By Thomas Kochman - 07.08.2009
An article in the July 8, 2009 New York Times on Interracial Roommates focused on the social and prejudicial aspects of sharing a room with someone of a different race but neglected to deal with cultural matters which directly affect willingness to engage or, in many cases, tolerate different preferences and lifestyles. One frequent African American/U.S. mainstream clash around sharing the same room or even same floor at universities before headphones ameliorated the problem was over when and how loud to play their music –African American students generally preferring to play their music louder and later at night than white students. What’s cultural about this are the different standards regulating expressive behavior. Blacks generally prefer more potent, dynamic and forceful expressions whereas mainstream whites prefer and tolerate expressions that are more modest and subdued.
What’s also culturally relevant is who is expected to accommodate whom? Mainstream U.S. cultural etiquette puts the onus on assertors to monitor and regulate the level of their expression to that which receivers can comfortably manage which socially gives receivers control over how loud or forceful expressive behavior can become. African American cultural etiquette gives assertors much greater latitude and license to set the emotional tone of what goes on thereby placing those on the receiving end in the more accommodating position and role. Read more »
By Jean Mavrelis and Thomas Kochman - 07.01.2009
The recent Supreme Court case Ricci v. DeStefano focused our attention once again on the ongoing battle between “Title VII’s disparate treatment vs. disparate impact provisions”.
A key disagreement among the justices ruling for and against the plaintiffs had to do with the selection process that was used to qualify applicants for top positions within the New Haven firefighter department. The majority opinion that prevailed ruled that the test that was the basis for promotion of New Haven firefighters – a 60/40 written/oral weighting — could not be thrown out because not enough minority candidates qualified for promotion.
Justice Ginsberg, writing for the minority, wondered why this disproportionate weighting was not an issue. She notes (p.4) ‘New Haven did not closely consider what sort of ‘practical’ examination would ‘fairly measure the relative fitness and capacity of the applicants to discharge the duties’ of a fire officer. Instead, the City simply adhered to the testing regime outlined in its two decades-old contract with the local firefighters’ union: a written exam, which would account for 60 percent of an applicant’s total score, and an oral exam, which would account for the remaining 40 percent.
Hornick, one of the consultants brought in to testify, noted “the availability of “different types of testing procedures that are much more valid in terms of identifying the best potential supervisors in [the] fire department.” for example, “an assessment center process, which is essentially an opportunity for candidates . . . to demonstrate how they would address a particular problem as opposed to just verbally saying it or identifying the correct option on a written test.” This is what neighboring Bridgeport ended up doing, recognizing (p.7) “that the oral component, more so than the written component, addressed the sort of “real-life scenarios” fire officers encounter on the job… Since that time … Bridgeport had seen minorities ‘fairly represented’ in its exam results.” Read more »
