4 ms·

Leonid Sirota a Canadian law professor at the University of Auckland, has a good dissection of the decision: https://doubleaspect.blog/2021/12/20/the-law-of-bon

by retrac 5y ago

Leonid Sirota a Canadian law professor at the University of Auckland, has a good dissection of the decision: https://doubleaspect.blog/2021/12/20/the-law-of-bonkerstown/ https://doubleaspect.blog/2021/12/20/the-law-of-bonkerstown/ From a Canadian legal perspective, the notion that a test could be discriminatory and so unconstitutional is not note-worthy in itself. It all follows standard case law there. The legally interesting bit, is the card seemingly dropped in the shuffling, where the court recommends a less intrusive alternative policy that was also considered by the government: > There is a plethora of evidence in the record highlighting the disproportionate impacts of standardized testing based on race … In contrast, there is no evidence to suggest that these negative diversity impacts would exist in the context of a mandatory math course … Of course, no evidence exists because no one has looked for it yet. This reliance on single-example small studies to suggest possible less intrusive remedies is probably a path to much legal madness. This will likely be appealed. Politically this is a bit heated as both Quebec and Ontario's governments have recently rubbed up against the limits of the Charter in different areas.

jaspax 5y ago
> In contrast, there is no evidence to suggest that these negative diversity impacts would exist in the context of a mandatory math course (i.e. that racialized teacher candidates might disproportionately fail these math courses), and we do not think such an inference can be made on the basis of logic or common sense. Uh... what? Performance outcomes differ between racial groups in mandatory classes all the time. If the argument really is that "disproportionate impact" in classroom outcomes is enough to render a policy unconstitutional, then your only option is not to measure outcomes at all, because every educational measure shows differences between races. I edited the quote above to contain the court's entire statement from the finding, because it's even more damning and removes the possibility of a less absurd reading. Apparently the justices know absolutely nothing about education and race because they don't know that "racialized teacher candidates might disproportionately fail these math courses" is exactly what we should expect, because that's exactly what we find in every other educational context.
- Kranar 5y ago
  When a court says that there is no evidence for something, they mean that no evidence was presented to them by the plaintiff (or defendant). It is not the job of the court to be an expert on every subject, it is the job of the plaintiff to present whatever evidence is necessary to support their case. The role of the judge is to weigh the evidence presented to them instead of seeking out evidence of their own to support or refute a claim. It is a matter of ethics that the decision of a judge is based on evidence presented on the record in open court, and that is available to all the parties.
  - sanxiyn 5y ago
    You are right, but judge should make use of common sense. The quote is explicitly "we do not think such an inference can be made on the basis of logic or common sense", which is completely ridiculous. Edit: In other words, is this judge willing to bet? If not why not?
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    You're ignoring the second half of the quote: > > In contrast, there is no evidence to suggest that these negative diversity impacts would exist in the context of a mandatory math course (i.e. that racialized teacher candidates might disproportionately fail these math courses), and we do not think such an inference can be made on the basis of logic or common sense.
    - Kranar 5y ago
      I'm not ignoring it, you can not deduce an empirical phenomenon on the basis of logic. Whether racialized teachers disproportionately fail these math courses is an empirical finding that must be presented as evidence, not a logical conclusion that one can deduce. You can deduce empirical phenomenon from common sense, but the idea that it would be remotely appropriate or responsible for a judge to rule on a matter involving the relationship between race, standardized testing, and the ability to teach on the basis of common sense is patently absurd. A judge is not some random commenter arguing on the Internet their personal biases with nothing at stake; a judge is a highly trained professional who is required by long standing ethical standards to be very careful about their decision making.

by retrac 5y ago

jaspax 5y ago

> In contrast, there is no evidence to suggest that these negative diversity impacts would exist in the context of a mandatory math course (i.e. that racialized teacher candidates might disproportionately fail these math courses), and we do not think such an inference can be made on the basis of logic or common sense. Uh... what? Performance outcomes differ between racial groups in mandatory classes all the time. If the argument really is that "disproportionate impact" in classroom outcomes is enough to render a policy unconstitutional, then your only option is not to measure outcomes at all, because every educational measure shows differences between races. I edited the quote above to contain the court's entire statement from the finding, because it's even more damning and removes the possibility of a less absurd reading. Apparently the justices know absolutely nothing about education and race because they don't know that "racialized teacher candidates might disproportionately fail these math courses" is exactly what we should expect, because that's exactly what we find in every other educational context.

Kranar 5y ago
When a court says that there is no evidence for something, they mean that no evidence was presented to them by the plaintiff (or defendant). It is not the job of the court to be an expert on every subject, it is the job of the plaintiff to present whatever evidence is necessary to support their case. The role of the judge is to weigh the evidence presented to them instead of seeking out evidence of their own to support or refute a claim. It is a matter of ethics that the decision of a judge is based on evidence presented on the record in open court, and that is available to all the parties.
- sanxiyn 5y ago
  You are right, but judge should make use of common sense. The quote is explicitly "we do not think such an inference can be made on the basis of logic or common sense", which is completely ridiculous. Edit: In other words, is this judge willing to bet? If not why not?
- dahfizz 5y ago
  You're ignoring the second half of the quote: > > In contrast, there is no evidence to suggest that these negative diversity impacts would exist in the context of a mandatory math course (i.e. that racialized teacher candidates might disproportionately fail these math courses), and we do not think such an inference can be made on the basis of logic or common sense.
  - Kranar 5y ago
    I'm not ignoring it, you can not deduce an empirical phenomenon on the basis of logic. Whether racialized teachers disproportionately fail these math courses is an empirical finding that must be presented as evidence, not a logical conclusion that one can deduce. You can deduce empirical phenomenon from common sense, but the idea that it would be remotely appropriate or responsible for a judge to rule on a matter involving the relationship between race, standardized testing, and the ability to teach on the basis of common sense is patently absurd. A judge is not some random commenter arguing on the Internet their personal biases with nothing at stake; a judge is a highly trained professional who is required by long standing ethical standards to be very careful about their decision making.