We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Should Employers Be Prohibited from Asking Applicants About College Credentials? From the article:
The justices in Griggs thought they were simultaneously applying the Civil Rights Act and helping to make life more fair for people who didn’t have high school credentials or good test-taking abilities. Little did they suspect that a consequence of their ruling decades later would be to keep such individuals from having a chance at numerous jobs just because they lack a college degree.
And the logic of the case seems every bit as applicable to college degree requirements as to the sort of job requirements the Court struck down in Griggs. If companies violated the Civil Rights Act when they set arbitrary and seemingly irrelevant educational requirements for employment in 1971, why are they allowed to use the absence of college credentials to screen out people today?
Good article. It's often asserted that Griggs led to an overemphasis on college degrees; it's rarely noted that the case also requires that high school diplomas--and, by extension, college degrees themselves--must be job-relevant. So why has the degree requirement not led to extensive litigation in cases where it is arguably quite irrelevant? Has there been a later court decision, or later legislation, overruling the 'diploma' part but leaving the 'testing' part intact?