Griggs v. Duke Power Company The Supreme Court decided in 1971 that requiring job applicants to take IQ tests (or any test that can't be shown to measure skill related to the job) violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The idea (back then, at least) was that these IQ tests were hampering the ability of black Americans to find employment, since they were routinely scoring lower on these tests than other applicants. In the name of "fairness," the state declared that handing these tests to applicants was illegal. Frankly, this is ridiculous. A business owner ought to be free to set any standards that they please. A potential employer should be able to ask me to juggle bowling balls, and if I fail, he ought to be able to refuse to hire me. We have to recognize that people own their businesses (since we recognize that they already own their property and their labor), and that they ought to be free to associate with whom they please. If a business owner only wants to associate with bowling ball jugglers, that's his right. The issue is similar to the now-cliche situation where a Christian baker is asked to bake a gay wedding cake. The Christian ought to be able to refuse service to whomever he pleases - that's his right. Conversely, a gay baker could refuse to bake a cake for a Muslim family. The reason doesn't even need to be justified by creed. The Christian baker could refuse service to another Christian on the grounds that he doesn't like the way that the potential customer dressed himself. The simple truth is that people exercise authority over their own businesses (or they should be able to, ideally). With that authority comes the freedom of association. Hiring processes are the same way - people ought to be able to set any standards that they wish. Agree? Disagree? Or perhaps you just want to drop a short, pithy rebuttal with an insulting remark at the end? Let's get a discussion going.