Standardized Testing Is Racist, Says Holder

Yesterday, I discussed how the Obama administration considers standardized testing for school kids to be boring and punitive. For those students who were bored and frightened and have now moved into the adult world, standardized testing is also racist. Obama merely made suggestions about testing in the schools, but Attorney General Eric Holder is putting our tax money where his big mouth is to stop "racist" standardized testing for crucial public employment. In this case, a police department.

The City of Dayton, Ohio requires a two-part written examination for prospective police officers. In order to be considered for employment, applicants must get 66% correct (57 out of 86) on the first part, and 72% correct (73 out of 102) on the second part. 57 out of 231 black applicants passed the exam. There were approximatley 1,100 total applicants. Only 25% of blacks scored sufficiently to be considered, while nearly 60% of white applicants scored high enough. Using the leftist "result-oriented" approach, Holder's Justice Department simply ordered Dayton to lower the scores required for passing.

Rather than carefully investigate the questions on the test for possible racial bias, Holder used the power of his office to order a municipal branch of an independent State to change its procedures without a single constitutional reason or legal precedent for doing so. Oh, naturally, Holder bases his order on civil rights statutes which may or may not apply. He neglected to notice that racial bias must now be proven rather than merely alleged. Legal niceties like burden of proof simply get in the way of the Obama/Holder concept of social justice. No problem for Holder. It must be racism because he says it is.

By Holder's order, on the first part of the test, the passing grade was reduced to 58%, and 63% on the second. What would formerly have been an F becomes a barely-passing D. Using the new standard, 258 more applicants passed than under the earlier standard. Many of them were black, and that was enough to satisfy Holder's sense of fair play, if not the law or the Constitution. Never mind that this will once again inflame racial animosities on both sides for no good reason.

Clearly, this is nonsense on stilts. Dumbed-down tests for employment as a disposable file clerk are bad. Dumbed-down tests for police officers are downright dangerous. Holder had no proof or even indication that there was any racial bias in the questions. He simply didn't like the numbers. Dayton will of course appeal, unless the local politicians are either cowards or race-baiting Democrats. They certainly have clear and recent precedent for overturning Holder's order.

Ricci v DeStefano (the New Haven Firefighters' Case) decided just last year is dispositive if it turns out the Dayton questions were race-neutral. The sole difference in the two cases is that in New Haven it was a promotion exam and in Dayton it was an entrance exam. That distinction has no impact on the legal reasoning. The argument of "disparate impact" is no longer valid unless there is a clear and purposeful intent to discriminate on the basis of race, or gross negligence in the application of the tests so as to produce the disparate impact. Neither can be proven here. If it gets to the US Supreme Court, we already know how Justice Sotomayor will vote, since it was her idiotic opinion at the Court of Appeals in the Ricci case that was soundly overturned.

What is interesting is two unexpected supporters of the old standards have emerged. One is Keith Lander, Dayton chapter president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Lander made an official statement which said: "Lowering the test scores is insulting to black people. The DOJ is creating the perception that black people are dumb by lowering the score. It's not accomplishing anything."

The other voice was that of Dayton NAACP president Derrick Foward, who said: "The NAACP does not support individuals failing a test and then having the opportunity to be gainfully employed. If you lower the score for any group of people, you're not getting the best-qualified people for the job." Well, I guess that means I owe the NAACP one small apology. At least one chapter seems to understand true racial discrimination, and this case isn't it. In light of my post yesterday, I should add that this comports with my criticism of high school graduates who can't read their own diplomas.