[dahfizz]

You're ignoring the second half of the quote:

> > In contrast, there is no evidence to suggest that these negative diversity impacts would exist in the context of a mandatory math course (i.e. that racialized teacher candidates might disproportionately fail these math courses), and we do not think such an inference can be made on the basis of logic or common sense.

[Kranar]

I'm not ignoring it, you can not deduce an empirical phenomenon on the basis of logic. Whether racialized teachers disproportionately fail these math courses is an empirical finding that must be presented as evidence, not a logical conclusion that one can deduce.

You can deduce empirical phenomenon from common sense, but the idea that it would be remotely appropriate or responsible for a judge to rule on a matter involving the relationship between race, standardized testing, and the ability to teach on the basis of common sense is patently absurd. A judge is not some random commenter arguing on the Internet their personal biases with nothing at stake; a judge is a highly trained professional who is required by long standing ethical standards to be very careful about their decision making.

[dahfizz]

> you can not deduce an empirical phenomenon on the basis of logic.

Fish are unable fly. Let us set up a flight training course comprised of all different sorts of birds and fish. The ability to fly is required to pass the course. We may logically conclude that the fish would disproportionately fail this course.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The judge said that they think its reasonable to expect teachers could pass a math training course, regardless of race. Do you disagree?

[Kranar]

Your comment is the epitome of what makes discussing nuanced legal issues an absolute farce on this site.