That seems like a nonsensical way to measure racial discrimination. What could justify it?
This doctrine is the basis for much of employment law. It is a significant reason why employers don't administer IQ tests (or equivalents) to screen candidates since ~the 90s.
A common objection to the doctrine is that it leads to unfalsifiable discrimination claims, which is why it seems nonsensical to you.
If the issue happens upstream of the defendant to a claim - generally an organization being sued by an individual with fewer resources - it incentivizes such entities to push for changes upstream, so that they don't get stuck with the bill.
We have a "disparate impact" and nobody can prove what proportion of it is due to things like parental income or childhood education as opposed to racism on the part of the employer. Because the former considerations are real contributors, the metric can regularly be expected to exceed the threshold even if the contribution of racism by the employer was zero. Doesn't that imply that we're essentially accusing people of racism at random?
> because the impact exists whether intent can be shown or not, the desire remains to ameliorate that impact.
The median household income for Asian Americans of Indian ethnicity is more than double those of Burmese ethnicity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U...
This is objectively a disparate impact and likely shows up in several other metrics in addition to income. Disparate results can almost universally be obtained by arbitrarily segmenting the population into different groups and comparing the midpoints. Americans of Australian ancestry have a higher median income than those of Irish ancestry, Bolivians higher than Cubans. The result is often because the lower down group has a history of being oppressed.
What reasoned means can we use to determine which groups get the benefit of these methods to ameliorate the disparity and which don't? What should be done about the inherent impossibility of doing them simultaneously, e.g. because hiring a South African woman over a Haitian man would reduce the disparity on one axis while increasing it on another? Notice that considering each group separately could result in unconditional liability because either available alternative puts you over the threshold for one group or the other.
> If the issue happens upstream of the defendant to a claim - generally an organization being sued by an individual with fewer resources - it incentivizes such entities to push for changes upstream, so that they don't get stuck with the bill.
Do we want to apply this logic to other things? The median income in California and New York are significantly higher than they are in Alabama or West Virginia and they have higher ranked public schools. We can correspondingly expect that when applicants from different states apply for the same job, the ones from California and New York (even if they're the same race etc.) are more likely to be selected because they had more advantages growing up, even though none of them chose where they were born.
By the same reasoning we should then have the federal government penalize employers for hiring the applicants from the more affluent states so that it "incentivizes such entities to push for changes upstream, so that they don't get stuck with the bill." Does it make sense to do that?
There is a large body of literature concerning the question "does disparate-impact enforcement cause employers to alter hiring behavior in ways unrelated to actual productivity or discrimination?" and the answer is largely "yes". As you suggested elsewhere in this discussion, Google may be useful.
The assumption that applicants from all races are on average equally qualified for every position. Whole subfields of modern academia are based on that assumption.
Individuals are qualified or unqualified. If a company happens to end up with less than 1/4 Ravenclaws or not very many Virgos, it doesn't mean hate is a reason. It could be that the Ravenclaws that applied were a bit less qualified than those from the other houses.
I guess my point is, doing the statistical analysis for race and gender and drawing conclusions, while being completely blind to the one single factor any sane hiring manager should be focusing on -- actual qualifications for the role -- doesn't make any sense.
Here's some analysis of what it is and why it's useful as a canary in the coal mine: https://www.prevuehr.com/resources/insights/adverse-impact-a...
> Since the 80% test does not involve probability distributions to determine whether the disparity is a “beyond chance” occurrence, it is usually not regarded as a definitive test for adverse impact. Instead, other statistically significance tests, such as the standard deviation analysis, may be used for this purpose.
But then my question recurs: isn’t this a ridiculous way to measure discrimination? It’s assuming that the only thing that differs between the different ethnic applicant pools is their ethnicity, which is essentially never going to be true.
Like. If I am evaluating a developer on lines of code written, I am a bad manager. But if an engineer has 40% fewer lines of code than the team median, it's absolutely ok for me to go, "Interesting. What's the story there? Are they slower or is there some other factor?"
Same idea -- this is purely a fast, first pass metric that can quickly assess if something warrants a deeper evaluation.
If you are trying to say "more data needed, headline misleading" you should say that instead of misrepresenting the 4/5ths rule. Also the word "can" implies uncertainty of conclusion. This isn't ridiculous, the authors point out that this is the first large scale study of this topic. Nothing has been "proven" here, it's showing that this warrants further investigation and attention.
Do you read many academic papers, because you seem to be having a rough go here.
It indicates there may be adverse impact to one group. It specifically is not used to resolve racial discrimination.
It's purely a signal for "we should consider asking more questions, because this appears unusual". That's what your quote says too, it "flags" a low recommendation -- it's indicating further study and investigation is likely warranted.
"Adverse impact occurs when there is (i) practically and (ii) statistically significant disparities in the selection rate for the group of interest when compared against the selection rate ′ of the most selected group ′ . Practical significance requires the impact ratio ... to be less than 0.8, which is why the EEOC guidance is colloquially referred to as the 'four-fifths' rule."
The headline numbers reflect the positions for which the 4/5 rule was triggered, not the result of some further investigation: “We discovered that 26% of Black applicants and 15% of Asian applicants applied to positions where the AI system discriminated against their racial group.” Based on the methodology, I think that means that 26% of black applicants applied to positions that were flagged under the 4/5ths rule.
it sounds like how you'd get that kind of metric at least
Because surely no one would have legitimate preferences based on their gender, cultural norms, etc. or real differences in aptitude due to childhood exposure, education, or said norms and preferences.
