Surprisingly we can find some agreement in what you're saying, but I strongly believe you should reword your initial claim to something along the lines of: IQ t

Surprisingly we can find some agreement in what you're saying, but I strongly believe you should reword your initial claim to something along the lines of: IQ tests have shown disparate results along racial lines, and based on U.S. judicial precedent, you can't use them in the hiring process without justification. I also think the precedent is either mostly wrong, or far too narrowly applied: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/12/10/essay-how-employers-college-degree-requirements-can-harm-students https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/12/10/essay-how-em... If you argue IQ is unrelated to a job, could you not argue, in most cases, that college degrees are irrelevant to a job? There is definitely still massive disparate racial impact there. https://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=72 https://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=72 In fact, life has disparate impact. One of my favorite quotes on this subject is: "The tests are not unfair. LIFE is unfair and the tests measure the results." This is a great, though long, video, on the history of mainstream academic views on racial disparity and how it should be handled: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx6TkC45y-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx6TkC45y-A I wish everyone would watch it. I will provide one small excerpt from it: "a 10th century Muslim scholar noted that Europeans grow more pale the farther north you go, and also that the farther they are to the north the more stupid, gross, and brutish they are. However offensive this correlation between skin color and intellectual development may seem today, there is no reason in history to challenge it as an empirical generalization as of that particular time. Mediterranean Europe was more advanced than northern Europe for centuries beginning in ancient times when the Greeks and Romans laid many of the foundations of western civilization at a time when the peoples of Britain and Scandinavia lived in illiterate and far less advanced societies." At no point in history have any two racial groups performed identically, and, arguably 99% of the time, the reasons have little to do with racism or societal injustice. In the above excerpt, there was certainly no racism causing the peoples of northern and western Europe to lag behind other civilizations of the time. Nor was there racism involved when these civilizations eventually rose in power and prominence. In both cases, skin color could be used to make correlations, but clearly skin color had nothing to do with causation. My point is: if a policy or procedure has disparate racial impact, it is not, by default, racist, discriminatory, or even wrong in any way, I can see an argument against using IQ tests in hiring based on the belief that IQ is not directly correlated to job performance, but, you could also say the same thing about probably 90% of the things people use to discriminate between job applicants. And there is no need to invoke race in the discussion when making these arguments, or to use race as the forcing function to make it illegal. This same type of logic is used to say election security reform is racist or discriminatory. Well, really, just about every law is racist if you measure racism by disparate impact. Laws against murder certainly are racist by this criteria: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-... But it's a flawed, broken, and dangerously incorrect way to think about discrimination, and I hope our judicial precedent eventually corrects itself to something more sensible.