Firefighters victims of discrimination

Terrible decision!
I agree with President Obama and Judge Sotomayor: government racial discrimination is moral, and legal, when the government discriminates against Whites. It's only immoral and illegal when the government discriminates against Blacks.

Justice Served! Nice try Sotomayor.

Amen!!!! It is time for people to stand on their own merit and achieve success based on performance not race. There was absolutely no blatant discrimination in this case. Everyone had the same opportunity to take this test, study for it, and do the best of your ability. All races in this country have the same opportunities and if you don't make them. Take advantage of the educational system that is free. I grew up poor, but as my Mom said to me get an education and go to college, it is the only way out of poverty. She is/was right. So to all of you people out there proclaiming racism and discrimination--get over it and move on with your life. There is no free lunch except for all the meals that the taxpayers are providing the kids in CPS!

Good thing Sotomayor was not sitting on the Supreme Court or those firefighter would have lost this. It was a horrible descision on her part in the first place. And this is the person Obama has in mind for the Supreme Court. Will he ever do anything right?

Yay! Finally the poor oppressed white man sees justice! The centuries of oppression may be ending. Perhaps soon, a white man will have the equal opportunities to be not only a fireman, but a CEO, or even, someday President! We've been held down for so long by the all powerfull minorities. I never dreamed a day like this could come!

Wow. Such opinionated comments! Does nobody acknowledge that this is a gray area? Of course I agree that there should be no race-based hiring discrimination. But, the government has a vested interest in promoting a racially diverse workforce. How do you propose that we, as a society, solve this problem? Stop being so critical of those that are trying to do the right thing and offer some concrete solutions of your own. As for those of you that might feel this makes a difference to Ms. Sotomayor's chances of confirmation: it clearly does not. There is no strong coalition opposing her confirmation in the senate. Right or wrong...it's already over.

Wow. Such opinionated comments! Does nobody acknowledge that this is a gray area? Of course I agree that there should be no race-based hiring discrimination. But, the government has a vested interest in promoting a racially diverse workforce. How do you propose that we, as a society, solve this problem? Stop being so critical of those that are trying to do the right thing and offer some concrete solutions of your own. As for those of you that might feel this makes a difference to Ms. Sotomayor's chances of confirmation: it clearly does not. There is no strong coalition opposing her confirmation in the senate. Right or wrong...it's already over.

This warrants serious consideration - should we really make someone a Supreme Court judge when their decisions are constantly overruled?

Activist conservative judges legislating from the bench again. How typical.

Red Blooded is totally wrong, since Souter was in the minority and Sotomayor is replacing him. You still have the same 5 majority votes.

The good thing is that the 4 most intelligent justices agreed Sotomayor's position.

There really are too many white guys on the court.

Eddie: The RIGHT thing is an objective examination that tests knowledge that an officer in a fire department would be expected to know. The subject exam met those criteria - in fact, it was specially drafted in order to meet those criteria AND eliminate any taint of "cultural bias." In short, you want to score high - you study - you study hard. Too bad about the results - but the most qualified scored the highest. Affirmative action rationalizing has gone overboard - it is time to reign it in. Too many black americans think affirmative action is the easy way to get ahead - maybe this will inspire some to hit the books, acquire the knowledge and then test - instead of threatening lawsuits when they aren't automatically awarded a given percentage of competitive positions.

Thank god that the superme court made the correct decision. It is wrong to discriminate agains anyone for thier race no matter if they are black, hispanic, or even white. If the test was all about skills and non of the black firefighters passed I sure would not want them coming around leading the brigade when my house was on fire. I want somebody who has thier job becasue they are competant and not somebody who recieved it based on the need to be politically correct.

and to William douglass, maybe if you actually worked hard the minority community would achieve more. expecting special treatment without puttin in the work is absurd. and the goverment IS IMMORAL AND ILLEGAL TO DICSCRIMINATE AGAINST ANYONE, ESPECIALLY WHITES, AS THEY HAVE DONE OVERTLY SINCE THE 60'S

Time for people in this country to stand on their own two feet. It's a nice thought. But the ostriches in this forum need to take their head out of the sand. The particular ruling in this case was taken to mean racism still existed. It still does today. I agree blacks should stand on their own two feet where no discrimination exists. But don't take away the ability of the government to deal with it where it is still present. To Red-blooded American: Grow up- this does not mean she is a bad choice! Once again a wingnut takes a stupid shot at Obama!

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

It is wonderful that the Supreme Court held up the dream of Dr. King.

Posted by: Wolfgang | June 29, 2009 1:39 PM
Posted by: Justin | June 29, 2009 1:42 PM
Gee Not much generalization or stereotyping there, huh? How can anyone believe that there is racism in this country when we have great thinkers like Wolfgang and Justin around to point out that it is the general flaws of minorities that lead them to not do as well as the harder studying whites?

Hey Justin, want to tell us why it is especially bad to discriminate against whites?

Disgusted: yes it does mean she's a bad choice! The fact that her ruling was overturned means that she made an incorrect ruling, and this has happened with her rulings repeatedly. An objective judge ruling solely by the law does not get overruled like this. A subjective judge who rules by emotion and preference does have their rulings overturned, and as a result this person is a bad choice for the highest court in this country.

As much as elected Republicans may try to hide their bigoted attacks on Sotomayor by letting other Wingnuts fling the mud (Gingrich, Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs etc), that distinction isn't going to be made by Latinos watching on the sidelines. They know who pulls the strings in the modern GOP, and the longer they drag this out, and the nastier they behave, the more they'll lose a demographic that is projected to be 30 percent of the American population in 2050.

Without young voters or Latinos, the GOP can't win. They've done a fantastic job of alienating the former with their opposition to equality, and they're about to finish off the latter courtesy of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings.

Considering that the Census Bureau expects the nation to be only 46 percent non-Hispanic, single-race white in 2050, the GOP's continued shoddy treatment of people who don't look like "President" Newt or Boss Limbaugh is only solidifying their journey toward fringe status.

Congratulations!. They finally did something right. The city council
was totally out of line with their
action. But then again what else would you expect with this crazy world and all the political correctness, thing going on.

anyone old enough to remember the debates on the 64 civil rights bill. those that fought it said it would mean quotas affirmative action no way said humbert humphrey anything in this bill that means that i will eat it page by page the bill was suppose to mean ya can discrimnate based on race period so why do 4 justices say you can.What about study hard work hard you get ahead thats what the fire fighters did.They won and should have to those that understand equal protection under law

This is only a very minor set back for Queen Latina and her racist agenda. Barry will have her legistating from the bench very soon.

White guys acting like the victim again. When will they stop complaining all the time and just get on with their lives. White guys always play the race card like this.

Two of the fire fighters denied promotion were HISPANIC!

The fact that Sotomayor's position was upheld by four justices, including the one she will be replacing, Souter, shows that she is far from being outside the mainstream in the issue.

But Republicans are going to run with that attack line.

I say let them. The more they whine about how white people are persecuted, the more non-white people won't ever vote for Republicans.

A couple of dozen white guys get discriminated against: A cause for outrage. These poor, poor men!

Millions of African Americans get discriminated against for hundreds of years: Get over it. Stop your whining.

I guess Stalin was right. One is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.

Wingnuts will raise this issue in her hearings, but in the final analysis, it won't make a bit of difference. Sotomayor did not write that ruling and the other two judges who heard the case -- both GOP appointees -- concurred in the ruling.

What this proves is that the conservative bloc on the Supreme Court is highly activist, deliberately misconstruing the language of statutes to overturn the clear intent, and ignoring precedent they disagree with on ideological grounds.

I can't wait to see the Right-Wing fake outrage/noise machine spin cycle on this one. they have nothing against her so they'll make up stuff and hang on to any silly argument.

I say, let'em eat mofongo!(tasty Puerto Rican dish).

In my opinion this was a hard decision. I tend to think that this is a case of the court meddling in something that wingnuts have always argued they should not do.t. However there is the issue of individual rights. Since Clarence Thomas is consistently against individual rights as his strip search decision shows he is being inconsistent on this one.

Those who support this opinion are engaged in group think and are ignoring judicial activism because they are wingnuts. I probably tend to sympathize with their position however. I assure everyone that I have considered both sides and have not come to this conclusion because I like to take advantage of the disadvantaged. I am not a conservative after all.

Posted by: Ken | June 29, 2009 2:01 PM

And what do you call yourself? Clearly, you're the kind who would deep-six any kind of standards, education, or any other knowledge pre-requisite if it means a minority can't beat a caucasian. And you think you're niot a racist? You are - of the reverse variety.

Back at 2:32 this afternoon. Oh God I hope this isn’t the maria many bloggers are familiar with on FOX’s blog site.

Anyhow, in response to “without young voters or latinos, the GOP can’t win”. You’re correct in noting young, inexperienced, voters and ILLEGALS carry the day for Dems.

That’s something the Repubs are gonna have to get over and adopt a willingness to fashion some kind of “come on” that appeals to them, pronto! Then set about cutting‘ into that block the Dems have exploited.

If you take into consideration it would’ve only have taken something between 3-4% of the vote to swing the election the other way that‘s not a terribly demanding goal to pursue. Repubs have also got to get over their scruples of being fair and explore to the hilt deceptive election practices and campaign financing skills to get out the vote.

Oh maria, if that comes together you may have a long term case of diarrhea.

By the way a huge hooray for the New Haven Fire Fighters. This decision has demonstrated a sane and just philosophy and should point out how blacks can benefit from advancing themselves if they want to give it a chance to work for them. If they look to the politically correct diversity BS to give them opportunities they can’t demonstrate command of knowledge in and job skills for than they’re doomed to a disappointing future.

Lastly, who the hell can feel good about relying on those who can only offer you “second class” services?

This is the debate the country must have:

Forty years ago, affirmative action was a good rule.

At some point though, affirmative action must be disbanded and people are judged solely on their merits.

The question is - are we there as a country yet?

I think we are darn close.

I think we are darn close.
Posted by: Terry | June 29, 2009 8:51 PM
----------------------------------------
.

You got anymore "wisdom" you want to pass on to the people on this board who are all much smarter than you, Grand Wizard?

Those 3 Italians on the Court don't like blacks very much and don't like the President very much at all.
Roberto couldn't even recite the Oath of office straight in the swear-in.

Add a self-hating Thomas and you have 4.

Swinging Tony makes 5.

5/4: not a very stable basis for guidance in race relations.

9/0 was the vote Chief Justice Warren delivered in Brown v. Board of Education.

That was what we called in my day a "Landmark".

The very same angry old rich white guys who run the GOP, the one's who have been cultivating their followers to follow their base instincts such as race baiting xenophobia, war mongering, promoting enhanced interrogation techniques, and giving the wealthy continuous socialistic support, now want us to believe that Sotomayor is a racist against white guys? Ha Ha Ha!
.
http://www.truthout.org/060109J

Then set about cutting‘ into that block the Dems have exploited.If you take into consideration it would’ve only have taken something between 3-4% of the vote to swing the election the other way that‘s not a terribly demanding goal to pursue. Repubs have also got to get over their scruples of being fair and explore to the hilt deceptive election practices and campaign financing skills to get out the vote.Oh maria, if that comes together you may have a long term case of diarrhea.
Posted by: Dave | June 29, 2009 7:44 PM
****************************
.

Delusional Davey,
Do all of you wingnut cretins live in some sort of self made fantasyland? Or is it just the hardcore fringe nutobs like you?

Davey, if you GOPer clowns don't get your self made mess in order soon, there won't be any sort of Republican party left to speak of in a couple of years.
.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/the-incredible-shrinking-gop-only-one-in-five-self-identify-as-republican/

I've been watching the hateful trash the GOP and their blowhard mouth-pieces (Faux News, Rush Blimpbaugh etc) have been throwing at Sonia Sotomayor and thought alot about that lately. The hardcore right-wing have been accusing her of things that fall perfectly into that line of wisdom. They have called her a racist, unintellectual and, of course, a judicial activist.

But, what they say about her says more about them then it does about her.

Today's Supreme Court ruling striking down the lower court decision in the New Haven Firefighter case proves this; it is the latest, most perfect example of conservative, judicial activism.

Ever since January 20, 1981, the right wing, conservative movement have made it their business to install like-minded jurists. For almost three decades, the face of the American court system has travelled down the same road as the Republicans that nominated these people to the court.

But, while the left has been treated to a never ending barrage of activist accusations, the right have been the ones legislating from the bench. They have spent their time re-fighting and refining every piece of progressive legislation so that all regulations were stripped bare and those most compromised suffered the most.

It's Presidential elections, affirmative action, equal rights, and media industry contols. From the Supreme Court in Washington to town court in Lynchburg, Virginia, the true tearing at the seems of the American fabric has been done by judges with a conservative political agenda. Today, it's New Haven. Soon, it will be Title IX, Roe v Wade and even the First Amendment.

This is not a one shot deal. The very backbone of the American way of life, the heart that beats for all citizens, is at stake. If it continues, we may turn into an uncaring country where only the right is right and the left is left behind.

I think we are darn close.

Posted by: Terry | June 29, 2009 8:51 PM

Of course you do. You're still on top and want to keep it that way.

Tell us Terry, if we are "darned close" to racial equality, why is the unemployment rate of college educated African Americans almost twice that of college educated whiite Americans?

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/snapshots_20090422/

"...Today's Supreme Court ruling striking down the lower court decision in the New Haven Firefighter case proves this; it is the latest, most perfect example of conservative, judicial activism. ..."

Posted by: Nina Hernandez | June 29, 2009 11:37 PM

Nina- blah blah blah-lots of rhetoric - not a word of substance. Can you explain how the supreme court decision is "activist"? Sotomayor effectively voted "present" when handed this politically dangerous case- ...SCOTUS did not have that option.

@Heartburn:

Actually, you have it backwards. The Supreme Court had discretion whether to take the case; the Second Circuit did not. The Court's decision to take the case was no accident. The Court wanted to change the law and took a case that made it appealing to do so.

I find it appalling that so many of the posters here could pontificate and condemn the opinion of the Supreme Court as they have. I think it’s a fair bet that most who have criticized the case for its outcome haven’t even read the Supreme Court’s opinions. Oh no, that would be too hard. I also seriously doubt whether they understood the bizarre question the Supreme Court was asked to decide.
.
In layman’s terms this is the question the Court was asked to decide: Is it permissible for an employer to engage in intentional, racial discrimination against a group of employees in order to soften the unintentional, but disparate, racial impact that a particular employment practice has on employees of another race? One might even word the question simply as: Can an employer intentionally discriminate against some to avoid the appearance of discrimination against others?
.
If the Court had only the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“EPC”) to go by, the answer would have been a resounding “No.” The EPC only prohibits “invidious discrimination” - that is, intentional discrimination based on a prohibited factor such as race, color or national origin. Thus, if the EPC were the only controlling law, the City of New Haven would have had no trouble in confirming the promotion test results. There was no evidence of discriminatory intent in the formulation or administration of that test; none whatsoever. To the contrary, the company that formulated the test conducted interviews with minority fire fighters and administered questionnaires regarding their views on firefighting. These steps were taken for the explicit purpose of insuring the test was written without any cultural slant. The test was also written in 10th grade English despite the fact that all firemen were required to have a high school diploma. On top of this, the firemen were told the chapters and books the test questions would be taken from.
.
But not all was well in Mudville. By 1991, Congress had enacted two separate prohibitions in the civil rights law, both of which came into play, and which threatened to clamp the City of New Haven in a pincer-like manner. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits both intentional discrimination in employment (known as “disparate treatment”) as well as practices that are not intended to discriminate but in fact have a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities (known as “disparate impact”). Thus, while the City of New Haven didn’t have trouble because of any intentional discrimination, City officials became concerned that the promotion test results demonstrated a disparate impact because the pass rate for minority applicants was significantly lower than the pass rate of white applicants.
.
Under these circumstances, according to Title VII, the question for the City then became whether, despite the disparate impact, the test was both “job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.” In other words, an employment practice is not permissible if it tends to eliminate qualified minority candidates from employment or promotion for reasons unrelated to job performance. If there are alternate business practices that do not have the same disparate impact and still meet the employer’s legitimate interests, the refusal to adopt such reasonable alternatives will result in liability under Title VII. But that’s not the way it happened.
.
The problems for the City of New Haven started in earnest when they decided they had to act to remedy the disparate test results even though there was: (1) no evidence the test did not meet its business needs; (2) no evidence a better testing procedure existed that would also meet its needs while eliminating fewer qualified minority candidates; and (3) no evidence the City had the ability to implement an alternate testing procedure. Things got worse when the City then decided to throw out the test results because too many white candidates passed the test. That they did so was undisputed. According to the majority opinion, they engaged in this overt discrimination because of the “raw statistics” showing disparate impact.
.
In taking the case, the Court was faced with the difficult task of reconciling whether, and under what conditions, an employer could engage in discrimination to cure a case of disparate impact when both issues arise at the same time. Incredibly, the Court held that such disparate treatment could take place. (That’s incredible in light of the EPC.) However, in order to insure that disparate impact issues don’t spawn pretexts to create quota systems, the Court also imposed the additional requirement that employers have a “strong basis in evidence” that remedial action is necessary. By imposing this “strong basis in evidence” standard, the Court felt it was insuring that both the disparate treatment and disparate impact portions of Title VII would be effective, rather conflicting or nullifying one another. The white firemen won precisely because the City could not meet this burden by simply pointing to the statistical disparity in the test results (for the reasons stated above). Thus, contrary to the naysayers on this board, the Court actually ruled that employers are able to engage in reverse discrimination - but only when necessary to cure a concrete case in which employment practices have needlessly resulted in a disparate impact on minority employees.
.
Ominously, the Court avoided the question of whether Title VII’s disparate impact prohibition was constitutional. The Court specifically stated that, since the City didn’t meet its burden of proof under Title VII, it didn’t need to “decide whether a legitimate fear of disparate impact is ever sufficient to justify discriminatory treatment under the Constitution.” In his concurring opinion, Justice Scalia’s pointed out that, since the EPC prohibits governments from discriminating, it is anomalous to suggest that the government could pass al law permitting public and private employers to discriminate. Indeed, if the EPC prohibits only intentional discrimination, it is difficult to see how intentional discrimination could ever be constitutionally justified to remedy a problem that is caused by something less than intentional discrimination.
.
As for Sotomayor, I don’t believe anyone is going to have too much ammo against her because of this. She did what any red-blooded judge would do under the circumstances: she punted. Her Second Circuit Panel affirmed in a one paragraph opinion that stated the District Court’s published opinion adequately and properly disposed of the case. In other words, the case that came before the Supreme Court was not because of her faulty reasoning. It was because of the District Court’s faulty reasoning. It is only because of two strong dissenting opinions from the Second Circuit’s decision not to rehear the case en banc that the case arrived in the Supreme Court with legs. At worst, Sotomayor only failed to think very hard about the case. I don’t think that’s going to ruin her chances much.

Yes, John W is the only one allowed to Pontificate about the Supreme Court here in the Swamp! That is solely his perogative!
We are listening , oh great one. Pontificate further!

* * * * *
Posted by: John W's loyal public | June 30, 2009 4:06 PM
.
My beef was with people who had a lot to say without knowing what they were saying. It is obvious that most, if not all of them, had never read the case. If they had read the case, their comments would have been even dumber.
.
It would be nice to have a higher level discussion about the case. I guess, however, that such a discussion is unlikely given that I am stuck with snarky BS from the uninterested, uninteresting or intellectually incapable people like you.

Trickled On You,

Still tyrying to get out of the 3rd grade. Explain that math to me again - If you double nothing, you get one. Isn't that what you said once upon a time? Is that right John E?

John e - you might want to stop reading, this next part is math.

Marcus,

Discrimination could be a possible variable. Did the study take into account - what their college degrees were in? How about where they went to school? What were their GPA? Did the study factor age into the study? How about geographic location?

When you weed out all these other variables, come back to me with the study. Until then, youv'e got nothing.

Terry,Does it hurt having your head buried that deep in the sand? Are you seriously saying that you don't belive that the vast difference in unemployment rate isn't primarily based on racism? Are you unintelligent enough to not be able to figure out that the variables you speak of would tend to balance out over the size of these populations, or that, in fact, any difference would likely be themselves evidence of racism? Or is it that you understand that it's the result of racism and that nbyou are just bfine with it because it benefits you?

* * * * *
Posted by: Marcus | July 1, 2009 9:32 AM
.
I agree with you that racial discrimination is still a major problem, and that the statistics you cite tend to prove it. However I can also see what Terry is saying, albeit in not such absolute terms.
.
If, for instance, a young college graduate lived in Tennessee or West Virginia, I can see how he or she might have a hard time finding a job for reasons entirely unrelated to race. That’s because everyone has a hard time finding a job in the more depressed areas of the country. (Although I can also see how discrimination might compound and even mask the problem in the same areas.) So, yes, geographic location can play an important part. Making comparisons between people situated in depressed areas and those in affluent areas generate statistical data that are skewed by the lack of access to jobs that generally prevail in one area and not the other. The statistics would be more valuable if comparisons were made among employment rates within given areas before being factored into statistics nationwide.
.
Also, the subject matter of a person’s college major can provide major obstacles in finding and/or keeping suitable employment. I had trouble finding a job after getting out of college. I had to go back to school and earn a professional degree before I could find a job, much less one commensurate with my education. On the other hand, a person with a degree in business, management, accounting, chemistry, education, and the like - have job skills that are more immediately marketable than say, for instance, a person with a degree in English literature, philosophy, or history (which, by the way, were my double-major and minor as an undergrad). This factor can actually be compounded by local demographics. A glut of teachers and chemists in one area of the country, for instance, might make finding suitable employment hard for would-be teachers or chemists.
.
And yes, factors such as age, GPA and the reputation of one’s school do account, to a lesser degree, for potential employers’ decisions to hire or not.
.
However, what I find compelling about the statistics you cite is the raw disparity. In particular, the 2.7% to 7.2% unemployment rate of blacks between March 2007 and March 2009 tends to show that layoff practices have burdened black people substantially more than others. That means college educated black people who were able to find a job (thus eliminating all the geographic, educational and other hiring issues) were still more than twice as likely to be without a job after the recession hit. I can’t imagine how to account for that other than by the existence of racism.

John, I see your point, but I think in alot of the cases you mention, racism is having strong secondary or even primary effects causing the other variables. Are the depressed areas depressed because they are primarily minority areas and haven't seen the same level of investment that non minority areas have? Is the school with the better reputation also and older more well known school that has had primarily a white demographic where minorities have had lesser access and opportunity? Is it a more expensive school which minority groups that are still facing a wealth gap have more difficulty affording?

Marcus,

Better to have one's head buried in the sand than stuck in a bodily crack.

Back to the issue - What I am saying is your quoted study is flawed.

Here's an example. Take two recent graduates from the University of Illinois. Both are male. Both have electrical engineering degrees. Both have 3.5 GPA's. Both are 23. Both apply for the same job. Both show up for the interview on time and are dressed professionally. Both have a good grasp of the English language and conduct thier interview professionally. The only difference between the two canidates is one is black and one is white. Who is hired?

If the employer is the federal gov't - odds are, very good odds, the black canidate is hired. If the employer is corporate America, the odds are still in the black canidates favor. Before you go whinning, face this fact - corporate America is dying to hire the minoirty canidate that I just described.

Also, Marcus - have you ever hired anybody in you job? I've hired 20 employees during my career. The HR departments make it a point if a qualified minoirty canidate presents themselves - make sure and make them an offer.

John W,

A reason for those layoffs when the recession hit could be that those college grads are younger than the white college grads. In today's litigious society, corporations are extra careful not even to give the appearance that layoffs are racially motivated.

Terry-

Rubbish . Absolute Rubbish. You have no facts to back that up at all. The facts are that African Americans have a higher unemployment rate at every level of education than whites. If it was as you claim, the opposite would be true. You simply are ignoring the facts and are substituting your own suppositions in their place. Do you have any "unflawed" studies that show that African American have better employment opportunities than whites? Do you have any statistics that show African Americans have actually been laid off less in No, I'm sure you don't. I'm equally sure you will keep telling yourself that African Americans are actually a privledged class when it comes to employment, independant of fact and reality.

Marcus,

I have my life experiences as a hiring manager. Have you ever hired anybody?

Go give my example to some HR departments and see what they say.

I'll stand my analysis of the flawed study you prevented and all the missing variables the study should have included. Once you have a grasp of statistics. Come back and chat - otherwise go back to school and take a stats class. One that covers regressions with mutliple varaibles.

Yes Terry, I've hired a great many more people than you.

I note that again your post is entirely devoid of fact or substantiation. Again you substitute your narrow impressions for actual facts. This leads you to strange and bizarre notions like that somehow, over the entire population, the pool of African American collge graduates is skewed enough younger than the pool of White college graduates to account for double the unemployment rate. Is that the quality of thinking you bring to your job? I have to question at this point how you have a job if this exchange is representative of the quality of thinking and analysis you are capable of. Do you just ignore facts you don't like at work?

Marcus,

These people that you alledged you hired, can you give me a racial breakdown of them? What % were white? blck? hispanic?, asian?

Have had a job with three different employers for over a quarter of century - never laid-off, never fired.

I look at the facts, all the facts, not just the facts that fit into my paradigm of the world. Unlike you, I don't look at only the facts that will fit into the Jesse Jackson view of the world.

All you need to do is present a study that singles in only on the variable of race, and then we can have a rational and logiocal discussion. Until then, go back to school and take some statitic classes.