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

" First off, the resolution is intended for government intervention under EEOC laws to include credit scoring for non-bone fide reasons. This negates anything related to military or security sensitive jobs, and that is a bone fide reason for discriminating against someone under EEOC regulations. " Very well, that delimitation was not made clear in R1, as it seems you were attempting to imply there was no bona fide situation for it. Though as I said that was minor in my argument. " This resolution is intended to protect minorities from the blindness of credit scoring and what it means. Just because someone is a minority does not mean that they, individually, will steal, will not show up for work, or otherwise make them a bad employee. What the statistical evidence basically shows is that if you have 100 Caucasians, 100 African Americans, and 100 Latinos, and so on, the Caucasians and Asians would have the best credit scores. However, this does not correlate that having a bad credit score makes anyone a poor employee. Further, credit scores do not necessarily mean that one has failed to pay his or her bills. Recall, only 35% of the total score is related to repayment history. Credit scoring does not accurately predict anything that would relate to employment, as accurately as it predicts race. So why would anyone use credit scoring for hiring screening?" You seem to be trying to obscure. Just because not every member of an involuntary 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. The individual is not responsible for the group- nor excused by it. Whether someone has been convicted of a crime is probably about as accurate a predictor of race as credit scores is, does that mean that equal oppurtunity laws should, all else being equal including any "bona fides," employers should have to not discriminate against convicts? Besides, even if the credit score is only 35% determined by poor repayment history, the other factors are likely be good predictors of repayment future... high amounts owed and the like. The separate subscore for repayment, and enough better predictors to replace credit score, may not be available. Also, you have not demonstrated that it does not predict "anything related to employment," only given a citation that it does not predict job turnover. There are many other things related to employment. " Situations such as death, divorce, severe disabling accidents (thus affecting a person's ability to work and continue to pay bills), identity theft, behavior of a co-signer, youthful stupidity, and economic shock can skew a person's credit score, thus invalidating a person's perceived propensity to steal or otherwise be a risk to the business" Death, divorce, disabling accidents, identity theft, youthful stupidity, and economic shock can all also affect job performance. 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. Yes, the government does have the right to interfere with the freedom of associate or property rights. " Nope, that's a contradiction. There can be no such thing as a "right" to violate rights, i.e. for it to be proper relations to violate proper relations (the definition of "right" is "proper relation to the party in question" (the party holding the right)). "It's called the social contract theory." And it's invalid, for a reason I'll elaborate upon shortly. "I'll even let you pick the one that I'll use." What one? Social contract theory, as you just stated, is "the,", singular, only one, you didn't give a set of options, but every formulation of that singular theory I've heard is invalid, so for now I pick none. "Whether you want to agree or disagree, it's in full effect. It's not something we chose, we were born into it, so long as we are born into a society." And in that statement you have just handed me the reason why social contract theory is invalid. A contract, you see, is an agreement between two or more parties given validity by the distinguishing feature of the CONSENT of every party in question. To put it in simple terms, "I never signed no stinking social contract." As such,it is not a valid claim against me, only a disguise for the actual claim against me, which is a gun in a policeman's pocket (capable of buying momentary cooperation, but at an exorbitant price to them in the long run, especially when more people realize what that gun is doing to them as well). Perhaps a few slaveowners in 1787 made such an agreement between themselves, but it is only a valid claim when laid against a signatory. As they themselves admitted 11 years earlier when they rejected a similar "Contract" imposed upon them by the British Parliament and took up arms to make sure it wasn't enforced. Sigh. If only they had been consistent, they would never have given force to the conflict between the factions of the various types of slaveowners that still delimits the thoughts of people today, making possible such evils as the government interfering in private hiring practices- but worse yet, to outlaw a practice that may have merit, simply because it amplifies a statistical disparity between races, in essence excusing individual behavior just because other people of the same race happen to display it? Race should not be considered an excuse for guilt any more than it should a cause for it.