{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Liberty Hub
Edited by FoMan123:
7/7/2016 6:33:54 AM
1
You're misinterpreting the Court's ruling here. It is not illegal to administer an IQ test [i]if having a high score on an IQ test is a bona fide occupational qualification[/i] to succeed at the job. In this case, Duke Power Company failed to show that applicants who scored higher on IQ tests were more likely to succeed on the job. At the same time, the IQ test had a disproportionately negative effect on a protected group (race) under Title VII. This meant that the IQ test was being used as a loophole to get around Civil Rights laws, not as a way to find and hire great employees.
If a high IQ score were a bona fide occupational qualification (for example if it were required for a job helping to design IQ tests), it would have almost certainly been fine. However, corporations in the U.S. following the Civil Rights movement had a long and dirty history of looking for loopholes to get around Civil Rights laws -- your "freedom of association" ideal is noble and generally true, but simply fails to meet the balancing test when you're balancing that right against massive, systemic, and widespread discrimination by people in power (i.e., business executives) against entire groups of people based simply on their race, gender, religion, nationality, disability, or other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they can do the job.
However, it is important to note that [b]this entire debate is probably moot[/b]. Your example about a simple small business owner who only wants to associate with people who can juggle bowling balls is poignant, but not applicable here. Title VII is a federal law, and by statute applies only to companies with more than 15 employees -- i.e., medium and large corporations, not your offered image of a simple, small mom-and-pop shop with one or two partners or proprietors with some quirky eccentricities. Subject to state laws, of course, most small businesses have far fewer regulations on hiring practices for exactly the kinds of touchy feely reasons you're putting forth here. If a small business owner wants the freedom to eccentrically hire employees based on pointless and inapplicable criteria, that's probably okay, but he or she loses that privilege if they want to grow into a larger corporation. Seems like a fair tradeoff.
FYI, not looking to get into a political or civil rights debate here, just wanted to correct an obvious misinterpretation of this case and federal case law. Do with this information what you will.
English
-
[quote]You're misinterpreting the Court's ruling here. It is not illegal to administer an IQ test if having a high score on an IQ test is a bona fide occupational qualification to succeed at the job.[/quote] Like I said, any test that isn't directly related to the job is illegal. I'm not even particularly interested in IQ tests. I'm more concerned with individual rights. It isn't moral for the state to force a party to engage in a transaction against their will, and the hiring process is a transaction like any other. [quote]However, corporations in the U.S. following the Civil Rights movement had a long and dirty history of looking for loopholes to get around Civil Rights laws -- your "freedom of association" ideal is noble and generally true, but simply fails to meet the balancing test when you're balancing that right against massive, systemic, and widespread discrimination by people in power (i.e., business executives) against entire groups of people based simply on their race, gender, religion, nationality, disability, or other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they can do the job.[/quote] The balancing act, in my eyes, is not between freedom of association and "alleviating racism." Instead, it's between the rights of individuals and the justification for using force against them. If we recognize that a person owns their property and their labor, then we have to recognize that it is immoral to use violence to force them into transactions. There are endless reasons that a person might not enter a transaction, and they're all morally neutral. The motivations for declining a transaction do not violate a person's right to their body, speech, property, or labor. Using the state's guns to force them into that transaction infringes on their labor. [quote]Title VII is a federal law, and by statute applies only to companies with more than 15 employees -- i.e., medium and large corporations, not a mom-and-pop shop with a single proprietor with some quirky eccentricities. Subject to state laws, of course, most small businesses have far fewer regulations on hiring practices for exactly the kinds of touchy feely reasons you're putting forth here. If a small business owner wants the freedom to eccentrically hire employees based on pointless and inapplicable criteria, that's probably okay, but he or she loses that privilege if they want to grow into a larger corporation. Seems like a fair tradeoff.[/quote] It's good that a small business will still reserve that right. However, being successful and growing your business doesn't mean that you sacrifice the ownership of your property. It isn't a "fair tradeoff" because it assumes that, for some reason, hiring more people means that you waive your right to exercise authority over your property. The owner that hires more people is simply engaging in more transactions. If we recognize that forcing people to engage in transactions against their will is immoral, then it shouldn't matter how many transactions are made.
