Dark Brightness

The decision to disallow the promotion of firemen because of a lack of blacks getting to the standard was made my the current nominee of the Chicago Black Sock puppet to the Supreme Court…

The Supreme Court today narrowly ruled in favor of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who said they were denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and others that had come to play a large role in the consideration of her nomination for the high court.

The city had thrown out the results of a promotion test because no African Americans and only two Hispanics would have qualified for promotions. It said it feared a lawsuit from minorities under federal laws that said such “disparate impacts” on test results could be used to show discrimination.

In effect, the court was deciding when avoiding potential discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination against another.

The court’s conservative majority said in a 5 to 4 vote that is what happened in New Haven.

“Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the liberals on the court and said the decision knocks the pegs from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

She read her dissent from the bench for emphasis. “Congress endeavored to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form,” she said. “The damage today’s decision does to that objective is untold.”

via High Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Suit.

Um Ruth, who said that he wanted his daughters judged by the quality of their character rather than the colour of their skin?

And the civil rights act is not an amendment to the Constitution. There is no justification for discrimination when there are objective tests.

Reverse racism is the current version of the Jim Crow laws. Maori party please take note.

The health practitioners act worked well here, and I think the midwifery council should be congratulated on the way they handled this.

Ms Naidu, an independent midwife, was not alleged to have contributed to the baby’s death, but she was said to have omitted fundamental checks and failed to recognise something was wrong with the pregnancy.

The tribunal ordered her to do Midwifery Council-directed training and be supervised for 18 months. Her caseload was restricted to 50 births for a year and for the following six months to a level to be set by the council.

Council registrar Susan Yorke said yesterday that through Ms Naidu’s supervision and competency programme, “it became clear she posed a risk of harm to the public”.

(go read the whole article)

“The public is protected sufficiently by the fact that she has been suspended. The public doesn’t need to know the reasons for it and we don’t disclose that; certainly we wouldn’t disclose that unless the midwife agreed.”

Ms Yorke said Ms Naidu must satisfy the council she had the competency required of a new-graduate midwife before the suspension could be lifted. The suspension would continue until she met the council’s requirements.

Mrs Hussein’s husband and Anket’s father, Davinder Singh, said from Britain, where the family now live, that Ms Naidu’s suspension showed the health-complaints system was working well. “It’s a great outcome for the public of New Zealand.

“This has reinforced my belief in the policies and processes.”

via Midwife barred over risk to clients – Health – NZ Herald News.

Childbirth is risky. Things can and do go wrong. In this, as in other branches of medicine, the use of peer review, audit, and in particular discussion in detail of mortality and morbidity is very important.

We are all human, and we can make mistakes. So I think getting Ms Naidu supervised and monitored clesely was a good first move, but then (and this is where I think the council should be congratulated when it was clear she was below standard they stopped her from working. If you do this as a supervisor you can end up in all sorts of grief, but Ms Naidu’s supervisors did their duty.

Good on them, and good on the council for acting on their report. One hopes that Ms Naidu will get up to standard, but it is clear that she will not be allowed to work until she gets there.