Really, I'm not a lawyer. This came about on a Facebook post by Gloria Purvis:
It has to do with this press release from the DOJ. Again, I'm no lawyer, but something about 'neutral on the face but discriminatory in effect' strikes me as, well, not clear. So if anyone does understand this sort of thing, I'm all ears.
That's basically what "disparate impact" is all about.
ReplyDeleteLet's take a hypothetical example. Say we had a college which had a test. If you scored 90% or higher on the test, you got admitted.
This is an "on the face neutral" standard. As far as anyone can see and tell, it all seems totally fair. But then what if people note that of everyone taking the test and getting 90% on it - of the students admitted - we have 60% Asians and Jews, 30% white people, and 10% blacks. That is what they mean is that it's "discriminatory in effect." That is how they measure and think about this stuff.
Gloria et al figure out a measurement value for what they perceive would be the "fair" result of a non-discriminatory practice, and then anything they find which does not have that "fair" result must therefore be discriminatory. That is the background of what she is saying.
This is how she answered: "The problem is the new rule blocks the consideration of data. So one cannot confirm if the outcomes are due to discrimination or something else. For example, if an employer has requirements, unrelated to the job, that disproportionately exclude women or and let's say men of color, the DOJ has foreclosed even considering that info. To prove a case, a plaintiff must show the practice has a disproportionate adverse effect, the employer must then prove the practice is a business necessity, and finally, the plaintiff can show a less discriminatory alternative exists. The DOJ has not barred consideration of that information. Do you understand better now?"
DeleteDid I call it or what?
DeleteThe interesting thing is that she says it as if that answers the question. That it's an answer, not a reveal. But then, maybe it isn't something they feel must be hidden now, but can be shouted from the rooftops.
DeleteThe fundamental problem here is that anti-discrimination laws are intrinsically unjust, in that they eliminate a real right (the right to associate with whoever you please) in favor of an ersatz right made up by the government (the alleged right not to be discriminated against). In a society that is not ruled by a tyranny, everyone has the right to discriminate for or against anyone he wants, for any reason he wants or for no reason at all. These are legitimate choices people ought to be able to make, without interference from an overbearing state. ---- G. Poulin
ReplyDeleteI'm OK with limiting the ability to discriminate. I learned from being with our Eastern Orthodox friends from the Middle East that countries often have broad, national rules ensuring equality of treatment, but they leave local municipalities and individuals full reign to discriminate themselves. Which is then used to do things like target the Christian communities. The problem here seems to be people want discrimination, they just want it against whole new groups rather than discrimination against those who used to be in the past. Which seems to be driving so much of modern progressive thought today - those in the past weren't wrong for what they did per se, they were wrong because they did it for the wrong reasons to the wrong people.
Delete"The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." -
DeleteIbram X Kendii
Mr. Kendii has a fan in Deacon Greydanus. While the good deacon admits at times he can be a bit controversial, he also has no problem with his position as a commentator on issues of race and equality. But then, he was also a featured speaker at one of the man services my wife's employer provides. So his message is being heard.
Delete