Nor do you see any problem using them more or less at random, because they sound good or something, rather than because they apply. I made up "preliminary identification by characteristic"? I'm going to throw that in with "nadir" and "hocking" and the rest. Lessee: "preliminary" - before investigation, as a first response. check. "identification" - as a flawed exam, as a member of a class of exams that should not be used. check "by characteristic" - by the visible feature that it produced racially skewed results far more extreme than expected from sound exams, favored the same in-group that actually biased exams favor. It thereby displayed the field marks, as birdwatchers term them, of a biased exam. check. How does "Orwellian" fit there? Or do you just react that way to big words? How did you get from "WMD" to Saddam's behavior, in your post there? It screwed up your intended analogy. What you have there is closer to being analogous to concluding that black people would make poor firefighters, because they did badly on the test. And how does discarding a test that exhibits many major characteristics of a biased exam "box you in", or take you anywhere? Seems to me that being railroaded into accepting and employing the results of an exam, regardless of what they look like or how obviously they show characteristics of serious and well-known flaws, is much more rigid boxing.