The use of credit scoring should be prohibited in hiring practices.

Con said, "Just because not every…minority is responsible for the statistical situation of their group does not mean that they are not responsible for their own credit score, indeed, it is for precisely the same reasons that absolve them from responsibility for their group, that the fact that their group in general rates poorly on something (credit score) does not absolve them for their individual deficiency in it." Credit scoring used in hiring practices creates what is called an adverse affect, and it's against the law. Under Title VII, section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it states: "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Furthermore, there are two types of illegal employment discrimination (in the U.S.): Disparate Treatment - Treating an individual, different from other people based on their membership in a protected class. Disparate Impact - Using employment selection devices, such as written tests and interviews, which appear reasonable but actually have a biased impact on protected groups. Such devices screen out one or more groups at rates that exceed legally acceptable limits. There is a disparate impact being creating by the use of credit scoring. Just because a singular individual of a protected minority group does have a good credit score does not mean that the group in general is not being impacted. "…People with a propensity for these things may not be people you want to hire. Behavior of a co-signer, though I'm unaware how that affects the score unless the loan receiver fails to repay in the first place, of course would not, but that's minor." All of these things are excusable once you are employed. If any of these things occurred, it would a valid reason for a leave of absence, probably covered under FMLA or disability laws. Why should an organization punish outsiders for something said organization excuses from current employees? Furthermore, in the US, it is against the law to even ask about marriage status, disabilities, and economic resources in a job interview. All of these things affect your credit score. As for the case of co-signers, the credit scoring companies' view co-signing as actually taking upon the debt. It is calculated in the amount of outstanding debt, even if the co-signer is not the first person the bank goes after if payments are missed. I contest your definition of right, instead I offer a more applicable definition as "a power, privilege, immunity, or capacity; the enjoyment of which is secured to a person by law." (findlaw.com) For property rights to even be in question, we must first have a society for the protection of rights and property. Since a society is a requirement, a social contract must be in place before it can extend anything to its members. The society and its government do have an obligation to enforce the laws it creates and the rights it protects. In the US, when the Articles of Confederation failed because a weak central government with no power to enforce the laws between states, more power was needed in the central government. This was the justification of for the Constitutional Convention and the formation of the Bill of Rights. If central government (in our case, the federal government) does not have sufficient power to enforce the laws in creates, what good is it anyway? (Wouldn't it be much like the UN?) To all that read this, please know what the social contract theory is. You don't have to agree with it. There are multiple theories about how it can be applied. Thomas Jefferson, in writing the Declaration of Independence, commonly referred to John Locke's social contract theory. Without understanding this, it is very difficult in to truly respect the reasons for American rights and law. A good summary of the social contract theory and the multiple facets of it, please go to http://www.iep.utm.edu.... The definition given for a contract is not valid in this debate, since social contract is not the same as a regular contract. According the findlaw.com dictionary, a social contract is an actual or hypothetical agreement among individuals forming an organized society or between the community and the ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties or each. In other words, you, me, and everyone that takes part in a society is part of it. Anytime you expect the government to honor your rights within that government, you are in fact under a social contract and responsible to that government. Locke's social contract theory can be best summarized by going to http://www.philosophypages.com... , As for the ascertain that you are not contractually obligated under a social contract, you are in fact, under a bilateral, informal, implied in fact contract. I did not hand you the reason why the social contract theory is invalid. Instead, I do not think you know what the social contract theory is, and; your understanding of contract law is flawed (http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com... has basic definitions and a listing of different types of contracts). What you state you have not signed is a formal, express contract. However, by entering into trade or by using the benefits created from another party, you are obligated into a contract. I believe a name for this is called a negative option contract. A negative option contract is one of those contracts where a company sends you something, bills you for it, and then it is up to you to reply back sending them the merchandise back. Additionally, if you hold on to it for a certain length of time, you are still responsible. I see the social contract theory much this way, but instead of sending back the merchandise, the way out is to just leave and buy your own self sufficient island. Otherwise, all societies and governments feel that have some obligation to its members and in turn they expect some sort of bilateral compensation. Credit scoring is intended for financial intuitions to evaluate a person's lending risk and the probability that a person will pay back their debt. In fact, according to myFico.com, "Scoring has proven to be an accurate and consistent measure of repayment for all people who have some credit history." Organizations instead try to show personal responsibility through credit scoring. Credit scoring was not intended to show how often someone shows up from work, how good or bad of a worker a person is, or anything related to employment. Con said, "Race should not be considered an excuse for guilt any more than it should a cause for it." This is not about guilt, this is about the facts that: 1) Credit scoring is being used as a factor in hiring practices regardless if it correlates to the job 2) Intentional or not, credit scores for minorities are proportionately lower than those of Caucasians (more evidence can be found here http://www.insurancescored.com... ). 3) Credit scoring is intended as a predictor of financial risk. Credit scoring does not claim to predict anything related to job performance in any category 4) There are bone fide reasons (such as national security, security, employment in or dealing with large sums of money or sensitive information) in which credit scores could be used as a determinant in employment selection. 5) Using credit scoring adversely precludes minorities from being selected for jobs in which credit scoring is used as a determining factor in employee selection. For these reasons, the use of credit scoring should not be used in hiring practices.