4 ms·

The disparate impact doctrine is quite controversial, especially the ever more aggressive applications of it. It has led to some unfortunate rules. For example

The disparate impact doctrine is quite controversial, especially the ever more aggressive applications of it. It has led to some unfortunate rules. For example, it’s (generally and presumptively) illegal to hire based on intelligence tests, but seems to be okay (in practice) to hire only from elite universities that select students largely on the basis of SAT scores, which correlate very strongly with IQ.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> The disparate impact doctrine is extremely controversial, especially the ever more aggressive applications of it. What's mostly controversial is fictitious applications of it. > For example, it’s (generally and presumptively) illegal to hire based on intelligence tests, but totally okay to hire only from elite universities that select students largely on the basis of SAT scores, which correlate very strongly with IQ. No, it's not. Both policies have differential impact, and both have the same requirement of a tight connection to job performance under disparate impact analysis. The main relevant differences are: (1) There is an widespread cargo cult belief, including among many people involved in hiring, that IQ tests are categorically illegal in hiring, so people avoid them in part based on a prohibition that does not actually exist, and (2) The same false belief above also is common among workers, so they are particularly likely to seek legal counsel if they experience an adverse hiring decision and were subjected to an IQ test; at which point they are likely to discover the actual disparate impact rule. People who have adverse results and were, even overtly, subjected to another criteria which might invoke disparate impact analysis are less likely to seek a remedy. (3) IQ tests are overt and the failed applicant is unlikely to be ignorant of the standard used; places that filter strictly by elite universities rarely disclose that, they just require a resume and apply opaque criteria to it. Even if those criteria (such as an elite university filter) would provoke disparate impact analysis, it is difficult for an injured party to know what criteria were used (and to prove what criteria were used even if they know or suspect that one was used that would be subject to disparate impact analysis.)

dragonwriter 8y ago

> The disparate impact doctrine is extremely controversial, especially the ever more aggressive applications of it. What's mostly controversial is fictitious applications of it. > For example, it’s (generally and presumptively) illegal to hire based on intelligence tests, but totally okay to hire only from elite universities that select students largely on the basis of SAT scores, which correlate very strongly with IQ. No, it's not. Both policies have differential impact, and both have the same requirement of a tight connection to job performance under disparate impact analysis. The main relevant differences are: (1) There is an widespread cargo cult belief, including among many people involved in hiring, that IQ tests are categorically illegal in hiring, so people avoid them in part based on a prohibition that does not actually exist, and (2) The same false belief above also is common among workers, so they are particularly likely to seek legal counsel if they experience an adverse hiring decision and were subjected to an IQ test; at which point they are likely to discover the actual disparate impact rule. People who have adverse results and were, even overtly, subjected to another criteria which might invoke disparate impact analysis are less likely to seek a remedy. (3) IQ tests are overt and the failed applicant is unlikely to be ignorant of the standard used; places that filter strictly by elite universities rarely disclose that, they just require a resume and apply opaque criteria to it. Even if those criteria (such as an elite university filter) would provoke disparate impact analysis, it is difficult for an injured party to know what criteria were used (and to prove what criteria were used even if they know or suspect that one was used that would be subject to disparate impact analysis.)