[paisawalla]

You are selectively adhering to the letter of the law, when the practical effects are already well known and studied. One is not obligated to ignore literature, nor abstain from doing a simple extrapolation from the incentives placed on the table.

There is a large body of literature concerning the question "does disparate-impact enforcement cause employers to alter hiring behavior in ways unrelated to actual productivity or discrimination?" and the answer is largely "yes". As you suggested elsewhere in this discussion, Google may be useful.

[SiempreViernes]

That's not particularly surprising nor objectionable, of course legislation that reminds employers they shouldn't discriminate based on race changes practice even for companies that aren't actually caught doing it.

To act like it's bad that people of colour have a more fair chance of getting employed because of some piece of legislation is simply insidious. It's just been over a month since black people lost the right to a fair vote.

[rayiner]

> It's just been over a month since black people lost the right to a fair vote.

Literally the opposite happened. The Supreme Court ruled that there was VRA §2 liability when there was evidence of racially-motivated gerrymandering: "In short, §2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race." (Louisiana v. Callais, p. 26)

[paisawalla]

I don't start from the conclusion that disparities are evidence of racism.

[runako]

> selectively adhering to the letter of the law

Are you suggesting that companies should violate the law here? What do you recommend?

Edit: charitably, "adhering to the letter of the law" is sometimes shortened to "law-abiding" and is generally what we want.

[paisawalla]

You've misunderstood the point.

Prior to the beginning of your excerpt is the word "You", meaning the comment's author is the subject, not "companies". I'm saying the commenter is appealing to black letter law for the answer to the question "what happens when..." but we have observational evidence to answer the question.

[runako]

> we have observational evidence to answer the question.

Isn't the point that the observational evidence amounts to the companies in question steer clear of illegal behavior?

There are anti-money laundering laws, so banks institute procedures to help them comply. Yes, we expect companies to change their processes so they don't break the law. That's the point of the law.

I am confused with what you think companies should do in this situation. Expose themselves to legal and civil liability? Or change their behaviors so that close scrutiny indicates they are trying to comply with the laws and any bad actors acted against internal procedure?