# Disparate Impact **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 1, 2009, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485 "2009-09-01T15:03:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/41 "2009-09-01T23:07:04Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > The SAT, like many other tests, is not highly [predictive](http://www.fairtest.org/sat-i-faulty-instrument-predicting-college-success). Do you have any evidence to dispute this? Restriction of range. People who get into top colleges are smarter than people who don’t, and have a narrower distribution of SAT scores that obscures the overall correlation. One analogy would be weight and football players. A 250lb linebacker may not be much worse than a 300lb one, but that doesn’t mean that weight is not correlated with football success. Your blithe assumption that SAT scores don’t matter (from a biased source at that) is like a scrawny 150-pounder claiming that weight doesn’t matter in football, charging the field, and getting clobbered. > [@](#): > > If it were, and if gave us some understanding of our genetic potential, then why do people spend billions of dollars on test preparation? If they think it will bring them closer to their personal genetic potential, then we can assume that those who lack those services will not test to their potential, undermining the initial argument that genetics play such a large role. Studies show that preparation has a small effect on actually changing scores. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/42 "2009-09-01T23:07:41Z")
Let’s look at this from another angle. Why do groups enjoy protections which individuals do not? I personally sleep in on sundays. If my work requires me to be in on time on sundays, can I sue and require them to prove that their policy is necessary? Of course not! Now one might argue\* that I can choose to alter my sleeping habits but a racial minority cannot choose to alter their race. But here’s the problem with using disparate outcomes as a basis for claims of discrimination: It doesn’t require any proof (as far as I’m aware, anyway. Correct me if I’m wrong) that the disparate outcome is the result of something beyond the control of the **individuals** whose outcome is unsatisfactory. So what if some aspect of a race or culture creates problems in the workplace? They are presented with a choice; They can either choose to make a change, or accept the disparate outcome. But it seems to me, laws like these give people the option of simply suing to get a better outcome rather than altering their own behaviour even when that’s the real cause of their unsatisfactory outcome. The fact that it gives this option only to minorities is somewhat beside the point, I think. \*I am not claiming anyone here **IS** arguing this, so please don’t cry strawman here. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/43 "2009-09-02T00:01:53Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Yet, I’m still waiting for you to name a neural gene that blacks have less of than whites. Hell, I’d even take some brain weight data or axon-to-soma ratio between blacks and whites, if you can point to it. Even if we accept your premise, the government would have even firmer reason to protect the poor blacks who, of no fault of their own, are less capable than their white counterparts. > > - Honesty For the moment you may take solace in having this gene set unnamed. Be careful; we are mapping the genome and the phenotypic expressions and I do not think it will remain unnamed. We have had this discussion on this board before, as you know. I agree the government has an even firmer reason to protect underrepresented minorities in the interest of diversity, and it is for this reason I am in favor of race-based AA. It becomes sticky when the shoe is on the other foot…should we aim for diversity in the NFL or NBA or the USA track and field teams to help protect the poor whites who, of no fault of their own, are less capable than their black counterparts? On the “there is no race front”: if we can’t define race at all, then we can’t have any disparate impact for a given race and we can’t have any race-based AA of any kind. If we can define it, then we take whatever THAT group is that’s being under-represented and we look at their performance. And if their performance is substantially inferior, then we make sure they are given equal or greater opportunity. If THAT group still underperforms, then their reason for underperforming is genetic, regardless of whether or not the rest of THAT group’s genes are more or less diverse, or whether THAT group is more or less related to itself genetically. As I’ve mentioned ad nauseum, all tall people have a different gene from all short people, and can be their own cohort with that difference being genetic even if all short people are completely unrelated to each other. Finally, to **Strassia’s** point: _“I have heard this many times and you seem to be implying that on a distribution of achievement or scores that the groups are almost completely separated. That a small deviation in the mean is proof that any given member of the group A is better than any given member of group B.”_ The difference is not “a small deviation.” It is enormous. On the MCATs, as an example, after 4 years of college preparation, the score differences between black and white applicants are huge: 7 v 9.5 VR (Verbal Reasoning) and 7.6 v 10 BS (Biological Sciences), for example. [http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2008/mcatgparaceeth08.htm](http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2008/mcatgparaceeth08.htm) The notion that there are a handful of petty differences out there with skin color being the main one makes for nice little paradigms but those of us struggling to handle differences in the real world of academia recognize it is not a “small deviation.” These are staggering differences considering that by the time kids apply to med school they’ve already had college preparation and for underrepresented minorites that preparation for getting ready for med school often involves a great deal of special care and attention directed at the black students in an effort to prepare more blacks for medicine. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/44 "2009-09-02T01:54:11Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Restriction of range. People who get into top colleges are smarter than people who don’t, and have a narrower distribution of SAT scores that obscures the overall correlation. Wrong. Your point is not even relevant to the studies mentioned. Did you even read the site? It talks about numerous studies, including ones involving schools other than top colleges. > [@](#): > > After a three-year validity study analyzing the power of the SAT I, SAT II, and high school grades to **predict success at the state’s eight public universities, University of California (UC)** President Richard Atkinson presented a proposal in February 2001 to drop the SAT I requirement for UC applicants. The results from the UC validity study, which tracked 80,000 students from 1996-1999, **highlighted the weak predictive power of the SAT I, with the test accounting for only 12.8% of the variation in FGPA**. SAT II’s and HSGPA explained 15.3% and 14.5% of the variation, respectively. After taking SAT II and HSGPA into account, SAT I scores improved the prediction rate by a negligible 0.1% (from 21.0% to 21.1%), making it a virtually worthless additional piece of information. Furthermore, SAT I scores proved to be more susceptible to the influence of the socioeconomic status of an applicant than either the SAT II or HSGPA. Nice try though. > [@athelas](#): > > One analogy would be weight and football players. A 250lb linebacker may not be much worse than a 300lb one, but that doesn’t mean that weight is not correlated with football success. Don’t move the goalposts. You stated that these tests were predictive, not that the correlate (not that it matters anyway). In terms of your analogy, it would be like saying weight is predictive of football success. Would any knowledgeable person make this argument? BTW, weight is not correlated with football success anyway, even when you only consider NFL players. You probably couldn’t be an 150lb linebacker, but you couldn’t be a 450 linebacker either. However, you could do other things. Lamont Brightful (former DB-Giants) is 160lbs, and Kevin Lovell (former K-Falcons) is 150lbs. Plenty of players are under 200lbs, which is relatively normal for a person of their height. > [@athelas](#): > > Your blithe assumption that SAT scores don’t matter It’s not an assumption, it’s a documented fact that SATs are a poor predictor of future academic success. It’s not that the test “doesn’t matter”, it just doesn’t measure what people claim it does. > [@athelas](#): > > (from a biased source at that) You are welcome to counter with a cite if you’d like. Don’t shoot the messenger. The group may have a bias, but they quote reputable studies. > [@athelas](#): > > is like a scrawny 150-pounder claiming that weight doesn’t matter in football, charging the field, and getting clobbered. Weight doesn’t matter much in football, or at least, not as much as numerous other factors. Such an assertion only highlights your football ignorance. The fattest guy isn’t usually the best. In fact, weighing too much is a hindrance in most positions. I understand the (bad) point you are making, but your analogy is awful. > [@athelas](#): > > Studies show that preparation has a small effect on actually changing scores. Correct, so you would admit that those who don’t prepare would have scores that do not reflect what they would have scored with preparation? If that is the case, then why do you assume that these tests are an accurate reflection of genetic potential when so many other things contribute to success? Also, do you care to address the other points I made about presenting actual evidence of your opinion, or admitting you are a racist. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/45 "2009-09-02T02:05:42Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > The difference is not “a small deviation.” It is enormous. On the MCATs, as an example, after 4 years of college preparation, the score differences between black and white applicants are huge: 7 v 9.5 VR (Verbal Reasoning) and 7.6 v 10 BS (Biological Sciences), for example. [http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2008/mcatgparaceeth08.htm](http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2008/mcatgparaceeth08.htm) So what effect do you imagine this has in the real world? Do you think Blacks are worse doctors? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/46 "2009-09-02T03:34:09Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > we’ll continue to have laws based on an incorrect premise: that given equal opportunity, all groups will perform equally. Not at all. You don’t understand how disparate impact laws work. If a job requires people of certain strength, and women tend not to be that strong, and the job tends to be populated by men rather than women, according to disparate impact laws, _this is just fine_. The laws do not presume, or try to create a situation in which, everyone performs equally given equal opportunity. ---
**Author:** ![Slanky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Slanky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slanky)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/47 "2009-09-02T05:37:14Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > It’s not an assumption, it’s a documented fact that SATs are a poor predictor of future academic success. It’s not that the test “doesn’t matter”, it just doesn’t measure what people claim it does. This [article](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/opinion/18salins.html) purports that increasing SAT score requirements at colleges increases graduation rates. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/48 "2009-09-02T09:20:53Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Odd that poor, white shlubs from South Boston are NOT White Male WASPs. > > My personal opinion is that much discrimination occurs on a class basis, and because of racism, black people are overrepresented within discrimianted against classes. There is also a level of racism that leads to discrimination against black people regardless of socio-economic status. > > I would like to see affirmative action programs based on class. Trouble is, it is a dirty word in US Politics because it smacks of socialism. But to claims WASPs are oppressed is ridiculous. I wouldn’t say WASPS are oppressed, but disadvantaged white males have very little in the way of support. When women and certain types of minorities are chosen ahead of them to get admission, scholarships, and job offers then the effect is that they are put at a disadvantage. Standing outside looking down (in both meanings of the phrase) it’s simple to see white males as a monolithic block, but they are not. Some (I repeat some) of the current craziness we see on the right is a reaction to this. I grew up poor, and though I tend to be liberal on most issues, affirmative action, quotas, and special support for women and minorities still put my teeth on edge. These non-race blind policies result in breaking the natural alliance between poor whites and poor blacks and fuel resentment. Like you, I’d like to see affirmative action based on things like income, neighborhoods, whether anyone else in your family went to college, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/49 "2009-09-02T10:23:16Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > So what effect do you imagine this has in the real world? Do you think Blacks are worse doctors? Of course not, for any individual physician if their quantitative scores and grades for identical curricula and training are the same as the next doctor to which they are being compared. Self-identification with any particular cohort is meaningless at an individual level. The quantitative scores loosely measure the ability to grasp, retain and regurgitate data. Grades often measure a qualities beyond that such as drive and work ethic (since grades are so subjective, obviously the only grades that can be compared with one another are grades within an identical class). Training is self-evident. Where these are dissimilar, the answer is “yes” for any doctor being compared with any other doctor of any color. Medical licensure alone does not confer some sort of equality in performance. Students who are admitted with marginal records or who attend different training programs do not attain the same proficiency level. While the old joke that the lowest guy in the med class is still called “Doctor” is true, it’s not true that their performance is equal. Howard and Meharry Colleges, for instance, have traditionally educated primarily black students. Their matriculating classes have about the lowest MCAT scores in the country: 7.5 at Meharry and 8 at Howard v. 11.2 at Vanderbilt and 10 at Georgetown, say). [US Medical Schools: MCAT Scores and GPA](http://www.mcattestscores.com/usmedicalschoolsmcatscoresGPA.html) In 2003 the Hartford Courant wrote an article about how difficult it is for these historically black colleges to compete: “A Courant analysis of disciplinary actions against doctors nationwide found, however, that both Howard and Meharry produce troubled doctors more frequently than most other schools - at rates about 10 times greater than the schools with the lowest numbers. The actions ranged from a simple citation to permanent license revocation for a range of misdeeds including medical incompetence, ethical lapses and criminal behavior.” > **[Black Medical Schools](https://ruralmedicaleducation.org/underserved/black_medical_schools.htm)** The best medical schools, like the best colleges, tend toward having the best quantitative scores for their matriculants. Once a physician is out in practice, it’s very difficult to objectively quantify who is the “best.” I can say at a personal level I’m going to go the the one with the highest quantitative score for anything complex and the one with the best personality (and other qualities) for my personal physician. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/50 "2009-09-02T10:33:29Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Not at all. You don’t understand how disparate impact laws work. If a job requires people of certain strength, and women tend not to be that strong, and the job tends to be populated by men rather than women, according to disparate impact laws, _this is just fine_. The laws do not presume, or try to create a situation in which, everyone performs equally given equal opportunity. How did you understand the core issue in the New Haven case? As I understood it, part of the issue was that the disparate impact on black firefighters seeking promotion was taken as prima facie evidence the test must have been biased. The test was set up by the company to be free of cultural bias, was administered after an equal opportunity to prepare and filtered out only white (and one Hispanic) candidates for promotion. Because it had this disparate impact, it was not “just fine” at all according to many. If one posits that the disparately impacted groups taking the test were disparately enabled, the test results make logical sense. But the law in this case presumes that everyone given equal opportunity will perform equally, and that therefore the exam itself must be faulty. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/51 "2009-09-02T12:39:54Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > How did you understand the core issue in the New Haven case? > > As I understood it, part of the issue was that the disparate impact on black firefighters seeking promotion was taken as prima facie evidence the test must have been biased. The test was set up by the company to be free of cultural bias, was administered after an equal opportunity to prepare and filtered out only white (and one Hispanic) candidates for promotion. Because it had this disparate impact, it was not “just fine” at all according to many. > > If one posits that the disparately impacted groups taking the test were disparately enabled, the test results make logical sense. But the law in this case presumes that everyone given equal opportunity will perform equally, and that therefore the exam itself must be faulty. The firefighters won the lawsuit because the court found that everything on the test was justified as being relevant to the skills required for the job. > [@](#): > > [t]here is no evidence—let alone the required strong basis in evidence—that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the City. It’s my understanding that that sentence summarizes the most important point of the court’s reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/52 "2009-09-02T13:40:02Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Fact: Different races have different average [IQs](http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=KdCJh2hLK4PVfTRh6PzpDG1x8h6pJ2qp9G12xN07d8KLtRkXTHNq!-185450698!-1934322800?docId=5001330463) which translate to different performance in jobs and in standardized tests. > Fact: IQ is about 70% heritable; hence, there is a large genetic component. From the first citation you posted, I found this: > [@](#): > > The gap appears before children enter kindergarten and it persists into adulthood. **It has narrowed since 1970** , but the typical American black still scores below 75 percent of American whites on almost every standardized test. (Bolding mine) What do you think accounts for this? That is, the narrowing of the gap? ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/53 "2009-09-02T14:40:22Z")
> [@MeanOldLady](#): > > From the first citation you posted, I found this: > (Bolding mine) What do you think accounts for this? That is, the narrowing of the gap? Genes determine maximum potential; environment shapes how much of that potential is realized. If I were given better training and opportunity I would be a better basketball player than I am today. I would not ever reach an NBA-level. I don’t have the genes for it. When any standardized tests are administered on a broad scale, what is reflected in those tests is a combination of nurture and nature. If a gap narrows, it’s evident that the pool of examinees has changed because their nurturing has changed. Either they are completely different pools or perhaps the nurturing of a given group was improved–better schools, say. If the gap is unable to be closed despite equivalent nurturing, then the remaining gap is due to genetic differences. A common argument is that current IQ (and standardized testing) measurement differences are due entirely to nurturing differences. Unfortunately, no amount of nurturing effort has shown this to be the case. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/54 "2009-09-02T14:45:01Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > If the gap is unable to be closed despite equivalent nurturing, then the remaining gap is due to genetic differences. Are nurturing and opportunity currently equal, or very close to equal? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/55 "2009-09-02T14:45:30Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > A common argument is that current IQ (and standardized testing) measurement differences are due entirely to nurturing differences. Unfortunately, no amount of nurturing effort has shown this to be the case. But how well understood are the nurturing components of intelligence? My position is that was you write is definitely possible and can’t be ruled out based on what we know today, but the interplay of environment and intelligence (as well as the definition of intelligence itself) is too complex to be conclusive about. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/56 "2009-09-02T15:00:31Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Of course not, for any individual physician if their quantitative scores and grades for identical curricula and training are the same as the next doctor to which they are being compared. Self-identification with any particular cohort is meaningless at an individual level. You are dodging the question. Since Blacks, on average, score worse on tests you feel are important, and because they are genetically deficient, why wouldn’t you assume that the average Black doctor is worse? A best college football player may be better than the worst NFL player, but it would be logical to assume the NFL player is gonna be better in the vast majority of cases. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Howard and Meharry Colleges, for instance, have traditionally educated primarily black students. Their matriculating classes have about the lowest MCAT scores in the country: 7.5 at Meharry and 8 at Howard v. 11.2 at Vanderbilt and 10 at Georgetown, say). [US Medical Schools: MCAT Scores and GPA](http://www.mcattestscores.com/usmedicalschoolsmcatscoresGPA.html) The MCAT [score](http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2007&issue=01000&article=00015&type=abstract) is not very predictive of “both medical school performance and medical board licensing exam measures”. That being said it is still troubling that those two schools have such low standards across the board. Either way, where is the evidence of genetic inferiority. It’s obvious that you can point to several examples of unequal outcomes, what you haven’t done is give any evidence as to why you think this is due to genetics. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > In 2003 the Hartford Courant wrote an article about how difficult it is for these historically black colleges to compete: > > “A Courant analysis of disciplinary actions against doctors nationwide found, however, that both Howard and Meharry produce troubled doctors more frequently than most other schools - at rates about 10 times greater than the schools with the lowest numbers. The actions ranged from a simple citation to permanent license revocation for a range of misdeeds including medical incompetence, ethical lapses and criminal behavior.” > [Black Medical Schools](http://www.ruralmedicaleducation.org/underserved/black_medical_schools.htm) Again, troubling statistic, but it would need to be put in context to determine how much we should worry. Plus, you didn’t mention that the full version of that [article](http://www.mombu.com/medicine/heart/t-is-meharry-the-worst-us-med-school-diabetes-blindness-kidney-down-heart-2365592.html) suggested a few reasons for the disparity that have nothing to do with genetics. > [@](#): > > What then accounts for the higher rates of disciplinary actions > against graduates of Howard and Meharry in The Courant’s analysis? > > Dr. Sandrell Hewlitt, who practices at Cooper Green Hospital in > Birmingham, Ala., and has spent years working at clinics in remote, > low-income areas, suggested that because many African American doctors > work with troubled populations, they are more vulnerable to > accusations of misconduct. [SNIP] > > Several experts speculated that another possible factor was at work: > that state medical boards and other regulatory agencies typically hold > black physicians to a different standard than white physicians. > > B. Waine Kong, executive director of the Association of Black > Cardiologists in Atlanta, said the higher rates of disciplinary > actions may reflect racial bias on the part of the doctors sitting in > judgment, more than problems with the accused doctors or the schools > they attended. [SNIP] > > While there are no statistics that deal directly with the issue of > potential racial bias among medical regulators, other studies have > pointed to the role of racism in medicine. > > The New England Journal of Medicine reported in 1999 that physicians > treated heart disease in whites more aggressively than in blacks. > Another study, in the Journal of the American Medical Association, > found that white faculty members at medical schools were promoted more > frequently than blacks and members of other minority groups. > > The online journal Medscape found in a 2001 survey that 31.5 percent > of African American doctors had trouble getting their patients > admitted to a hospital, compared with a rate of 24.2 percent among > white physicians. So if Black doctors are dealing with Black and poor patients more often than other doctors, wouldn’t it make sense that they would have more complaints? Why do you feel these explanations are incorrect, or less compelling than your theory? Why don’t you think anyone else suggested that Blacks are genetically incapable to competing? Could it be because there is no evidence for that position? As I said to **athelas** earlier, why don’t you just come out and admit you are a racist. There are certainly worse things you could be, and it would alleviate a lot of this nonsensical arguing if you would just come clean and admit your beliefs about Black inferiority is based on little more than faith. There is little science to back up your claims, so you can’t lay this dead fish at their doorstep. Your process just further demonstrates your desire to work backwards to justify your unsubstantiated claims. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > The best medical schools, like the best colleges, tend toward having the best quantitative scores for their matriculants. Once a physician is out in practice, it’s very difficult to objectively quantify who is the “best.” Why do you think we can measure students (among others) at every other level with such accuracy, but we can’t measure physicians out in practice? > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I can say at a personal level I’m going to go the the one with the highest quantitative score for anything complex and the one with the best personality (and other qualities) for my personal physician. What does their personality have to do with their grasp of the science or their level of expertise? Don’t you think those kinds of biases could lead to many complaints against Black doctors? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/57 "2009-09-02T15:08:06Z")
**brickbacon** , ISTM that your position is unfalsifiable, since you are apparently going to attribute every measure that shows any meaningful difference to some sort of racism. That doesn’t make you wrong, but it’s not an argument for your position, and it certainly doesn’t make **Chief Pedant** a racist. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/58 "2009-09-02T15:14:21Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > The MCAT [score](http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2007&issue=01000&article=00015&type=abstract) is not very predictive of “both medical school performance and medical board licensing exam measures”. That being said it is still troubling that those two schools have such low standards across the board. Either way, where is the evidence of genetic inferiority. It’s obvious that you can point to several examples of unequal outcomes, what you haven’t done is give any evidence as to why you think this is due to genetics. Howard’s average MCAT is 8.0, so is Wright State’s. And the universities in Puerto Rico are much lower. Does this have more to do with the racial make up of the students, and less with the quality of the universities? Not asking you, **brick** , just thinkinkg I’d add on to what you said. But feel free to answer anyway. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/59 "2009-09-02T16:19:17Z")
[quote=“brickbacon, post:37, topic:508485”] _Or_ just finally admit your are a racist who bases his/her belief in Black intellectual inferiority on faith and dubious science. There is a reason that mainstream society finds your views abhorrent and ill-though. It’s not because we are blind to reality, it’s because you have almost no proof. Or is it because society wants and wishes that race would play zero role in things like intelligence? Because it feels icky. > [@brickbacon](#): > > Maybe one day science will prove you right, but the rest of us, who live in the world as it is now, and not the one we wish it to be, would rather not have to listen to you awkwardly shoehorn in your particularly distasteful brand of evangelical bigotry into every discussion even tangentially related to race. Oh, please. You are guilty of the same thing. You are using as a basis of reality a world that comports to _your_ wishes. Either race plays a role or it doesn’t. And their seems to be some evidence (no, not proof) that race _does_ play a role, the same way it plays a role in physical endeavors. I think on your side what you’re offering is mainly “Well, it really wouldn’t be good to acknowledge that race plays a role in intelligence, so let’s just assume and insist that it doesn’t.” And, it would be very helpful to the discussion if you didn’t keep trying to paint your adversaries in this debate as racist. :rolleyes: > [@brickbacon](#): > > We get it; you think Black people are stupid - but, we shouldn’t think ill of you because you also admit that we run fast and are good at basketball. Don’t blame you, blame Mother Nature, you say. You can’t prove any of it directly because the legions of scientists, doctors, and others professionals who study these things are too blinded by ideology and political correctness, or are not smart enough to validate the conclusions you were able to come to using only your keen sense of human nature and Google. It’s a shame that none of these professionals are able to match your sense of dedication to the cause. :rolleyes::rolleyes: Here’s a question for you: do you acknowledge that different races share genetic tendencies that manifest themselves in physical attributes? If so, how do you explain away the difference in size between say, Asians and Whites? Or the domination of track and field by blacks? ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485/60 "2009-09-02T16:27:32Z")
Clearly, this is an area where those who wish to bask in their moral superiority are proud of their ignorance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disparate-impact/508485.md?page=4)