"Target set up assessments that the government alleged ‘disproportionately screened out black, Asian, and female applicant’. And under Griggs v. Duke Power Co, the government doesn’t have to prove discriminatory _intent_ if those assessments were ‘not sufficiently job-related and consistent with business necessity’, which the government also alleged."
So why should have Target settled, other than "the government said so"?
Oh, because it would've been too expensive to take the case all the way through multiple levels of court and besides Target might have lost? Welp. That sure does seem like a statement that IQ tests are de facto illegal, doesn't it?
But, hey, between you and Clement, you've established that anyone who decides not to exercise their rights to the fullest extent is just a whiny wimp, and that anything done by a private entity cannot in any way be the result of government influence or threats.
"And under Griggs v. Duke Power Co, the government doesn’t have to prove discriminatory _intent_ if those assessments were ‘not sufficiently job-related and consistent with business necessity’, which the government also alleged."
So if I have a test that black people fail at a disproportionate rate, but I can show some evidence that the test is related to job function, then that's okay? You would accept that such a test does not constitute a Title VII violation?
ah-ha, and I see I used nearly the exact same post here that I posted back then :|
6 days ago
As I've said elsewhere, the issue is that we got used to the idea that "competently-written five-paragraph essay with only a few typos or run-on sentences, plenty of filler and light on analysis" means "B-minus". And now there's a computer that can produce that competently-written essay, grabbing bits and pieces from Reddit related to the subject so that it's not entirely filler, so what do we do about that B-minus? Obviously we could just raise our standards, but what does that mean for the people who came by their B-minus honestly? (It would have some serious effects on academic eligibility for athletics!)
Or maybe we say "screw it, use AI, what we want to see is you finding actual examples to support the argument instead of just giving me AI-filler". Which wouldn't actually be a bad thing, I think, because that's what is supposed to be happening here. It's like giving someone a box of Lego bricks and saying "build a structure", versus giving someone an unfinished log and carpentry tools and saying "build a structure". The latter does demonstrate a wider range of skills, but a lot of those skills are unrelated to the actual building of a structure; most of it's about prep work.
(On the gripping hand we'd have to address the fact that a lot of teachers probably aren't good for much more than "competently-written five-paragraph essay with only a few typos or run-on sentences, plenty of filler and light on analysis"...)
"Also I have a mental disorder that causes me to be unable to read documents, summarize, and code when subject to a time limit or specific measureable outcomes".
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
"Target set up assessments that the government alleged ‘disproportionately screened out black, Asian, and female applicant’. And under Griggs v. Duke Power Co, the government doesn’t have to prove discriminatory _intent_ if those assessments were ‘not sufficiently job-related and consistent with business necessity’, which the government also alleged."
So why should have Target settled, other than "the government said so"?
Oh, because it would've been too expensive to take the case all the way through multiple levels of court and besides Target might have lost? Welp. That sure does seem like a statement that IQ tests are de facto illegal, doesn't it?
But, hey, between you and Clement, you've established that anyone who decides not to exercise their rights to the fullest extent is just a whiny wimp, and that anything done by a private entity cannot in any way be the result of government influence or threats.
(you're aware that this was the argument used in Griggs v. Duke Power Co, right?)
"And under Griggs v. Duke Power Co, the government doesn’t have to prove discriminatory _intent_ if those assessments were ‘not sufficiently job-related and consistent with business necessity’, which the government also alleged."
So if I have a test that black people fail at a disproportionate rate, but I can show some evidence that the test is related to job function, then that's okay? You would accept that such a test does not constitute a Title VII violation?
ah-ha, and I see I used nearly the exact same post here that I posted back then :|
As I've said elsewhere, the issue is that we got used to the idea that "competently-written five-paragraph essay with only a few typos or run-on sentences, plenty of filler and light on analysis" means "B-minus". And now there's a computer that can produce that competently-written essay, grabbing bits and pieces from Reddit related to the subject so that it's not entirely filler, so what do we do about that B-minus? Obviously we could just raise our standards, but what does that mean for the people who came by their B-minus honestly? (It would have some serious effects on academic eligibility for athletics!)
Or maybe we say "screw it, use AI, what we want to see is you finding actual examples to support the argument instead of just giving me AI-filler". Which wouldn't actually be a bad thing, I think, because that's what is supposed to be happening here. It's like giving someone a box of Lego bricks and saying "build a structure", versus giving someone an unfinished log and carpentry tools and saying "build a structure". The latter does demonstrate a wider range of skills, but a lot of those skills are unrelated to the actual building of a structure; most of it's about prep work.
(On the gripping hand we'd have to address the fact that a lot of teachers probably aren't good for much more than "competently-written five-paragraph essay with only a few typos or run-on sentences, plenty of filler and light on analysis"...)
I guess Target was wrong to settle here, then
"Also I have a mental disorder that causes me to be unable to read documents, summarize, and code when subject to a time limit or specific measureable outcomes".