[alfromspace]

Important to note it was only determined to be biased on the basis of disparate impact, which I think is a baloney concept. In other words, if one group of people doesn't do as well on something as another group on average, the thing can be considered a violation of the 14th amendment.

The NY City fire department recently had to shell out millions to people who weren't hired because of a similar ruling. No discrimination found other than that black people didn't do as well on a test as white people.

[Infinitesimus]

> which I think is a baloney concept

Understandable but we cannot ignore how history plays into these decisions you know?

> No discrimination found other than that black people didn't do as well on a test as white people.

I don't know the details of this case but there are a lot of systemic effects if the history of racism in the US that have lingering effects in society today.

Consider how practices like redlining significantly affected finance and education access. Jail sentence time disparity and a lot of other often invisible ripples of what happened in the early years of this country.

It's very hard to know what causes some of these disparities and sometimes a society tries to deal with it by using equal/similar outcomes as an admittedly flawed proxy for equal treatment while we try to address the underlying factors ( better schools, representation, access, etc.)

[pault]

I think the problem is that there's no way to tell if it's just an unintended correlation or if the test was chosen intentionally because it favors the racial majority. In that case, the only way to prevent the latter is to ban all of them.