changing the definition of racism so a specific targetgroup is included. For example instead of "discriminate minority groups" they say "disadvantage minority groups" and then include things like those entrence exams as a disadvantage. In the end everything is somehow racist.

It depends on the policy. Is the height of a basketball hoop a policy that is unintentionally discriminating against me because I can't jump that high? Is the Nobel Prize racist because Jews are massively overrepresented among winners?

The debate here is over whether any policy that results in racial disparity is racist. To me, that argument is obviously wrong.

> A good example is in the (historical) [entrance exams for the UK's Grammar School systems which are sat at age 11[(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleven-plus#Controversy); while the grammar-school system was ostensibly universal and open to all, the entrance exams with questions predicated on a familiarity with middle-class culture naturally disadvantaged working-class students.

To you, tests like the one you mention are racist (or classist) because you assume that certain races or classes will be more likely to know certain things and others less likely. But, ironically, to me, your assumption is racist (and classist) because we have different definitions of racism.

Finally, I think there's a serious flaw in your thinking. If "studies show" that rich kids test better in math, does that mean math tests are classist? Is it even possible to create a test so that every group you consider (ethnic or socio-economic) will achieve the same average score? And which groups shall we consider? Isn't it common knowledge these days that there is no canonical way to divvy people up into "races"? Why is it that, for the purpose of college admission, "Asian" is an ethnicity but "Jew" isn't? Furthermore, imagine I am born to rich parents and my parents hire a math tutor from the age of 3 until I graduate high school. By the time I take the SAT, I will probably be much better at math than the average high school student. Is there anything wrong with that? Why is it correct for tests to attempt to discern innate ability rather than current ability?

The issue was that they were testing for neither; rather, they were testing knowledge irrelevant to the thing ostensibly being tested (but specific to a class group).

From Wikipedia: "For example, questions about the role of household servants or classical composers were far easier for middle-class children to answer than for those from less wealthy or less educated backgrounds".

That's a good argument but it's not the argument that I was responding to:

> the grammar-school system was ostensibly universal and open to all, the entrance exams with questions predicated on a familiarity with middle-class culture naturally disadvantaged working-class students.

The problem arises when the only opportunity is to replace measurable discrimination with non-measurable discrimination. For example, SAT results are easy to measure, and because of this we take correlations with X, Y, and Z, and find that SAT slightly discriminates against people in subpopulation Z.

So we replace the SAT with a holistic interview-and-quiz format that is only used at our institution. The data is kept internal (for student privacy) and there aren't enough datapoints to derive meaningful correlations with X, Y, or Z.

Is there less discrimination? We don't know! What you accomplish is to replace a standard within which you can detect discrimination with one where you can't.

So yes, using metrics that have small but measurable inequities may be preferable to using metrics where inequities cannot be measured. In the metrizable case the "disadvantage" is at least bounded.

Now, in the alternative case where you actually have options, i.e. you have one measure with some inequities and another measure that you know has fewer inequities, then of course it would be racist to choose the first measure over the second. But this is not an analogous situation to university entrance exams at all.

I would argue that depends on the intent. Do i put them in a disadvantage because they are part of that group or because a large part of that group wouldn't fit the requirements i have.

Lets say i'm looking for someone doing voiceover. Someone without an accent. That would probably put a lot of non-native english speaker in a disadvantage. Would you argue, that i'm discriminating against them or have racist intentions?

In this diversity session they would then argue my knowledge that non-native english speaker are put in a disadvantage by this requirement was the reason to put it in and therefor i'm racist.

Everyone has an accent. When you say "without an accent," what you mean is that you are looking for someone with a particular accent that is meant to be free of features that identify someone as coming from a particular region.

In a way, it's discriminatory, because you're saying that people who do not speak your preferred dialect are not speaking "proper" English. Even if they grew up speaking English their entire life.

Thats what an accent is, yes. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accent

> In a way, it's discriminatory, because you're saying that people who do not speak your preferred dialect are not speaking "proper" English. Even if they grew up speaking English their entire life.

thats not what i said/wrote. Thats how you interpret it.