The science and politics of race-norming.

Abstract

Disparate impact (racial imbalance) in employee selection constitutes prima facie evidence of unlawful discrimination. Research in personnel psychology has shown, however, that valid and unbiased selection procedures often guarantee disparate impact and that they will continue to do so as long as there remain large racial disparities in job-related skills and abilities. Employers are in a legal bind because often they can avoid disparate impact only by engaging in unlawful disparate treatment (racial preferences). Some personnel psychologists have argued that there is scientific justification for race-based adjustments in test scores that eliminate disparate impact. Analyses of their seemingly scientific reasoning illustrate how personnel selection science is being compromised in an effort to reconcile contradictory legal demands.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 74 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.