tion that Lott was a fan of segregation raised enough of a fury that he was forced to quit his Senate leadership post.       Even if you are a private citizen, you surely wouldnt want to seem big- oted while appearing in public. Might there be a way to test for dis- crimination in a public setting? Unlikely as it may seem, the television game show The Weakest Link provides a unique laboratory to study discrimination. An import from the United Kingdom, The Weakest Link for a short time became wildly popular in the United States. The game includes eight contest- ants (or, in a later daytime version, six) who each answer trivia ques- tions and compete for a single cash jackpot. But the player who answers the most questions correctly isnt necessarily the player who advances. After each round, every contestant votes to eliminate one other contestant. A players trivia-answering ability is presumably the only worthwhile factor to consider; race, gender, and age wouldnt seem to matter. But do they? By measuring a contestants actual votes against the votes that would truly best serve his self-interest, its possi- ble to tell if discrimination is at play. The voting strategy changes as the game progresses. In the first sev- eral rounds, it makes sense to eliminate bad players since the jackpot   grows only when correct answers are given. In later rounds, the strate- gic incentives are flipped. The value of building the jackpot is now outweighed by each contestants desire to win the jackpot. Its easier to do that if you eliminate the other good players. So, roughly speaking, the typical contestant will vote to eliminate the worse players in the early rounds and the better players in the later rounds. The key to measuring the Weakest Link voting data is to tease out a contestants playing ability from his race, gender, and age. If a young black man answers a lot of questions correctly but is voted off early,