Black and Republican?

[Professor_X]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

But here’s the bottom line for you: disparate impact on a particular race does not prove racism. Particularly when race is highly correlative to other factors that could very easily play a part in causing the phenomenon that leads to the disparate impact.

Well said, and just to add, that if racial impact was the same thing as racist, then Affirmative Action would be ipso facto a racist policy, as would any policy that denied felons the right to a job or to vote.

If I refuse to hire anyone with a criminal background, regardless of their resume, and blacks are more likely statistically to have a criminal background, my hiring policy would be racist under Professor X’s theory, even though I do not believe that blacks are inferior nor do I hate black people because of their ethnicity. That is lunacy.

Racial impact does not automatically prove racist intent.[/quote]

Refusing to hire someone because of a criminal record is not the same as not hiring someone because they have a name that sounds like someone who might have a criminal record even though this person doesn’t. I actually can’t believe you wrote that as if anyone was stating that a criminal record isn’t a valid justification.

It becomes racist if you assume that since some black people may be felons that you won’t hire anyone with a black name because someone in their family might be.

[Professor_X]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
No, if the ethnic-sounding name leads to discrimination that isn’t based on race, then it is not racism.[/quote]

How are you justifying this? An ethnic sounding name IS based on race. How many white people or any other race have ethnic black sounding names? Because it only affects one racial group, IT IS RACIST.

Once again, this if flatly incorrect. Just because racism is a possible cause of a disparate impact does not mean that racism is the cause of a disparate impact.

And, quite frankly, assuming racism is the cause if it is not only gets in the way of ever identifying the actual cause and attempting to solve the actual problem.

The actual problem is denying someone a job based on their name despite the fact that they qualify for a job. How do you see anything else as the problem?

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
No, if the ethnic-sounding name leads to discrimination that isn’t based on race, then it is not racism.

Professor X wrote:
How are you justifying this? An ethnic sounding name IS based on race. How many white people or any other race have ethnic black sounding names? Because it only affects one racial group, IT IS RACIST.[/quote]

No, because you’re ignoring the cultural and socioeconomic data doogie and thunderbolt23 put up.

Think of it as separate circles, with “black” being the big circle, and “black, uneducated and poor” being in a smaller circle within that circle. It is possible that the discrimination is based on the factors that create the separate subgroup, and not on the shared race characteristic.

And both of those factors would go toward explaining any affirmative action effect.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Once again, this if flatly incorrect. Just because racism is a possible cause of a disparate impact does not mean that racism is the cause of a disparate impact.

And, quite frankly, assuming racism is the cause if it is not only gets in the way of ever identifying the actual cause and attempting to solve the actual problem.

Professor X wrote:
The actual problem is denying someone a job based on their name despite the fact that they qualify for a job. How do you see anything else as the problem?[/quote]

No, assuming racism would be a problem if racism weren’t the cause.

To recap the entire conversation again:

1. The study measured an effect that showed “ethnic, black sounding names” on resumes that purported to be of equal quality received fewer responses than those of names like John or Jane.

2. You ended the analysis there, and said, “That must be caused by racial discrimination.”

3. I said, no, that’s not necessarily the case. Firstly, affirmative action might lead to the perception that people who received affirmative action really did not achieve to the same level as their stated qualifications. I said that might be another possible cause, and that you couldn’t just assume racism was the cause.

4. Then doogie and thunderbolt posted other good data that showed there could also be cultural and socioeconomic distinctions made that were reflected in the name choices – data which, to me, also strengthened my affirmative action hypothesis because it made it statistically more likely that someone with such a name would have been a beneficiary of affirmative action (note, this is without knowing anything else, and it is not a statement of fact – it is not saying “that person must have benefited from affirmative action” – it is saying that someone who is eligible for affirmative action is statistically more likely to be from a poor family with undereducated parents would be statistically more likely to “benefit” from affirmative action by being accepted or matriculated based upon lesser numerical criteria).

5. Then we have continued to go back and forth with us saying “racism is not necessarily the cause,” and you saying, “the effect proves it’s racist.”

Your position is faulty. The cause is not necessarily racism – racism is a possible cause, along with the other factors we’ve discussed, and probably more we haven’t.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Refusing to hire someone because of a criminal record is not the same as not hiring someone because they have a name that sounds like someone who might have a criminal record even though this person doesn’t. I actually can’t believe you wrote that as if anyone was stating that a criminal record isn’t a valid justification.[/quote]

No, no, no - you wrote that disparate racial impact was the equivalent of racism. That was your contention.

My point, squarely - a policy that won’t allow felons to be hired disparately impacts blacks, and - by your formulation, would be a racist policy.

You just defeated your own argument by telling me that a no-felon hiring policy was non-racist on its face and should not be considered as such - while just a few posts above you completely contradicted yourself by saying disparate racial impact was exactly the same as racism.

A no-felon hiring policy would disparately impact blacks but is not a racist policy - which is exactly the argument I just made refuting you.

[Professor_X]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
No, if the ethnic-sounding name leads to discrimination that isn’t based on race, then it is not racism.

Professor X wrote:
How are you justifying this? An ethnic sounding name IS based on race. How many white people or any other race have ethnic black sounding names? Because it only affects one racial group, IT IS RACIST.

No, because you’re ignoring the cultural and socioeconomic data doogie and thunderbolt23 put up.

Think of it as separate circles, with “black” being the big circle, and “black, uneducated and poor” being in a smaller circle within that circle. It is possible that the discrimination is based on the factors that create the separate subgroup, and not on the shared race characteristic.

And both of those factors would go toward explaining any affirmative action effect.

BostonBarrister wrote:
Once again, this if flatly incorrect. Just because racism is a possible cause of a disparate impact does not mean that racism is the cause of a disparate impact.

And, quite frankly, assuming racism is the cause if it is not only gets in the way of ever identifying the actual cause and attempting to solve the actual problem.

Professor X wrote:
The actual problem is denying someone a job based on their name despite the fact that they qualify for a job. How do you see anything else as the problem?

No, assuming racism would be a problem if racism weren’t the cause.

To recap the entire conversation again:

1. The study measured an effect that showed “ethnic, black sounding names” on resumes that purported to be of equal quality received fewer responses than those of names like John or Jane.

2. You ended the analysis there, and said, “That must be caused by racial discrimination.”

3. I said, no, that’s not necessarily the case. Firstly, affirmative action might lead to the perception that people who received affirmative action really did not achieve to the same level as their stated qualifications. I said that might be another possible cause, and that you couldn’t just assume racism was the cause.

4. Then doogie and thunderbolt posted other good data that showed there could also be cultural and socioeconomic distinctions made that were reflected in the name choices – data which, to me, also strengthened my affirmative action hypothesis because it made it statistically more likely that someone with such a name would have been a beneficiary of affirmative action (note, this is without knowing anything else, and it is not a statement of fact – it is not saying “that person must have benefited from affirmative action” – it is saying that someone who is eligible for affirmative action is statistically more likely to be from a poor family with undereducated parents would be statistically more likely to “benefit” from affirmative action by being accepted or matriculated based upon lesser numerical criteria).

5. Then we have continued to go back and forth with us saying “racism is not necessarily the cause,” and you saying, “the effect proves it’s racist.”

Your position is faulty. The cause is not necessarily racism – racism is a possible cause, along with the other factors we’ve discussed, and probably more we haven’t.[/quote]

It doesn’t matter if the cause is called racism. The act is RACIST regardless of what you name it or blame it on. That is what has been explained several times. If I qualify for a job but am denied based on an ethnic sounding name and the basis for this bias is against all ethnic sounding black names, the effects are racist. You can blame it on whatever you want and it won’t change that.

[Professor_X]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Refusing to hire someone because of a criminal record is not the same as not hiring someone because they have a name that sounds like someone who might have a criminal record even though this person doesn’t. I actually can’t believe you wrote that as if anyone was stating that a criminal record isn’t a valid justification.

No, no, no - you wrote that disparate racial impact was the equivalent of racism. That was your contention.

My point, squarely - a policy that won’t allow felons to be hired disparately impacts blacks, and - by your formulation, would be a racist policy.

You just defeated your own argument by telling me that a no-felon hiring policy was non-racist on its face and should not be considered as such - while just a few posts above you completely contradicted yourself by saying disparate racial impact was exactly the same as racism.

A no-felon hiring policy would disparately impact blacks but is not a racist policy - which is exactly the argument I just made refuting you.[/quote]

That is NOT my argument. If there were white people to any significant degree with ethnic black sounding names, THEN you would have a point. Denying anyone with a criminal record of being hired isn’t biased because ALL RACES have many people with criminal records. Only blacks (aside from extremely rare occurances) have black ethnic sounding names making this case unique and blatantly racist. Let me also add that being an ex-convict is a negative in ALL of society aside from possibly some rap artists. That makes relating it directly to simply having a certain name completely ridiculous.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

It doesn’t matter if the cause is called racism. The act is RACIST regardless of what you name it or blame it on. That is what has been explained several times. If I qualify for a job but am denied based on an ethnic sounding name and the basis for this bias is against all ethnic sounding black names, the effects are racist. You can blame it on whatever you want and it won’t change that.[/quote]

It does matter, because “racist” means caused by racial discrimination.

And you completely did not address the issue that “ethnic sounding black names” are a subset, which has other characteristics – namely socioeconomic and cultural characteristics – that could cause any discriminatory behavior, which would, ispo facto, not be racist but culturally or socioeconomically based. And that, again, is aside from any separate causation from any affirmative action effect.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

That is NOT my argument. If there were white people to any significant degree with ethnic black sounding names, THEN you would have a point. Denying anyone with a criminal record of being hired isn’t biased because ALL RACES have many people with criminal records. Only blacks (aside from extremely rare occurances) have black ethnic sounding names making this case unique and blatantly racist.
[/quote]

Are you saying that, if somehow only one race had a lot of criminals, then doing something that solely affected and negatively affected criminals would be racist?

[Professor_X]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:

It doesn’t matter if the cause is called racism. The act is RACIST regardless of what you name it or blame it on. That is what has been explained several times. If I qualify for a job but am denied based on an ethnic sounding name and the basis for this bias is against all ethnic sounding black names, the effects are racist. You can blame it on whatever you want and it won’t change that.

It does matter, because “racist” means caused by racial discrimination.

And you completely did not address the issue that “ethnic sounding black names” are a subset, which has other characteristics – namely socioeconomic and cultural characteristics – that could cause any discriminatory behavior, which would, ispo facto, not be racist but culturally or socioeconomically based. And that, again, is aside from any separate causation from any affirmative action effect.[/quote]

Names are not directly linked to “poor performance”. That is a leap you all are making to justify this bias. Further, racism also refers to negative aspects of society that act against a particular race, whether you state that is the “cause” or not.

[Professor_X]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:

That is NOT my argument. If there were white people to any significant degree with ethnic black sounding names, THEN you would have a point. Denying anyone with a criminal record of being hired isn’t biased because ALL RACES have many people with criminal records. Only blacks (aside from extremely rare occurances) have black ethnic sounding names making this case unique and blatantly racist.

Are you saying that, if somehow only one race had a lot of criminals, then doing something that solely affected and negatively affected criminals would be racist?[/quote]

Criminals are completely different aspect of society. They have been proven to work against society. To even relate them to simply having a certain name is completely ridiculous. Why would that even be a logical relation to you? If only one particular race was the only one ending up in jail, it would point to many possible biases unless in this world you speak of, no other races commit any crimes at all.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]

Professor X wrote:

It doesn’t matter if the cause is called racism. The act is RACIST regardless of what you name it or blame it on. That is what has been explained several times. If I qualify for a job but am denied based on an ethnic sounding name and the basis for this bias is against all ethnic sounding black names, the effects are racist. You can blame it on whatever you want and it won’t change that.

BostonBarrister wrote:

It does matter, because “racist” means caused by racial discrimination.

And you completely did not address the issue that “ethnic sounding black names” are a subset, which has other characteristics – namely socioeconomic and cultural characteristics – that could cause any discriminatory behavior, which would, ispo facto, not be racist but culturally or socioeconomically based. And that, again, is aside from any separate causation from any affirmative action effect.

Professor X wrote:
Names are not directly linked to “poor performance”. That is a leap you all are making to justify this bias. Further, racism also refers to negative aspects of society that act against a particular race, whether you state that is the “cause” or not.[/quote]

That’s not what I said. I didn’t say anything about any direct link – I said that names give you certain other probabilities. One piece of information that you are glomming on to most tightly, at the exclusion of the other information, is that the person with the “ethnically black” name is statistically very likely to be black. The other information is that the person is statistically likely to be from a lower socioeconomic group, and from a home with undereducated parents.

So right there, you have at least three factors on which either discrimination might be based, and at least two of them are not race.

As for my point on an affirmative action effect, I said a combination of things. 1) I said there is the possibility of an affirmative action effect. 2) I said that, given the socioeconomic and cultural data presented, it would be statistically more likely for someone who is eligible for affirmative action - e.g. a black person - to have actually had lower actual numerical achievement and thus have benefited from affirmative action policies if such person were from a lower socioeconomic group and from a household with under educated parents.

Thus I said you could make an argument that part of any discrimination measured was from the affirmative action effect, and that the “ethnic names,” far from only conveying race, actually conveyed socioeconomic data that would increase the statistical probability and thus any effect.

Remember, I am using the term “affirmative action effect” to describe the perception that it creates – to descibe the fact that affirmative action itself creates the perception that someone who would benefit from it has not achieved to the level reflected on his resume. This is due, solely and completely, to the fact that affirmative action programs, by their very design, hold people to lower standards based on race.

And no, “racism” does not refer to some amorphous acts of “society” that are floating around in the ether and on which things that disparately affect one race can be blamed. “Society” cannot take a particular action any more than “blacks” can take a particular action – “society” does not hold any particular beliefs any more than “blacks” hold any particular beliefs. Why would a generalization hold up better for a bigger group?

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]
Professor X wrote:

That is NOT my argument. If there were white people to any significant degree with ethnic black sounding names, THEN you would have a point. Denying anyone with a criminal record of being hired isn’t biased because ALL RACES have many people with criminal records. Only blacks (aside from extremely rare occurances) have black ethnic sounding names making this case unique and blatantly racist.

BostonBarrister wrote:
Are you saying that, if somehow only one race had a lot of criminals, then doing something that solely affected and negatively affected criminals would be racist?

Professor X wrote:
Criminals are completely different aspect of society. They have been proven to work against society. [/quote]

That’s irrelevant to the principle of what you said before. You said anything that solely and detrimentally impacted one race was de facto racist.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
To even relate them to simply having a certain name is completely ridiculous.[/quote]

I’m not relating the two - I’m saying the principle is the same.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why would that even be a logical relation to you? [/quote]

The two factual situations are not related – they are two different illustrations of the same principle.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
If only one particular race was the only one ending up in jail, it would point to many possible biases unless in this world you speak of, no other races commit any crimes at all. [/quote]

Now you’re trying to deflect the question. That is part of the assumed fact pattern, not part of the hypo – the hypo is merely about a law passed that is aimed at criminals. The fact patter for the hypo is that one race of green people makes up the entirety of the criminal class – but not that all green people are criminals (not that it would matter, but maybe that will help for understanding purposes).

Given that fact pattern, are you saying that a law that solely and negatively affected criminals, which means it solely and negatively affected one sub-group in one race (the factors that, according to you, prove racism), would be racist?

[Professor_X]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
That’s not what I said. I didn’t say anything about any direct link – I said that names give you certain other probabilities. One piece of information that you are glomming on to most tightly, at the exclusion of the other information, is that the person with the “ethnically black” name is statistically very likely to be black. The other information is that the person is statistically likely to be from a lower socioeconomic group, and from a home with undereducated parents.

So right there, you have at least three factors on which either discrimination might be based, and at least two of them are not race.[/quote]

First, why is any employer judging an applicant by what his family MIGHT be? What does that have to do with the applicant AT ALL? Regardless of how many other reasons you would like to find, the one that I am shining the light on is the one that makes it a racist act. This does not affect any other racial group and has NOTHING to do with the abilities of the applicant. That makes it a very unsupported racial bias that has no justification at all.

And no, “racism” does not refer to some amorphous acts of “society” that are floating around in the ether and on which things that disparately affect one race can be blamed. “Society” cannot take a particular action any more than “blacks” can take a particular action – “society” does not hold any particular beliefs any more than “blacks” hold any particular beliefs. Why would a generalization hold up better for a bigger group?

Blacks hold the belief that people with black sounding names, in spite of what their application shows, can’t perform well? You are saying that other races are looking at applications, and even though this guy may have a 4.0 GPA, has done more community service than average and stands out above other applicants, believe he should be held back because of some unsubstantiated bias based on “black ethnic names”? Really? That would seem to show that society does hold beliefs not held by minorities. I know I would never deny someone a job based on their name and I doubt any other black person on this site would either.

[Professor_X]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

That’s irrelevant to the principle of what you said before. You said anything that solely and detrimentally impacted one race was de facto racist.[/quote]

It is not irrelevant. We are talking about being qualified for a job with no negatives aside from blatant assumptions. A criminal record is seen as a negative by all of society thus making that relation irrelevant to this discussion.

[quote]
I’m not relating the two - I’m saying the principle is the same.[/quote]

No, it isn’t. Having a black sounding name is the same as having a criminal record?

The two factual situations are not related – they are two different illustrations of the same principle.

No, an example of the same principle would include an example that was not held as a negative by ALL of society. You can’t find one easily so you simply chose whatever popped into your mind. If anything, it shows how ridiculous judging people by name is.

[quote]

Now your trying to deflect the question. [/quote]

I sure am because your question is using relationships that are not equal, making it ridiculous to go forward. Find a better example that is not held as a negative by all of society. My guess is, you can’t.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

That’s irrelevant to the principle of what you said before. You said anything that solely and detrimentally impacted one race was de facto racist.

Professor X wrote:
It is not irrelevant. We are talking about being qualified for a job with no negatives aside from blatant assumptions. A criminal record is seen as a negative by all of society thus making that relation irrelevant to this discussion.[/quote]

No, that’s an example of the principle we are talking about. We are talking about the principle of whether something that disparately and negatively impacts one race is necessarily caused by racism, or is necessarily racist in character.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m not relating the two - I’m saying the principle is the same.

Professor X wrote:
No, it isn’t. Having a black sounding name is the same as having a criminal record?[/quote]

No, you’re talking about equating the facts. I’m not equating the facts. I’m talking about the illustrated principle.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The two factual situations are not related – they are two different illustrations of the same principle.

Professor X wrote:
No, an example of the same principle would include an example that was not held as a negative by ALL of society. You can’t find one easily so you simply chose whatever popped into your mind. If anything, it shows how ridiculous judging people by name is.[/quote]

No, it wouldn’t have to. The principle is perfectly well illustrated by the criminal hypo above.

I simply chose one based on what you and thunder had already written.

BostonBarrister wrote:

Now your trying to deflect the question.

Professor X wrote:
I sure am because your question is using relationships that are not equal, making it ridiculous to go forward. Find a better example that is not held as a negative by all of society. My guess is, you can’t.

I can very easily, but I still want you to answer the question as posed.

Another example: What if all parking lots in a certain city were owned by a certain race, and the city counsel passed a regulation that negatively affected the parking-lot trade, thus negatively and disparately affecting people of that race?

[Professor_X]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I can very easily, but I still want you to answer the question as posed.

Another example: What if all parking lots in a certain city were owned by a certain race, and the city counsel passed a regulation that negatively affected the parking-lot trade, thus negatively and disparately affecting people of that race? [/quote]

What type of regulation? If the regulation itself had nothing to do with the people directly, there would be no direct bias. If the regulation involved building more businesses in that area, obviously the parking lot trade would be compensated. That is not the same as someone applying for a job and being denied because their name sounded too black.

The example you just posted involves an initiative based on business that just happens to involve a business owned by one race. The example we are discussing based on name affects black individuals directly and blatantly calls them “not good enough” simply because of their name. A business transaction is not the same as degrading someone for no reason because of their name.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
That’s not what I said. I didn’t say anything about any direct link – I said that names give you certain other probabilities. One piece of information that you are glomming on to most tightly, at the exclusion of the other information, is that the person with the “ethnically black” name is statistically very likely to be black. The other information is that the person is statistically likely to be from a lower socioeconomic group, and from a home with undereducated parents.

So right there, you have at least three factors on which either discrimination might be based, and at least two of them are not race.

Professor X wrote:
First, why is any employer judging an applicant by what his family MIGHT be? What does that have to do with the applicant AT ALL? [/quote]

It has a lot to do with the possibility of an affirmative action effect. On a lesser level, it could also suggest discrimination based on socioeconomic factors, or some other factor we aren’t considering.

[quote]
Professor X wrote:
Regardless of how many other reasons you would like to find, the one that I am shining the light on is the one that makes it a racist act. This does not affect any other racial group and has NOTHING to do with the abilities of the applicant. That makes it a very unsupported racial bias that has no justification at all.[/quote]

This is my point entirely, summed up in your paragraph above. You are assigning causation to racism, when it is only one among several possible causes. It’s an assumption, not a fact – and it’s not logically supported. We don’t know the cause unless we do further analysis, and you can’t simply decide it’s racism - or you can, but you won’t be on good logical footing, and you may miss dealing with the actual cause, and make the actual problem worse, rather than better.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The point is, still, that these are not “racism,” but separate possible causes.

And no, “racism” does not refer to some amorphous acts of “society” that are floating around in the ether and on which things that disparately affect one race can be blamed. “Society” cannot take a particular action any more than “blacks” can take a particular action – “society” does not hold any particular beliefs any more than “blacks” hold any particular beliefs. Why would a generalization hold up better for a bigger group?

Professor X wrote:
Blacks hold the belief that people with black sounding names, in spite of what their application shows, can’t perform well? [/quote]

Where on earth did you come up with that? Read what I wrote again, and think in terms of principles.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You are saying that other races are looking at applications, and even though this guy may have a 4.0 GPA, has done more community service than average and stands out above other applicants, believe he should be held back because of some unsubstantiated bias based on “black ethnic names”? [/quote]

And where on earth did you come up with this? Not only are you making stuff up, but you’re completely missing my point.

And where are you pulling these extra facts from anyway?

Aside from that, I believe the study specifically did not use criteria that would have made any particular applicant stand head and shoulders above the applicant pool. Not that it would matter, because it’s irrelevant to the point.

If you wanted to make stuff up that would be consistent with the point, you would make something up to this effect: Of two people with 4.0 GPAs and above-average community service, one with an ethinc-sounding name would be slightly less likely to receive a call back for an interview. The possible causes for this range from a negative assumption based on affirmative action, discrimination based on socioeconomic factors, discrimination based on culture, discrimination based on race, or other factors.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Really? That would seem to show that society does hold beliefs not held by minorities. I know I would never deny someone a job based on their name and I doubt any other black person on this site would either.[/quote]

“Society” doesn’t hold any beliefs at all, because some amorphous group can’t hold beliefts. “Society” is a disparate collection of individuals, and includes members of the majority and the minorities, each of whom acts as an individual and each of whom holds individual beliefs.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I can very easily, but I still want you to answer the question as posed.

Another example: What if all parking lots in a certain city were owned by a certain race, and the city counsel passed a regulation that negatively affected the parking-lot trade, thus negatively and disparately affecting people of that race?

Professor X wrote:
What type of regulation? If the regulation itself had nothing to do with the people directly, there would be no direct bias. [/quote]

It doesn’t matter what type of regulation. It simply matters that the regulation disparately and negatively affects only the race that makes up the group of parking lot owners.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
If the regulation involved building more businesses in that area, obviously the parking lot trade would be compensated. [/quote]

THis is irrelvant, but just to make you happy, lets say they are being compensated far below true market value for an eminent domain taking. Or, if you like, let’s say they aren’t compensated at all for a regulatory taking, because the regulation that was passed made it impossible for them to continue their businesses. Let’s say it completely devastates their liveliehoods .

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That is not the same as someone applying for a job and being denied because their name sounded too black. [/quote]

It’s not supposed to be the exact same thing. It is supposed to be an example of the principle you claimed: that something that negatively and disparately impacted one race (and actually a subgroup of one race) is necessarily caused by racism and racist in character.

And, just like the prisoner example above, this example fits your criteria and is not racist on its face. Racism could be a cause, but it’s not necessarily the cause. And that holds for every example we’ve discussed, from the study right through the parking lots.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
The example you just posted involves an initiative based on business that just happens to involve a business owned by one race. [/quote]

I thought you said above that the effect was all that mattered? Now the intent matters too? Funny, I thought that was part of my point, not yours…

[quote]Professor X wrote:
The example we are discussing based on name affects black individuals directly and blatantly calls them “not good enough” simply because of their name. A business transaction is not the same as degrading someone for no reason because of their name.[/quote]

No it doesn’t – it might show that, or it might show that the cause was certain other factors correlated with the name.

Now please, do, examine the principles and answer both hypos.

[BostonBarrister]

I just want to post my point again, in case it gets lost in all the irrelevant digressions:

Disparate impact on a particular race does not prove racism. Particularly when race is highly correlative to other factors that could very easily play a part in causing the phenomenon that leads to the disparate impact.

[Professor_X]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I just want to post my point again, in case it gets lost in all the irrelevant digressions:

Disparate impact on a particular race does not prove racism. Particularly when race is highly correlative to other factors that could very easily play a part in causing the phenomenon that leads to the disparate impact. [/quote]

Bullshit. Read what you just wrote. The only way you could defend this is if your stance is that being black with a certain name leads to being less productive. Race has nothing to do with why someone won’t do their job. Race has nothing to do with whether someone is qualified or not. It can not be “disparate” if the only people it affects is one racial group and then labels them “not good enough” for the job.