Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Ricci webcast on August 12

The Ricci v. DeStefano decision continues to generate a lot of interest. To help sort it all out, the Personnel Testing Council of Metropolitan Washington, D.C. (PTC-MW) will host Dr. James Outtz, renowned I/O psychologist and co-author of an amicus brief in the case, on August 12.

Not in D.C.? Not a problem. The luncheon presentation will be webcast at an extremely low price. Check out the website for details.

Coincidentally, a much less well known individual (yours truly) will also be presenting on the Ricci decision at PTC-Northern California (PTC-NC) at their August 13th luncheon.

By the way, check out some great commentary about the decision by several SIOP members here. I find it fascinating that SIOP came out strongly against the validity of the exam, to which the majority of the Supreme Court responded, "yawn."

4 comments:

Stephen said...

Bryan--Any chance you'll post your slides from the August luncheon presentation?

Here's a quote from the Uniform Guidelines - Q & A 28:

"Whether or not there is adverse impact, Federal equal employment opportunity law prohibits any deliberate discrimination or disparate treatment on grounds of religion or national origin, as well as on grounds of sex, color, or race."

Is this not the essence of the Ricci case? Intentional discrimination is rarely, if ever, justified--even if done to avoid what is believed to be unintentional discrimination.

BryanB said...

I'm happy to share my slides, and always open to feedback.

As far as your quote from the UGESP and observation, I agree with you. Particularly over thr last 10 years, the SCOTUS has made it clear disparate treatment is only legal in rare cases and usually only temporarily.

I'm still not seeing how this case changes things in any dramatic fashion, regardless of how much I/O psychs nash their teeth. I guess we'll see!

richcober said...

Bryan -

Important note -- the Amicus Brief that was written by Aguinis and others was not written to represent SIOP or at the request of SIOP. Those authors all happen to be SIOP Fellows, and certainly respected for their opinions and experience in employment testing. But an important caveat to that Brief is that it is not meant as a representation of SIOP's opinion nor to represent the SIOP membership's perspective on the case.

I think that is an important clarification given the contents of the Brief.

BryanB said...

Thank you, that is an important distinction. I changed the post to reflect.