Remember disparate impact? In 1989, even a very liberal Supreme Court realized the ludicrous nature of its 1971 ruling banning businesses from engaging in practices that had disparate impact on different groups. I’m that year, SCOTUS dramatically limited the disparate impact legislation, ruling that all a company needed was a business justification to adopt disparate impact policy (such as, for example, IQ tests or criminal checks).
That reprieve lasted only for two years, though. In 1991, George H. W. Bush made a deal with the Democrats to bypass SCOTUS and turn disparate impact into the law of the land. That legislation not only made disparate impact laws our permanent reality, but it introduced an even larger bureaucracy tasked with investigating any entity or organization that sinned against “equity.” Since then, that bureaucracy has grown year after year.
Trump, by the way, did try to limit disparate impact policies, specifically the ones under the control of the DOJ, of which there is enormous number.
In early January of 2021. That’s when Trump tried to curtail disparate impact for the first and last time. We have been had, ladies and gentlemen.
Clarissa's Blog 
I’m confident that you will enjoy this essay by Heather MacDonald titled “Disparate Impact Thinking Is Destroying Our Civilization.”
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/disparate-impact-thinking-is-destroying-our-civilization/
LikeLike
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The modern american dream is to live a life as far away from the consequences of the civil rights act as humanly possible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Certain aspects of the civil rights act, such as protected classes, were a good thing. (I’d even argue that protected classes need to go further: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4438&context=wlulr Even that kind of mental illness deserves to be some kind of protected class, to the extent that it actually can be protected without ever putting any actual children in harm’s way. Being allowed to work in jobs where kids aren’t a huge issue, being allowed child sex dolls/robots, et cetera are all goals to work for for such people.) The bad thing about the civil rights act was the disparate impact stuff and the huge bureaucracy that it generated. Businesses sometimes lose huge lawsuits as a result of frivolous civil rights claims and some random nobodies end up getting huge payouts as a result of winning such cases. It’s a huge drag on efficiency. That’s not to say that legitimate civil rights lawsuits should not be victorious in court, of course. My issue is with the frivolous civil rights lawsuits winning.
LikeLike
Disparate impact is a terrible ideology. More equity can sometimes be a good thing but we shouldn’t strive to achieve perfect outcomes in cases where different groups are blatantly unequal on average on important traits. If black kids get disciplined more because they misbehave more, well, then they should behave better if they want to get disciplined less (assuming, of course, that no one is actually being improperly disciplined).
I do think that when biology is unfair, seeking some semblance of fairness is desirable. Thus one can argue for a more generous social safety net, child support insurance, et cetera. But you won’t make everything perfectly fair and you shouldn’t try to since otherwise you’d simply discourage the smart and talented people from achieving and creating as many good and meaningful things as they would have otherwise done. The Soviet Union and other Communist countries involved achieving greater equity by making everyone poor and miserable rather than by making everyone rich and happy, after all.
LikeLiked by 1 person