Greetings from Tonopah, Nevada. I am meandering west at the moment en route to join a group hiking in the High Sierras. Soon I shall be lugging my camera and tripod at high altitude.
To get in the mood, my bedtime reading last night was the Supreme Court ruling on the New Haven firemen's case. I wrote a column about the case before the court ruled. A few things about the ruling--and about the case, now the ruling has taught me more about it--surprised me.
The court decided 5-4 (again) for the firemen and against the city, overturning Sonia Sotomayor. As Stuart Taylor says at National Journal, all nine disagreed with Sotomayor's summary judgment upholding the city's decision to void the promotions test. Even the minority wanted the lower court to take another look. But it seems I was mistaken when I said there was no dispute over efforts to ensure the test was fair. This is very much what the minority disputes. In their view, apparently, "disparate impact" remains strong prima facie evidence of "disparate treatment", or discrimination.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the minority, seems to find it hard to believe that a fair test could have produced such a lopsided outcome. At first sight, that may seem reasonable enough--except for the evidence, related at length, of the efforts made to assure fairness. I think Ginsburg is grasping at straws somewhat when she talks, for instance, of possibly unequal access to test-prep materials. They are all firemen, after all.