4 ms·

Patricks summary was just the basics of the case. The background is that Duke Power originally segregated employees, only employing African-Americans in the lab

by ErrantX 16y ago

Patricks summary was just the basics of the case. The background is that Duke Power originally segregated employees, only employing African-Americans in the labor sector. Then the civil rights laws came in and they introduced requirements, including an IQ test, that didn't violate the laws, but had the same effect. ''Did the US Supreme Court really find that African Americans are less intelligent than people of other races?'' Simple answer is no, they didn't. The court basically found that because African-Americans had suffered a lower standard of education (their wording: ''Because they are Negroes, petitioners have long received inferior education in segregated schools, and this Court expressly recognized these differences in Gaston County v. United States, 395 U.S. 285 (1969)'') and that DP knew this the whole point of the new scheme was to continue segregation. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co. (it's an interesting case) Whether that would be the same now, I don't know. On the other hand I could completely believe that companies are still worried by it, and so avoid IQ tests etc.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
gjm11 16y ago
> The court basically found [...] that DP knew this the whole point of the new scheme was to continue segregation. The court didn't actually find quite that. From the judgement: The Court of Appeals held that the Company had adopted the diploma and test requirements without any "intention to discriminate against Negro employees." 420 F.2d at 1232. We do not suggest that either the District Court or the Court of Appeals erred in examining the employer's intent; [...] Incidentally, your WP URL didn't work for me, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v_Duke_Power_Co http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v_Duke_Power_Co does. (And yet it then displays the title with "v." rather than "v", saying it's redirected. I don't know quite what's going on there.)
gjm11 16y ago
> The court basically found [...] that DP knew this the whole point of the new scheme was to continue segregation. The court didn't actually find quite that. From the judgement: The Court of Appeals held that the Company had adopted the diploma and test requirements without any "intention to discriminate against Negro employees." 420 F.2d at 1232. We do not suggest that either the District Court or the Court of Appeals erred in examining the employer's intent; [...] Incidentally, your WP URL didn't work for me, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v_Duke_Power_Co http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v_Duke_Power_Co does. (And yet it then displays the title with "v." rather than "v", saying it's redirected. I don't know quite what's going on there.)
gjm11 16y ago
[I attempted to reply to this, got a weird error code from HN, tried again, saw two copies of my reply both marked as "dead", and am now very confused. I'm trying again in different words in case there's some dupe-checker thing at work.] > The court basically found [...] that DP knew this the whole point of the new scheme was to continue segregation. No, not quite. The WP article (which incidentally I couldn't get at with your URL, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v_Duke_Power_Co http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v_Duke_Power_Co worked) quotes the judgement as saying that they didn't question the company's motive, but that its policies were illegally discriminatory regardless of motive.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Yeh you are right on both points (HN mungs the period on the end of the URL... grr). The WP article was a bit of a mess so I've been rewriting/sourcing it - and, yes, the court carefully states that it didn't believe it was deliberate discrimination. That part of my comment was incorrect. :)
  - btilly 16y ago
    Useless trick. If you want to include the period at the end of the URL, you just have to put another punctuation mark following the URL. Like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co., or (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.) or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.. (I figured this out from reading the source code after getting tripped up by wrong URLs when the URL finished the sentence in a parenthetical comment. I can't promise that it won't break at some point.)
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

by ErrantX 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

gjm11 16y ago

> The court basically found [...] that DP knew this the whole point of the new scheme was to continue segregation. The court didn't actually find quite that. From the judgement: The Court of Appeals held that the Company had adopted the diploma and test requirements without any "intention to discriminate against Negro employees." 420 F.2d at 1232. We do not suggest that either the District Court or the Court of Appeals erred in examining the employer's intent; [...] Incidentally, your WP URL didn't work for me, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v_Duke_Power_Co http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v_Duke_Power_Co does. (And yet it then displays the title with "v." rather than "v", saying it's redirected. I don't know quite what's going on there.)

gjm11 16y ago

[I attempted to reply to this, got a weird error code from HN, tried again, saw two copies of my reply both marked as "dead", and am now very confused. I'm trying again in different words in case there's some dupe-checker thing at work.] > The court basically found [...] that DP knew this the whole point of the new scheme was to continue segregation. No, not quite. The WP article (which incidentally I couldn't get at with your URL, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v_Duke_Power_Co http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v_Duke_Power_Co worked) quotes the judgement as saying that they didn't question the company's motive, but that its policies were illegally discriminatory regardless of motive.

ErrantX 16y ago
Yeh you are right on both points (HN mungs the period on the end of the URL... grr). The WP article was a bit of a mess so I've been rewriting/sourcing it - and, yes, the court carefully states that it didn't believe it was deliberate discrimination. That part of my comment was incorrect. :)
- btilly 16y ago
  Useless trick. If you want to include the period at the end of the URL, you just have to put another punctuation mark following the URL. Like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co., or (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.) or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.. (I figured this out from reading the source code after getting tripped up by wrong URLs when the URL finished the sentence in a parenthetical comment. I can't promise that it won't break at some point.)

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]