This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This is false. While the Civil Rights Act didn't originally include disparate impact (the Supreme Court developed it in Griggs), it was eventually codified in the Civil Rights Act of 1991. See 42 U.S. Code § 2000e–2.
The Ricci v. DeStefano opinion briefly reviewed this.
I knew about the history of judicial decisions, but was unaware of that legislation. Thanks for correcting me! I think represents a meaningful challenge to the vision presented by Hanania in the Federalist Society speech to which I linked. He operates under the impression that only Griggs need be overturned. In my estimation, after reviewing what you’ve provided, is that the ruling of Griggs is now enshrined into law and no longer reliant on precedent.
What then is the path forward? My initial reaction would be a wide-reaching ruling that recognizes that intelligence is the single best predictor of job performance, and so any semblance of g-loading makes a test or requirement meets the standard “that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.” Standardized tests, IQ tests, leetcode, etc. would be de facto protection for all hiring on merit, with disparate impact damned.
Does that seem like a viable path forward in your estimation?
I've been reading up on the same, spurred by Palladium's recent piece on a related topic.
The 1991 CRA lists the goal "to codify the concepts of business necessity", but it doesn't actually do anything to define that term. The most common legal theory I can find is "No Alternatives", which states that you can use an aptitude test as long as there's no alternative that would have less disparate impact. The actual implementation seems to be a hedge magic of best-practices, derived through the flailing of HR departments reacting to lawsuits. Critically, the burden of proof is on the business -- if you're causing a "disparate impact", you're guilty by default unless you can prove the necessity.
So, there could be room for the courts to clearly spell out a way of proving business necessity. If I were a lawyer I'd go digging for court cases where such a proof has been successful.
No alternatives means nothing and is entirely up to discretion. If an alternative results in 50% more diversity hire but 1% less efficiency, is it viable? What about 10% more diversity for 80% less efficiency? I doubt there are many alternatives found that result in increased efficiency, and if there are, the firm that doesn’t implement them will be punished by the market.
Thanks for sharing the Palladium article. It’s a death spiral that I remain more pessimistic about than Hanania, and my ideations have shifted from how best to change it towards how best to avoid the catastrophic consequences.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link