{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Liberty Hub
7/6/2016 5:32:13 AM
57
It is illegal to require an IQ test for job applications...
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.
-
11 RepliesAllowing business to do whatever they please will most definitely give way to extreme racism and overt discrimination. Businesses will start blocking people out for ridiculous and bigoted reasons. Does the term "Jews need not apply" mean anything to you?
-
to be fair IQ tests don't measure intelligence and the person who created them said himself they shouldn't be taken seriously as a measure of intelligence, they measure literacy and numeracy skills however you could be intelligent for other things for example a soldier may not be that good at maths compared with a physicist but may be much smarter when it comes to practical survival skills and fieldcraft
-
1 ReplyOn a side note, I want to get your stance on something. Somebody was saying that government regulating drugs is a good thing because it keeps people safe. My argument was that the government had no right regulating what we do with our bodies. Also, that many people don't do illegal drugs because they're dangerous to our health, not purely because they're illegal. However, it should be our choice to make if we want to take the risk or not. I also brought up that even now, while they are illegal, people still do them without thinking of the consequences. And that these people would use them no matter what. Law abiding citizens would still refrain from them even if they were legal, because they'd know of the consequences. When somebody using a dangerous drug uses it, the first thing that comes to their mind is not, "is this legal?" However, he blatantly shot down my argument by saying millions of people would start using these drugs, despite knowing of their dangers, and that it's the governments responsibility to save our lives. I already think I know your stance, but I thought I'd share it with you anyways.
-
1 ReplyEdited by FoMan123: 7/7/2016 6:33:54 AMYou'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.
-
27 RepliesIQ tests are not accurate ways to hire a worker. Name something a high iq person can do that a lower one can't. You can't that's where the problem starts
-
While I agree IQ tests should be allowed, remember that IQ is more of a ballpark estimate than a measure of actual intelligence. Someone with a below average IQ can be smarter than someone who is above average.
-
1 ReplyThere are a lot of fundemental issues with the anti discrimination laws. Most of it was based on the bigotry of low expectations. This is an obvuous example. Even back then the democrats were racist. They didn't think Blacks were equal to whites so whites had to be dragged down and blacks propped up. They still follow this.
-
4 RepliesI agree. Employers should have free reign over how they go about their business. I understand how this could be used as a racist method, but honestly, if an employer is racist then they don't need an IQ test to keep colored people out of their business. If an employer wants to only hire/serve whites, then they should be allowed to. In which case (hopefully) the general public would expose these employers and boycott their business. I've never quite understood all the anger about employers discriminating against customers, such as the Christian bakers who wouldn't make a gay wedding cake. They're only hurting their own business by refusing to take money. I mean, I understand a reaction like, "These people don't serve gay people. I don't want to support them, so I'll find another baker instead." That makes sense. But when people say, "These people don't serve gay people. The government should make that illegal." That's what I don't get. Sorry for the long post haha. I like talking about this kind of stuff.
-
1 ReplyEdited by Woupsea: 7/7/2016 2:50:50 AMLots of jobs require you to pass tests and acquire degrees, fussing over an IQ test specifically seems pointless.
-
1 ReplyI am aware of your stance on how a business should be able to handle its customers, in regards to whether or not they should serve everyone, but is your stance the same on employment? Should an employer be allowed to deny an applicant soley on the basis of age, sex, ethnicity, or some other unrelated category?
-
Anyone intelligent enough to understand that it is illegal would probably have passed the IQ test anyway
-
3 RepliesI disagree entirely. People in the work force should be protected from unfair and unrelated standards in regards to getting a job. If my potential employer decides he wants me to take an IQ test when the position I applied for was "guy who wants to carry singles up a ladder" that seems like an unfair standard to me. Now for regards to servicing people; my father is a proud owner of his own business where we mass produce silk screen printed clothing. His business is constantly growing and we're looking to surpass one million in sales this year. My father denies service to some people and sometimes entire school districts because we have to fight them for pay. This is really the only reason I see fit to stop servicing customers. Denying service to people because of their ethnicity, nationality, sexuality, is all just plain discrimination and that's wrong.
-
Agree
-
Edited by BlackMormon: 7/7/2016 4:45:46 AMThe Christian baker could just say "I don't like your face. I'm not baking your cake." Totally legal. "I'm not baking your cake because you're gay."....illegal.
-
34 RepliesEdited by ThaWuTangMaster: 7/6/2016 8:13:01 AMAnd if they want to refuse to blacks, let them! Who cares of they're a medical practice, especially the only one for miles. Same thing for places like Verizon. Why not exclude all Asian employees? I think that Walmart would do nicely if they refused service to all people that don't have blonde hair and/or blue eyes. Maybe we could have Russian females who only have one arm and a synthetic left breast only colleges.
-
5 RepliesWhat if an individual disagrees with the company policy of 'don't serve gay people', and serve one anyway? Who would be in the wrong?
-
43 Replies[i]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.[/i] Except that that's not what happened. They were not sued because they refused to bake a cake but because they published the details of the lesbian couple online, a deliberately aggressive move that was intended to intimidate the couple. In fact the couple then received numerous death threats and general abuse. It probably didn't help that the baker started quoting leviticus at the couple either. They could have just said "sorry, we're too busy", and that would have been the end of it, but they didn't.
-
2 RepliesTl; DR
-
Sure? I mean if you are going to work for someone else thats ur fault. I plan to work fer mahself but thats another conversation for later. Also i suck at iq tests and yet i can easily ace classes and tests. Iq hates meh
-
5 RepliesYou should look up information on the education gap.
-
Should be.
-
nows your chance to apply op,
-
7 RepliesThese are bell curves, labeled with race, from synthesising SAT and ACT scores and approximating a certain cumulative score with IQ Inb4Mathproblemsareracist
-
5 RepliesI've taken two psychology courses, and in both of them, the professors get on the subject of IQ tests and that for a long time, they were structured mainly towards white people. So on top of not accurately measuring a specific percentage of the population, the tests also led to said population not being able to attain jobs - which, in turn, led to said population having particularly distinct levels of poverty. [quote] 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.[/quote] Why is that his right? I'm hearing the assertion, but I'm not hearing the argument. You're telling me that these people have the right to discriminate. That's the claim that I'm seeing. If I own a business, then it's my "right" to refuse people based on sexuality, religion, skin color, etc. What type of 'right' is that? Give my the reasoning. You're just telling me that it's a "simple truth", but I don't think so. Freedom comes at a cost - freedom comes with limitations. You can't say that it's a right simply because it's 'wrong' to tell people what they can and can't do. That's like telling me that it's wrong to tell people that they can't murder.
-
2 RepliesI think a business, supplying a service or product to its customers, should be allowed to discriminate through racism or homophobia. But I think utilities and hospitals should be exceptions. If a gay/ black person needs to use a phone, get running water, or receive medical treatment, they should be entitled to the same service as a straight white person. I know hat you're post was about IQ, not so much race. Sorry that this is a bit of a straw man.
-
I love this thread. It's just stallcall absolutely wrecking people in comments. It's amazing.
