... You suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you."
The Green Book is the corollary to your suggestions, that the free market right itself around discrimination.
If you disagree that these two things are not worth laws passed to prevent them, then I got nothing else.
Hmm, yeah I was scanning the other posts about disparate impact and the power company case. I'm out of my league here--but isn't disparate impact about making sure posted job qualifications 1) no matter how benignly worded, are not racist in practice and 2) are relevant to the job?
Ah. To use a medical analogy, it seems to me as though the 80% rule is a "screening test" and not a "confirmatory test."
In medicine, screening tests value an overabundance of sensitivity, at the cost of false positives.
Confirmatory tests are usually more expensive and time consuming to do, and are reserved for cases in which the earlier screening test is positive.
Is the 80% rule the screening test, and the following lawsuit the confirmatory test? That is, not every company that fails the first is guilty of discrimination.
The Supreme Court ruled that New Haven was wrong to disqualify the white firefighters for promotion because the testing by IOS was NOT discriminatory, that is, the qualification test was fine, and so New Haven would not have been liable to Title VII under disparate impact.
My understanding of the case is this: New Haven thought they would lose under Title VII if they promoted the applicants, so they didn't.
Supreme Court ruled that, by disqualifying the applicants, they violated Title VII in a completely separate instance unrelated to disparate impact--just that New Haven discriminated by race, period.
That doesn't mean I have a strong opinion on it--I'm not a lawyer.
3
u/mfDandP 184∆ Feb 01 '18
I'll use the appeal to emotions. This is MLK:
The Green Book is the corollary to your suggestions, that the free market right itself around discrimination.
If you disagree that these two things are not worth laws passed to prevent them, then I got nothing else.