In reading this article I got as far as the description of "disparate effect" and stopped reading. Just because any qualification for employment established by an employer screened out a disportionate percentate of any "protected" group does not automatically mean that the employer is guilty of illegal discrimination. For instance, an employer looking to hire an engineer will automatically screen out any candidate that does not have a degree in engineering. Disparate effect? Hardly. If a requirement of the job is related specifically to one's ability to preform that job than the fact that it disportionately screens out members of any protected group is irrelevant.

For this writer to interpret this concept of illegal discrimination in the manner described automatically brings into play something both state and federal laws specifically prohibit: quotas.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of progressives favor quotas as demonstrated by their willingness to understand the implications of the decision reached by the lower courts in this case and the support of this new attack on the New Haven fire department.

I don't think we want civil rights interpreted in this manner.

The problem is that groups differ on average so you get some groups overrepresented.

"The major legal dilemma in selection is that the best overall predictors of job performance, namely, cognitive tests, have the most disparate impact on racial-ethnic minorities. Their considerable disparate impact is not due to any imperfections in the tests. Rather, it is due to the tests' measuring essential skills and abilities that happen not to be distributed equally among groups (Schmidt, 1988). Those differences currently are large enough to cause a major problem. U.S. Department of Education literacy surveys show, for example, that black college graduates, on the average, exhibit the cognitive skill levels of white high school graduates without any college (Kirsch, Jungeblut, & Kolstad, 1993, p. 127)."

<link>

From Nature, October 8, 2009:

Let’s celebrate human genetic diversity

Science is finding evidence of genetic diversity among groups of people as well as among individuals. This discovery should be embraced, not feared, say Bruce T. Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein.

A growing body of data is revealing the nature of human genetic diversity at increasingly finer resolution. It is now recognized that despite the high degree of genetic similarities that bind humanity together as a species, considerable diversity exists at both individual and group levels (see box, page 728). The biological significance of these variations remains to be explored fully. But enough evidence has come to the fore to warrant the question: what if scientific data ultimately demonstrate that genetically based biological variation exists at non-trivial levels not only among individuals but also among groups? In our view, the scientific community and society at large are ill-prepared for such a possibility. We need a moral response to this question that is robust irrespective of what research uncovers about human diversity. Here, we argue for the moral position that genetic diversity, from within or among groups, should be embraced and celebrated as one of humanity’s chief assets.

The current moral position is a sort of ‘biological egalitarianism’. This dominant position emerged in recent decades largely to correct grave historical injustices, including genocide that were committed with the support of pseudo scientific understandings of group diversity. The racial-hygiene theory promoted by German geneticists Fritz Lenz, Eugene Fischer and others during the Nazi era is one notorious example of such pseudoscience. Biological egalitarianism is the view that no or almost no meaningful genetically based biological differences exist among human groups, with the exception of a few superficial traits such as skin colour. Proponents of this view seem to hope that, by promoting biological sameness, discrimination against groups or individuals will become groundless.

We believe that this position, although well intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous, as it implies that if significant group diversity were established, discrimination might thereby be justified. We reject this position. Equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity should be humankind’s common aspirations, notwithstanding human differences no matter how big or small. We also think that biological egalitarianism may not remain viable in light of the growing body of empirical data."

<link>

In reading this article I got as far as the description of "disparate effect" and stopped reading. Just because any qualification for employment established by an employer screened out a disportionate percentate of any "protected" group does not automatically mean that the employer is guilty of illegal discrimination

I suggest you go read Title VII Section K reads

(k) Burden of proof in disparate impact cases
(1)(A) An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact
is established under this subchapter only if -
(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a
particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on
the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and
the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice
is job related for the position in question and consistent with
business necessity; or
(ii) the complaining party makes the demonstration described in
subparagraph (C) with respect to an alternative employment
practice and the respondent refuses to adopt such alternative
employment practice.

(B)(i) With respect to demonstrating that a particular employment
practice causes a disparate impact as described in subparagraph
(A)(i), the complaining party shall demonstrate that each
particular challenged employment practice causes a disparate
impact, except that if the complaining party can demonstrate to the
court that the elements of a respondent's decisionmaking process
are not capable of separation for analysis, the decisionmaking
process may be analyzed as one employment practice.
(ii) If the respondent demonstrates that a specific employment
practice does not cause the disparate impact, the respondent shall
not be required to demonstrate that such practice is required by
business necessity.

So while it is true that "just because' there is a disparate impact doesn't mean that illegal discrimination has taken place, THE BURDEN OF PROOF FALLS TO THE EMPLOYER.

And to meet that burden they MUST SHOW that the HIRING CRITERIA is 100% business related.

For instance, an employer looking to hire an engineer will automatically screen out any candidate that does not have a degree in engineering. Disparate effect? Hardly.

Strawman arguement. But if the job doesn't require an engineering degree, but the employer requires one, THEN it could very well BE "disparate impact".

For this writer to interpret this concept of illegal discrimination in the manner described automatically brings into play something both state and federal laws specifically prohibit: quotas.

Nope. It just places the burden of proof that discrimination did not occur ON THE EMPLOYER, This was done for very good reason. Many many many employers engaged (and continue to engage in ) "nudge and a wink" style "plausible deniabilit" in their hiring practices

I don't think we want civil rights interpreted in this manner.

Why not? I would argue that Quotas are a fairer way to deal with the issues. It provides the employer incentive to seek out qualified minority candidates or to groom minority candidates from within. All this does is offset the daily unearned benefits whites and white males in particular receive.

Gone then would be arguements about what is and is not discrimination.

What's really curious is that Quotas were the PREFERED MECHANISM that CONSERVATIVES USED to implement equal rights protections in Iraq and Afghanistan. Odd that.

Cognitive tests predict SOME job performance. I'm one of those that scores very high on such tests. But I do VERY VERY poorly in jobs that require me to follow the instructions of folks I consider foolish.

Cognitive capabilities WITHIN A TARGET RANGE predict job perf. But even the personalities and other aspects matter a lot.

You essentially are trying to argue that minorities are somehow genetically and cognitively inferior. Sorry The evidence that so called "cognitive tests" often carry acculturated biases is long and well researched as well

I have worked freelance. And I 've worked in startups, and I've run my own business, and I have worked in large corporations from programmer through executive levels

And?

Hey we need free lance thinkers who can challenge the status quo.

But we have greater need for rule-following drones who can follow instructions and procedures which codify accumulated wisdom and allow us to avoid all of the mistakes made by those enterprising, experimental free-lancers of the past.

That's pretty much how society ends up being proportioned. And I think it is good to know where you fit in.

bsharporflat:

Hey we need free lance thinkers who can challenge the status quo.

But we have greater need for rule-following drones who can follow instructions and procedures which codify accumulated wisdom and allow us to avoid all of the mistakes made by those enterprising, experimental free-lancers of the past.

That's pretty much how society ends up being proportioned. And I think it is good to know where you fit in.

Fair enough. In that context, about 1/2 of my corporate jobs - and all of them at the exec level have been in the "free lance thinker"/Strategist/Futurist roles. I'm pretty good at them but you are right, I challenge the status quo often.

My ex is of your thinking as well - 'cept the way she put it was "most people are sheep - which is not necessarily bad because if everyone was a lion or a lone wolf, the world would be much more violent and chaotic".