I can see both sides of the issue. I think the court did what makes sense and sets a good precedent given the context.
I agree.
Quote:
The test wasn't deemed discriminatory by intent. It was exclusionary by outcome.
What do you mean by this? I don't understand. I mean, I can see where the test was not meant to be discriminatory, but how was the outcome exclusionary, based on race, I presume?
__________________
"I am the center of the universe!! I also like to chew on paper." my puppy
I mean, I can see where the test was not meant to be discriminatory, but how was the outcome exclusionary, based on race, I presume?
Threaded Mode
