Am 03.06.2010 16:14, schrieb Orchid XP v8:

>> They allege that if some races test lower than others (on average),
>> then using the test is discriminatory. It's all about "disparate impact."
>
> This logic is so horrifyingly broken...

Not if the prime axiom of anti-racism holds true, that all races are 
equal; because if you take that for granted, any test that exhibits 
significantly different test results for different races /must/ be broken.

Then again, I never managed to understand how anyone can even claim that 
men and women are equal, given the pretty obvious anatomic differences - 
and the same goes for "whites", "blacks", "yellows", "reds" and 
what-have-you-nots: They obviously /are/ different, if only in outer 
appearance (and in fact there are less obvious differences, such as 
resistances against certain ailments and drugs).

After all, the question is not whether differences exist, but how much 
value we assign to them.

Which again takes us to the tests: If the results of such a test appear 
to assign different average values to different races, do we really 
/want/ such a test? Or shouldn't we oppose it, possibly even saying, 
"hey, this test /may/ be right in that "whites" are generally better 
qualified for this job than "blacks", but that would add a "value tag" 
to racial differences, thereby fueling a mindset that we don't want in 
our society - so let's ditch the test results, risking not having the 
/very/ best firefighters we could get, to fight the mindset that racial 
differences would make any race superior to any other"?

Post a reply to this message