Funny, we had “disparate impact” when I flew fighters.
There was a most definitely observable “disparate impact” on all those who didn’t quite hack it...sometimes resulting in an intimate appointment with the earth.
It is an affront to our national intellect to dignify this discussion by even suggesting that there are two competing “theories.”
There is what is unlawful discrimination and it IS disparate treatment. That’s not a theory. It is reality.
Then there is the tactic of alleging disparate impact. Also not a theory —strictly a tactic.
The goal of the tactic: to abuse well intentioned laws against discrimination (see above) by warping them into tools for social engineering wielded by the legions of unaccountable Pinkos that infest the Federal bureaucracies.
“disparate impact” is absolutely bogus as a concept for determining cause.
It inherently assumes all other variables are equal.
It’s a concept used to fool those who don’t/can’t think logically.
I think I quit HR at the time “disparate impact” came into vogue....just COULD NOT DEAL WITH the CRAZIENESS ANYMORE!
I think that both examples of institutionally defined discrimination in the referenced article wrongly ignore constitutional checks and balances, particularly with respect to 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty.
More specifically, the states are free to discriminate on the basis of anything that they don’t amend the Constitution to not discriminate against.
Please bear in mind that the Constitution’s Article V and the 10th Amendment are probably some of the best kept secrets in DC.
Disparate impact. If I don’t study before an exam, or goof off, I fail. The guy who studies gets a better mark. That’s the disparate impact of his studying and my goofing off. It’s not the fault of the exam.
Apply what I just said to the fake phoney fraud concept of disparate impact.