Cited by 105Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and RegulationArtificial Intelligence in Law

The Racist Algorithm?

Open access
Chander, Anupam·2017·Michigan Law Review

Abstract

Review of The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information by Frank Pasquale.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.36644/mlr.115.6.racist

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Developing XAI can slow things down early because it needs extra software development, but it can later save considerable time by finding bugs that would otherwise surface only at a late stage.

    “Although developing XAI can severely impact the pace early on in the process, as it requires additional software development, the explanation may save a considerable amount of time by identifying bugs that otherwise would not be identified until a later stage.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Michal Kosinski et al., Private Traits and Attributes Are Predictable from Digital Records of Human Behavior, 110 Proc. Nat'l Acad. of Sci. 5802, 5802 (2013). 72. Id. at 5803.
  2. Joshua A. Kroll et al., Accountable Algorithms, 165 U. Pa. L. Rev. 633, 639 (2017) ("The process for deciding which tax returns to audit, or whom to pull aside for secondary security screening at the airport, may need to be partly opaque to prevent tax cheats or ter- rorists from gaming the system." (manuscript at 6)).
  3. Stan. L. Rev. Online 35, 37 (2013), https://review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/ sites/3/2016/08/DworkMullliganSLR.pdf [https://perma.cc/5KF6-24SL].
  4. Barry Schwartz, Google's Paul Haahr: We Don't Fully Understand RankBrain, Search Engine Roundtable (Mar. 8, 2016, 7:55 AM), https://www.seroundtable.com/google-dont- understand-rankbrain-21744.html [https://perma.cc/H7JK-NM5Q] ("RankBrain is Google's query interpretation that uses artificial intelligence.").
  5. Anupam Chander, Essay, Minorities, Shareholder and Otherwise, 113 Yale L.J. 119, 173 (2003).
  6. L. Rev. 493, 535 (2003). 103. As the Supreme Court announced in 1987:
  7. Johnson v. Transp. Agency, 480 U.S. 616, 631-32 (1987) (citations omitted). 104. See Tex. Dep't of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507, 2513 (2015). 105. Trevor Hastie et al., The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction 222 (2d ed. 2009) ("If we are in a data-rich situation, the best approach for [model selection and model assessment] is to randomly divide the dataset into three parts: a training set, a validation set, and a test set. The training set is used to fit the models; the validation set is used to estimate prediction error for model selection; the test set is used for assessment of the generalization error of the final chosen model."). 106. Exec. Office of the President, Big Data: A Report on Algorithmic Systems, Opportunity, and Civil Rights 5-6 (2016), https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ microsites/ostp/2016_0504_data_discrimination.pdf [https://perma.cc/9XQT-9VYQ].

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chander, A.
Affiliations
University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Chander, Anupam
Venue
Michigan Law Review
Published
2017
Volume
115
Issue
115.6
Pages
1023
ISSN
  • 0026-2234 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-8557
OpenAlex
W2466363251
Cited by
105
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
14.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Michigan Law Review (publishedVersion)
  • eYLS (Yale Law School) (submittedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • Michigan Law Review
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
Keywords
algorithmic racism, algorithmic discrimination, algorithmic decision-making, algorithmic transparency, algorithmic accountability, algorithmic governance, algorithmic bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review