[nakeseireo]

It seems that the majority of SCOTUS now believes that the USA has sufficiently cleansed itself of any such bias and therefore the playing field should be deemed fair unless, perhaps, a plaintiff can show & prove that a specific test is discriminatory and in violation of the '64 CRA. I am also assuming that this is the case, as no questions in particular have come to light. If they were addressing more the actual calidity of the test rather than the validity of the decision made concerning it, I would be more in favor of discussion, but this seems odd.


An investigation into he questions on the test, an assertation of whether race was one OF the questions/pieces of info on the test, or even whether or not the NAMES of the individuals passing/failing had anything to do with it should be looked into.


But the mere fact that we did not hear anything about unfair practice until AFTER the results makes me feel a bit weird, and the fact that we have been hearing more about race and individual rights rather than the meat and potatoes of the case involved mekes me much more speculative of what actually happened and what is being decided.


Proof of discrimination should be necessary to invoke these procedures. That being said, impedence of obtaining that proof (such as disclosure of the test given or release of the actual tests taken) should not be tolerated.

You can't enforce the good by automatic opposition to an unproven evil. Find the problem and correct it, don't try to correct problems that don't exist or you may end up creating some where there were none.