A recent New York Times article focuses on the racial angle in an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case about a civil service test. A firefighter who studied up to 13 hours a day earned the sixth-place ranking among 77 candidates. His hopes for promotion were dashed, however, after the Civil Service Board of New Haven, Conn., split 2-2 on whether to certify the test results. The pass rate for one racial group was only one-half that of another. The board held five days of public hearings, but could not decide whether the test was a fair measure of success on the job. The sixth-ranked firefighter and 17 of his colleagues are now awaiting oral argument on April 22 in Ricci v. DeStefano. At issue is whether the failure to certify the test results constituted racial discrimination.

But how does focusing the debate on race advance the public's interest?

Why not rally behind a theme that can both unite us and advance the public's interest in a qualified and competent workforce?

A fundamental premise of employment testing and selection can help refocus the debate on the public's interest in a qualified and competent workforce. A test or any other employment selection procedure is appropriate only if it helps to predict success in performing tasks that are actually required by the job. A test that mostly measures the applicant's ability to successfully take a test serves no one. A test that does not measure the applicant's ability to do the job prevents both qualified people from getting jobs that would be satisfying to them and employers from hiring those who would best meet their needs. Hiring those who can pass a test but not successfully perform job duties only creates disgruntled employees, incompetence and lawsuits.

The public's interest in using tests that predict success on the job looms largest in the public sector. We all want a firefighter who has the skills and abilities to protect our dwellings, businesses and families. We all have an interest in ensuring that a public employer hires a building inspector who effectively enforces safe building standards. Our communities will receive long-term benefits from teachers who know how to motivate children to think and problem solve.

Employers can use several strategies to ensure that the tests and selection procedures that they use actually predict success on the job.

An employer can start by selecting a test that is best designed to measure the skills the job requires.

Cognitive tests use written formats and are best for assessing reasoning, memory and skill in arithmetic and reading comprehension.

Cognitive tests are a good fit for cerebral jobs such as analysts, teachers, doctors and lawyers. Cognitive tests are often ineffective predictors of success in jobs that require mainly manual labor and only minimal reading.

Physical ability tests measure how well the candidate performs a particular maneuver or the strength of specific muscle groups, or general stamina. These tests are well-suited to jobs that involve physical activity, but are not job-related to clerical, cerebral or sedentary jobs.

Assessment center tests or work sampling tests simulate on-the-job situations and measure the candidate's performance and aptitude on particular tasks. Assessment center tests are useful for chief executives, police officers, firefighters or any other job that requires the incumbent to rapidly adapt and move from one task to the other.

Medical inquiries and physical examinations assess physical and mental stamina and health, and are appropriate for jobs that require great physical endurance or stress.

Employers can use only those tests that have been mathematically proven to be valid predictors of success on the job. "Validation" describes the mathematical process of determining whether a test is job-related. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures in 1978. . The guidelines outline three different ways that employers can show that their employment tests and other selection criteria are job-related and consistent with business necessity: Criterion-related validity - proof of the relationship between scores on a test and the job performance of a sample of employees; content validity - proof that the content of a selection procedure is representative of important aspects of performance on the job; and construct validity - proof that: the test measures a trait or characteristic, and that the trait or characteristic is important to successful job performance.

Employers can also evaluate the results of their selection procedures to determine if that procedure has an adverse impact on any group of applicants. The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures define adverse impact as a substantially different rate of selection in hiring, promotion or other employment decision that works to the disadvantage of applicants based on their sex, race, national origin or religion. The guidelines state that a substantially different rate of selection occurs whenever the selection rate for any one group is less than four-fifths or 80 percent of the selection rate for the group with the highest selection rate.

A disparate impact often occurs as because of factors that are irrelevant to the ability to successfully perform a job. For example, an employer that had a long history of employing both men and women to perform a job that involved lifting heavy objects, instituted a selection test to streamline its hiring process. As a result of the test, the success rate of female applicants dropped dramatically. A review of the testing process showed that it actually was more physically demanding than the actual demands of the job. If an employer finds that test or selection procedure creates a disparate impact, it can test the validity of its test, and use another test that is job-related, consistent with business necessity and that does not disproportionately exclude any group.

Employers can ensure a fair testing process by complying with the several laws that prohibit discrimination based on disparate impact.

Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act, for example, prohibits employers from using neutral tests or selection procedures that have the effect of disproportionately excluding people on the basis of race, color, religion, or sex if the test is not job-related and consistent with business necessity.

The Americans With Disabilities Act prohibits employers from using employment tests that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with a disability unless the test is job-related and consistent with business necessity. It also prevents employers from failing to select and administer employment tests so that they measure the job-related factors and not the extent of the applicant's disability or impairment, and from failing to make reasonable accommodations in the administration of tests for the disability of the applicant, unless the accommodation would pose an undue hardship.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits employers from using tests or selection procedures that have a discriminatory impact on people 40 or older, unless the employer can show that the test was based on a reasonable non-age factor. Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005).

The number and variety of employment selection procedures is expanding because of technological advances in computer, Internet and multimedia-based testing. Focusing our collective technology and dialog on ensuring that tests accurately predict successful job performance moves the debate to away from differences and toward our collective interest. No one succeeds through a testing or selection process that does not predict success on the job or that has a disparate impact. Why not refocus the debate to creating hiring and selection procedures that foster our collective success?