But only one side of the court allowed their feelings - their empathy, if you will - to get in the way of long-established precedents, not to mention the expressed will of Congress. In Ricci v. DeStefano, decided last week, the majority judges legislated from the bench, saying the city had discriminated against the firefighters, thereby changing rules that had in place for decades.

In the process, the 5-4 conservative majority set up a dilemma for cities. By law, employment criteria that end in lopsided racial results are supposed to set off alarms that the tests might be discriminatory. Cities then must consider alternative methods to measure qualifications that might not have a "disparate impact."

But the Ricci decision puts cities in the position of being sued no matter what they do.

There was one bright side to the court's decision: It seemingly undercut a major line of attack against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. She had joined with two other judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of New Haven - and conservatives used the highly controversial case to charge that she set aside the law to favor minorities.

But last week's decision confirmed that Sotomoyor and her colleagues had simply followed the law as it was then interpreted. In addition, the fact that four justices took her position puts her in the "judicial mainstream," if on the liberal side. But don't expect her opponents to concede this when confirmation hearings begin next week.

The issue of jobs and race already is a hot-button one. In many cases, strongly held opinions are impervious to evidence. The battle lines are drawn, dividing groups that should be working together. On one side, there is a history of racial discrimination in municipal fire departments and a value in having a racially diverse group of supervisors. On the other, white candidates for promotion aren't responsible for past discrimination. Should attempts to correct it come at their expense?

Here's a better question:

Are multiple-choice tests the best way to decide promotions for firefighters? Does answering a couple of more questions correctly than the next candidate automatically make some one a better lieutenant or captain?

New Haven's written exam counted for 60 percent of a candidate's score while neighboring Bridgeport, Conn., got different results by giving more weight to oral exams. Of course, oral exams also can be unfair. As the Inquirer reported last week, the city of Philadelphia - which counts oral exams for 45 percent of the total score in promotions - quietly paid out $275,000 to settle a 2007 discrimination case brought by white firefighters. They had charged that examiners of different races "systematically or otherwise downgraded" them because of their race.

THERE'S GOT TO be a better way - and many cities think they have found it in "assessment centers." There, applicants go through exercises that simulate the job environment - for example, emergency scenarios - and also include interviews, group discussions, written exercises, oral presentations and role play.

Americans of all races and genders have a stake in defusing this volatile issue, which will likely become even more explosive if it isn't solved soon. *