said the court, was no factor because the Black firefighters were free to take the exam.

 

The Supreme Court’s ruling will make racial equality even more difficult to achieve. In fact, they see no merit to the goal. This decision shows once again that the struggle for justice will first be won in the streets before it is recognized by the courts.

 

Human Needs, Not Profits!