[m-photonic]

Whether you think the racial IQ gap is genetic or socioeconomic in origin is neither here nor there. The fact is that it exists, while the four-fifths rule that has been with us since Griggs v. Duke depends on the assumption that it doesn't exist. This is quite simply a falsehood. What's more, its falsity is completely uncontroversial, which makes it somewhat astounding that disparate impact doctrine has lasted for so long without being seriously challenged.

Because it demands that lower-IQ minorities be hired at the same level as higher-IQ whites, disparate impact doctrine should not be thought of as simple anti-discrimination law, but as affirmative action under another name. Now, there are points to be made for or against affirmative action, but it shouldn't be sold to the public as something else. And particularly not in such a way as to lead to so many negative side effects on the rest of society, in the form of restricting employers to less effective hiring practices. A system where employers could freely make use of g-loaded qualification processes without the threat of litigation, provided that they spotted blacks an extra SD's worth of points so as to avoid breaking the four-fifths rule, would be quite simply BETTER than what we have today, while keeping the AA-like effects. Of course, if anyone tried that at present time they'd probably end up getting sued by whites. It would make more sense to follow Ms. Wax's suggestion of switching to a sliding scale or throwing out disparate impact altogether.

I believe that disparate impact doctrine is a reason why we have the higher education bubble that we have today. It's maybe not the biggest reason, but it's probably in the top 3. There comes a point where you have to wonder if this sort of thing is really worth keeping around in the name of racial idealism.

[mkr-hn]

It's only controversial because actual racists--people with negative views toward certain races--use the same research and arguments. And it's completely unnecessary. You can say "socially immobile" or something like it. That avoids wrecking the discussion with things you know will cause problems.

I'm not even talking about the case or the impact on hiring. I'm talking about how dragging race in without cause cuts any real discussion of the situation off.

[m-photonic]

You and I may think bringing race into the discussion of hiring practices is completely unnecessary, but the federal government doesn't. That's the point. Hiring practices that select for cognitive ability are restricted (through the threat of litigation) entirely because of the incidental racial impact of these practices. The court's criterion for disparate impact is not socioeconomic, it is racial. That is why I brought up race.

Also, I disagree with your general thesis that race is never a worthwhile topic for consideration in discussions such as this. The fact is that race is a real sociological phenomenon in and of itself, and not merely a proxy for socioeconomic markers. There are many instances where race actually would be worth bringing into a discussion, even if you feel this isn't one of them. What's more, I don't see how bringing up race "wrecks the discussion," except when it results in overly-PC people coming out of the woodwork to shout you down.