Sotomayor rebuked by would-be colleagues
The Supreme Court Justices have just made a ruling in favor of the white firefighters in Bias Case. The Supreme Court ruled that in New Haven Conn. were unfairly denied promotions because of their race. This means that the Supreme Court reversed a decision that Sonia Sotomayor, a Supreme Court nominee, endorsed as an appeals coourt judge.
This was a case of racism pure and simple. There have been absolutely NO firefighters promoted since the firefighters having taken the exam, which was for consideration of promotion in the New Haven Fire Department. These white firefighters were not considered for promotion, after passing the exam with flying colors, because there were no African Americans that had good enough results on the exam to be eligible for promotion.This is an exam that was approved for ALL people coming from various ethnic backgrounds to take by the city of New Haven. Then, afterward New Haven wants to say that the exam showed favoritism towards whites, but only after the exam results were known-that no African Americans were eligible for promotion at the firehouse.
Since the Supreme Court ruled in this case that the white firefighters were unfairly denied promotions based on race, does that show some indication that Sotomayor is a racist? Or at least unjustly favors minorities over whites? Will this cause Sotomayor to have any problems with her upcoming Supreme Court hearings? Now it is the law of the land that the Ricci Case was a case of reverse racism.
20 comments:
I'm always nervous about these 5-4 votes.
I can understand that. I guess that's what happens with a divided court. Even the dissenters said the premise used for reaching the decision by Sotomayor and others was wrong. So, that being said, this case was both weird and interesting.
Teresa,
You ask: "Since the Supreme Court ruled in this case that the white firefighters were unfairly denied promotions based on race, does that show some indication that Sotomayor is a racist?"
Nope. The latter doesn't logically follow from the former.
"Or at least unjustly favors minorities over whites?"
Nope. Also doesn't logically follow.
"Now it is the law of the land that the Ricci Case was a case of reverse racism."
I thought your position was that the Judicial Branch does not make law. ;)
Different branches of the Judicial system have different "jobs."They are all suppose to interpret the law. The Supreme Court is where people bring their cases when they feel that their case was interpreted "wrong." So This case is now known under the most powerful/top Court and law of the land- Supreme Court, that this case decided on previously by Sotomayor and 2 others wrongly made their rulings based on race.
Since they wrongly based their decisions on race-that is a form of racism. The white firefighters were denied promotions based on their race and Sotomayor ruled in favor of New haven so that they would not be considered for promotion because of their race, since no minorities passed the exam. That is reverse racism and the Supreme Court verified it yesterday.
So, Kyle by you saying the latter doesn't follow, one could infer if African Americans were to take the white firefighters place, their were white and Latina judges on the bench making the very same rulings up until the Supreme Court's decision, then you would not consider that racism.
Because if not, then your logic doesn't follow.
Or can racism only happen to minorities? I don't think so. Because Both Kevin and I have experienced racism firsthand.
Teresa,
You cannot logically infer from what the Supreme Court decides whether or not Sotomayor is a racist. Try sticking that inference into a valid syllogism. It doesn't work. Whether or not she is a racist is determined by what she says and does, not by what the Supreme Court decides.
Sotomayors rulings are apart of her, who she is and what she does. So in having knowledge of her decision in this case and other sayings she has said over the years, a person can logically infer that her decision was a racist decision. And since it was a racist decision she is in effect a racist.
How about answering my question?
"Sotomayors rulings are apart of her, who she is and what she does. So in having knowledge of her decision in this case and other sayings she has said over the years, a person can logically infer that her decision was a racist decision. And since it was a racist decision she is in effect a racist."
In this paragraph you look to Sotomayor's statements and decisions to determine whether or not she is a racist, which, logically, is where you should look. In your post you asked if the Supreme Court's decision indicated that Sotomayor is a racist. I answered "no" because what the Supreme Court says doesn't logically determine whether or not she is a racist.
You state: "So, Kyle by you saying the latter doesn't follow, one could infer if African Americans were to take the white firefighters place, their were white and Latina judges on the bench making the very same rulings up until the Supreme Court's decision, then you would not consider that racism."
I've in no way indicated in this thread what I consider racism or whether I think Sotomayor is a racist. You therefore have nothing on which to base your conclusion that I "would not consider that racism." My comments thus far have pertained not to whether Sotomayor is a racist, but to the fallacy of answering that question by appealing to the Supreme Court. I'm not affirming or denying your accusation that Sotomayor is a racist.
You ask: "Or can racism only happen to minorities?"
Racism can happen to anyone.
The Supreme Court rebuked and overturned Sotomayors(one of a few of her rulings overturned by Supreme Court)ruling in the Ricci case which was based on racism and that is why I inferred that she is a racist. I think the Supreme Court does have some clout in raising questions to who may have racist tendencies.
By asking the question, If African American firefighters replaced the white firefighters, I was trying to gain some insight into or understand your point of view, or logic.
Here is an article with an exchange you might like to take a look at http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20090629084157.aspx
Kyle, do you really mean to affirm that for something to merely "show some indication" of something else it must be a tightly logical deduction and expressible as a pure syllogism? That seems intuitively dubious. If applied across the board it would endanger at least one of the positions (that I can think of immediately) for which I have seen you argue with considerable vigor.
No. There are ways of indicating that are not syllogistic. Symbols, for example, indicate meaning in a way we wouldn't express in a syllogism. Nevertheless, while not every indication will point to something else by way of deduction, an indication isn't very indicative if it is logically fallacious.
Fallacies, whether logical or informal, are only fallacies when there is an operating assumption that an argument is being offered. A great many very useful heuristics are fallacious in that strict sense, but I submit that the fallaciousness of the misapplication of a good rule of thumb is a trivial point when there there is no cause to assume that it is being misapplied. I find that when people claim that something is indicative, they are saying that it is suggestive of something, it tends in that direction, it adds some heft of plausibility to a certain position - that is, it could count as evidence for something - with no necessary assumption that what appears to them to be evidence is evidentially conclusive. Without that assumption in operation, it seems to me that it would be out of place to call out a fallacy. It illegitimately lends a mere rhetorical suggestion an inflated dignity it does not deserve (and I don't think was even pretended to)-- that of an attempted philosophical argument-- only to immediately yank it away again.
Kevin,
When I answered Teresa’s questions on the assumption that she might have been trying to draw a logical conclusion about Sotomayor from the decision of the Supreme Court, Teresa responded by saying by saying: “The Supreme Court rebuked and overturned Sotomayors…ruling in the Ricci case which was based on racism and that is why I inferred that she is a racist.” Her response clarified what I assumed from her questioning: she was offering an argument that Sotomayor is a racist based on what the Supreme Court did. Her line of thought here is fallacious.
Kyle, you brought in logical inferences quite a bit before that - back when Teresa was merely suggesting that something was indicated in a loose sense. The latter you denied because it was not a tightly logical inference in a strict sense. That's not quite a non-sequitur, but it is at least a little odd. Kind of like on Star Trek when Mr. Spock was always saying that this or that was "not logical".
As to how the conversation progressed from there, it seems to me that Teresa is tossing the terms you use back at you, but her use of those terms is an informal, non-philosophical one, and thus you two are apt to get caught up in a terminological quibble. To you and me, a fallacy is an error in the structure of an argument. There are many types of such fallacies that we know of. They often have Latin name - ad this, ab that, petitio the other. That's not how Teresa uses the word. Teresa is a regular person. To regular people (remember them?) - an argument is a persuasive set of words tending to bolster an opinion. To regular people, a sound bite is an argument. When you address the confusions of regular people such as Teresa, the introduction of logical terms and philosophical concepts is frought with peril. I see trouble whenever someone brings up syllogisms, especially when the one doing so is, at that very moment, saying to someone else, e.g., a regular person, that he or she is mistaken. Regular people never had to pour their brains through a strainer to work out a problem of sentential calculus. There are times when regular people have the advantage over us booky-wormy guys - they never had their common sense wrung out of them by intellectual muggers and thugs who called themselves professors and who had the nerve to claim to be educating them. So when their lack of having the strict usage rules of phrases such as "does not logically follow" burned into their gray matter becomes apparent, you must make a judgment call - how important is it to point that out, knowing that doing so will accomplish little more than making the person feel as if you think he or she stupid.
Kevin,
As I said in my last comment, I assumed that Teresa might have been trying to draw a logical conclusion in my very first comment, so I don't know what you mean by "a bit before that." My assumption was implied right off the bat.
As to your other point, Teresa is writing about complex matters of the United States legal system and making serious accusations about the people in that system. She should be able to defend her positions; moreover, she should expect that people will challenge her ideas and her arguments. That's what blogging is all about. My aim is not to make Teresa feel as though I think she's stupid. I point out the fallacious reasoning in her post assuming she's capable of discussing the logic of her arguments.
Dude, I know about what Teresa is doing and what she should be able to handle. But I am raising a point with you. You are both bloggers. She offered what seems me to be a surmise, and it did not look like it was out of left field to me. Teresa, I am sure, has no problem with the idea of defending her positions. You brought logical inferences and syllogisms in, and that is my point with you. The point, restated, is that ordinary people don't think and talk in those terms, so why should it be assumed that they would blog in them?
The public figures Teresa criticizes are just as vulnerable to her critcism as her critical commentary is to yours, and if anything, they, as public figures, are more obliged to explain themselves than the private blogger citizen-critic is to back up his or her criticism. Sotomayor's decision as a judge is wide open to criticism, and she would do well to explain herself. I don't suppose you are on any blogs demanding that she do so?
Kyle,
This was not a philosophical article so if you use a term in applying a philosophical meaning to the word, and I use the same word in applying a "real world" or "ordinary" not philosophical meaning the way the person percieves the meaning in how the word is used, can be misunderstood.
I never accused Sotomayor of anything but merely drew a conclusion based on prior evidence and the evidence just presented by the Supreme Court.
It is stated that the white firefighters were denied the promotions based on race and this was one of Sotomayors rulings that the Supreme Court was talking about. That is in part, why I believe that there is sufficient evidence for me to surmise that she is in effect a racist. I have considered other comments and rulings of Sotomayor's when surmising my conclusion in regard to Sotomayor.
It's amazing to me that we're still even having this discussion. If discrimination is wrong, then it is still wrong even when it is ostensibly done do right past injustice. Why is this so hard for left to understand? Because of their own racist tendencies, I'm afraid.
I assumed Teresa could converse about logical terms because a) she engages in the art of persuasive writing and b) she's blogging about issues far more complicated and difficult to understand than the word "syllogism." I'm not asking Teresa to grapple with advanced logic or academic philosophy; I'm simply using terms that refer to the process of moving from one proposition to another.
No, I'm not on any blogs demanding Sotomayor explain herself. Lots of people far more knowledgeable about the matter are on the case, and I haven't studied the relevant data enough to offer informed commentary on it anyway. I'm here at Teresamerica because Teresa is a friend and I'm interested in discussing and debating issues with her, especially as we seem to disagree a lot. :)
Kyle,
Its nice to see the affirmation of friendship-something positive.
Thank You, My friend
Pajama Underground,
I don't understand the left either. People of all races should be treated as equals. There should be no getting even or revenge against a particular race because of past mistakes. Because that in itself is racism also.
Post a Comment