The city of New Haven, Connecticut, had a test for promotion of firefighters. White candidates did better than nonwhites on the test. Does this show that the test was biased? That's one explanation, but there are others, such as racial differences in intelligence or self-control. The editorial board of the New York Times is convinced that the test is biased, but gives no reason in support of that belief. What is the purpose of a test if it is ignored whenever it doesn't give the "right" results? Does anyone doubt that if the test had resulted in many nonwhite candidates being promoted, the board would support it wholeheartedly? This is a perfect example of result-oriented reasoning. If the test produces the "right" result (by progressive standards), it is a fair test. If it does not produce the "right" result, it is biased. Heads I win, tails you lose.
Addendum: Is there a better example than this of progressive thinking keeping racial tensions alive? Imagine the resentment felt by the white candidates for promotion, whose hard work and sacrifices went unrewarded. What was the purpose of the test, if not to promote those who did well on it? It looks as though the test was a sham, designed to benefit nonwhites at the expense of whites. How is that fair? Most white people who read about this case will feel vicarious resentment. If nonwhites who failed the test end up being promoted, their self-respect will suffer. How is that good for race relations, not just within the fire department but in society at large? To paraphrase Chief Justice John Roberts, the best way to end discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 