[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.