Yep. Amy Wax has an excellent take on it here:
"The combination of well-documented racial differences in cognitive ability and the consistent link between ability and job performance generates a pattern that experts term “the validity-diversity tradeoff”: job selection devices that best predict future job performance generate the smallest number of minority hires in a broad range of positions. Indeed, the evidence indicates that most valid screening devices will have a significant adverse impact on blacks and will also violate the 4/5 rule under the law of disparate impact.
Because legitimately meritocratic (that is, job-related) job selection practices will routinely trigger prima facie violations of the disparate impact rule, employers who adopt such practices run the risk of being required to justify them – a costly and difficult task that encourages undesirable, self-protective behaviors and may result in unwarranted liability."
Source: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1795443
The what??
Because it demands that lower-IQ minorities be hired at the same level as higher-IQ whites, disparate impact doctrine should not be thought of as simple anti-discrimination law, but as affirmative action under another name. Now, there are points to be made for or against affirmative action, but it shouldn't be sold to the public as something else. And particularly not in such a way as to lead to so many negative side effects on the rest of society, in the form of restricting employers to less effective hiring practices. A system where employers could freely make use of g-loaded qualification processes without the threat of litigation, provided that they spotted blacks an extra SD's worth of points so as to avoid breaking the four-fifths rule, would be quite simply BETTER than what we have today, while keeping the AA-like effects. Of course, if anyone tried that at present time they'd probably end up getting sued by whites. It would make more sense to follow Ms. Wax's suggestion of switching to a sliding scale or throwing out disparate impact altogether.
I believe that disparate impact doctrine is a reason why we have the higher education bubble that we have today. It's maybe not the biggest reason, but it's probably in the top 3. There comes a point where you have to wonder if this sort of thing is really worth keeping around in the name of racial idealism.
I'm not even talking about the case or the impact on hiring. I'm talking about how dragging race in without cause cuts any real discussion of the situation off.
Also, I disagree with your general thesis that race is never a worthwhile topic for consideration in discussions such as this. The fact is that race is a real sociological phenomenon in and of itself, and not merely a proxy for socioeconomic markers. There are many instances where race actually would be worth bringing into a discussion, even if you feel this isn't one of them. What's more, I don't see how bringing up race "wrecks the discussion," except when it results in overly-PC people coming out of the woodwork to shout you down.
There is a major problem because this actually is happening. Research is getting defunded because people are afraid someone might interpret the results as racist. Lrn to keep your normative bullshit out of my science please.
I think it is both. The education system is broken, and has been for a long time. Degrees in Sociology and Communications have always been useless knowledge. The economic downturn has only brought that fact to the attention of people. At the same time employers are requiring job applicants have college degrees--any degree--for jobs that absolutely do not require degrees. I feel sorry for the people who got Business degrees, it was probably a wise choice when they started college, but by they time they graduated no one wanted to hire people with Business degrees.
I know one YC startup that requires the receptionists to have a college degrees, and they only pay them $12/hour in San Francisco, which frankly is not a living wage in SF. The letter "Serving people drinks was more rewarding" sounds a lot like the non-techie people I know. Get a Masters in Business Administration, think you did everything right with your 4.0 GPA. Then you graduate and can't find work. Maybe take a job in retail. After job hunting for a year you take that receptionist position, because hey, there's growth opportunity, which is better than retail. But it turns out there is no opportunity, the predatory management won't give raises because in this economy they can just fire you and hire another college grad at $12/hour.
Education has failed because they don't teach useful skills, yet they tell students that they are useful throughout their education. HR has failed because they haven't figured out how to find that diamond in the rough without putting up arbitrary requirements.
You are describing that companies discriminate against B in favor of A because their hiring processes are broken and doing so is organizationally safe. I agree that in many cases their hiring processes are broken, but think that it doesn't matter because companies do not care about anime. It is utterly irrelevant to them. Knowledge of anime does not make you more efficient at filling out TPS reports. However, the degree from WashU brackets you as Top X% of Valued Quality Y distribution, where Y might be "intelligence" or "ability to follow through on moderately complex tasks with long time horizons" or simply "success in a highly selective process" if you're feeling charitable or "social standing" if you're not. Prospective employers aren't allowed to effectively discriminate based on intelligence (no, really), so they can use possession of a degree as a proxy for it. By comparison, the actual contents of the education received post-matriculation are irrelevant, so the fact that Candidate B has objectively equivalent knowledge of anime is not meaningful to the prospective employer.