Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Imagine being such a statist that you agree with outlawing wrong think. Slippery slope is not a fallacy.by lmaoguy
- Obama forced something similar on schools:
https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/civil-rights-laws/race-co...
The policy warned schools that racial disparities in punishments could trigger federal civil rights investigations under a "disparate impact" standard.
Ergo, presumably, if a school had a single purple student. And that purple student was punished for something. Then the entire school had to also be punished for the thing. To not fall afoul of the law. (Or maybe I'm just too autistic to have a nuanced take.)
(Trump rescinded it.)
- > Ergo, presumably, if a school had a single purple student. And that purple student was punished for something. Then the entire school had to also be punished for the thing. To not fall afoul of the law. (Or maybe I'm just too autistic to have a nuanced take.)
Then why even post? You just made something up and then spewed it out.
by wredcoll - If your take on ANYTHING is that Obama was a racist, and Trump was anti-racist, everything that follows is ignorable.by IAmBroom
- >Or maybe I'm just too autistic to have a nuanced take.
Who is doing the presuming? That sounds like a bad-faith interpretation.
It's bad math. You can't expect statistics to be applied at that scale, and I think courts would have agreed if anyone had tried.
- Our industry should be going after the ATS system use and harmonizing its implementation
Should be going after the camera on policy
Should be going after leetcoding, take home interviews, and every subjective metric that isnt able to be verified in its uniform apllicability across candidates
and according to this paper, even if it was uniform lol
by yieldcrv - I don't see a publish date on this? As I understand it, there have been recent shifts away from what's described and towards the relevant government agencies wanting more direct evidence of individuals being treated differently.by tbrownaw
- I saw a 2025 copyright at the bottom.by newsomix9xl
- Easily undone by the next administration.by polski-g
- web.archive.org first found it on 9/11/2025
https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://www.nyuj...
- Unfortunately the only way to have everyone "equal", seems to be to make everyone equally stupid. This idea has been explored in fiction, e.g. Harrison Bergeron.by userbinator
- I struggle a lot with the potentially nonzero overlap between
a) "just legislate that being racist/sexist to people is illegal, then have judges interpret" (which is what seems to be simply necessary to actually make progress against the endlessly inventive evil of racism/sexism),
and b) "but also don't simply make everything illegal because then abusers can selectively enforce the law to punish groups they dislike".
Tough. Gotta try, though.
- Evaluating a policy based on Disparate Impact is important because it gets rid of the truck-sized plausible deniability of "Well, see, our policies aren't technically or intentionally racist, even though the end result is clearly that racial minorities are excluded/avoided/attacked/whatever. But since we don't specifically and consciously mention race, then we're in the clear!"
It's kind of a corollary to "The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does": The purpose of a policy is who it impacts. Disparate Impact recognizes this.
by ryandrake - > which is what seems to be simply necessary to actually make progress against the endlessly inventive evil of racism/sexism
Can you give examples of how you think there are “inventive” ways people are being racist/sexist?
by rayiner - I think a) seems very quixotic and causes more problems than it solves.
Instead, I would say that discrimination should probably only be illegal in places where there aren’t enough of the thing (jobs, etc). For example, what about x-only clubs, or ladies’ nights or gyms or etc.
by EGreg - > a) "just legislate that being racist/sexist to people is illegal, then have judges interpret" (which is what seems to be simply necessary to actually make progress against the endlessly inventive evil of racism/sexism),
The current rules are that [in specific listed contexts] you are not allowed to treat individuals differently on the basis of [explicit list of characteristics].
That's essentially your (a), except it's not up to interpretation. Pretending that it is up to interpretation is how you get things like what the article is about (in that case by measuring group statistics rather than comparing individual experiences).
by tbrownaw