MSM Editorials of Ricci

On Monday, the Ricci v. DeStefano was ruled in favor of the firefighters by a 5-4 decision. This represents the first high-profile affirmative action/race-based hiring case since the 2003 University of Michigan Law school ruling. The Ricci case pertains to the race/intelligence debate as HBD underpins the disparate racial testing scores. Unsurprisingly, this consistent facet of standardized testing has been altogether absent from public discourse concerning Ricci. Ironically, the unthinkable fact of racial intelligence differences could easily place these test results, and the subsequent controversy, into the proper context. Namely, these scores are nothing new.

Assuming not one MSM source would mention HBD, I decided to investigate what the MSM thought of the decision. First, I'll provide the appropriate explanation of the case, from Sailer:

However, it never seems to occur to Bazelon to look at the countless similar situations in which whites, on average, both out-test and out-perform blacks and Hispanics. For example, New Haven’s own Yale Law School makes intensive use of the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). It has a black-white gap comparable to the New Haven firefighter’s tests: the median black law school hopeful would score at only the 12th percentile among whites.

Now let's look at the other side. From the USA Today opinion section, which covers views from their editorial board and columnists:

The other message from the decision is that rigid tests are a lousy way to fill leadership positions in public safety departments. New Haven could also drop its test in favor of "assessment centers" to measure officer candidates. Rather than just test scores, this method relies on role playing, emergency scenarios, group discussions, written exercises and interviews to assess potential officers.

The war against objectivity soldiers on. From The Washington Post editorial:

a city board ultimately declined to certify the test, in part because of questions about whether it was irrevocably and discriminatorily flawed.

Fails to mention that a testing consultant deemed the test was fair and then offered another independent study of it that the city refused. Racial egalitarian assumption underlies this statement.

We had urged the justices to send the case back to the trial court to determine, once and for all, whether New Haven was right in concluding the test was discriminatory and unusable...But the justices acted too soon and assumed too much, and in the process unjustifiably chipped away at a law meant to protect against unfairness.

Clearly, these columnists think "unfairness" applies to the actual test. From The Boston Globe editorial:

And they are sure to fuel opposition to affirmative action, which is still sorely needed in a diverse society.

Well I think we know where this is headed.

the four dissenting justices have the better case. No one has a right to a promotion.

Of course not. But does passing an oral exam/interview and a test with relevance to on-job skills make a good case for promotion?

Minority applicants have trouble moving up in the department, when social networks and even the union representing firefighters seem stacked toward white applicants

But just blame it on whitey. OK I'll give them the benefit of the doubt here. Yet, the OBJECTIVE test was implemented to mitigate unfair department politics.

The city went so far as to pay $100,000 to a testing consultant to develop an exam free of racial bias. What’s strange is that the city failed to take simpler steps that might have yielded more minority officers. New Haven gives preference in hiring to city residents, most of whom are black or Hispanic, but not in promotion decisions.

Another expensive test yielding the same old results!? And of course they don't give preference to city residents. Being a captain and planning a urgent rescue is a little more important and takes a little more ability than sitting behind a desk filling out forms or taking phone calls. They use affirmative action for hiring and not promotion in order to put some of the NAMs in menial positions. Thereby, they avoid discrimination lawsuits, but do not diminish department effectiveness.

Finally, from the San Francisco Chronicle editorial:

The U.S. Supreme Court undermined a key part of federal civil-rights employment law on affirmative action Monday with its ruling in favor of white firefighters in Connecticut who claimed they were unfairly denied promotions because of their race.

Remember civil-rights only apply to NAMs, not WCMs.

In vigorous dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said there was "substantial evidence of multiple flaws in the tests" and the ruling would make it harder to challenge hidden biases in workplaces. Barriers to opportunity in this society, though sometimes subtle or unintentional, still exist.

"Multiple flaws" means white people score better than NAMs. That must mean every test is "flawed". "Barriers to opportunity" (always the kind you never notice): please see this.

Let me make clear that the black firefighters who did not achieve promotion are still to be commended for their bravery and public service. Criticism should be directed solely at the cowardly New Haven city administration and not the individuals their decision was intended to defend.