Replies

You’re right. This all stems from ridiculous judicial decisions inventing the concept of “disparate impact.” The logic (really, the illogic) is that any practice, rule, or procedure that has a “disparate” (i.e, different) impact on a certain race (or any other preferred group) is presumptively invalid.

This “equality of outcome” reasoning has caused a total lessening of standards in practically all walks of life. Typical (and very easy to pass) employment tests have been banned, because blacks pass at a lower rate. IQ testing has been banned in California public schools for the same reason. Believe it or not, some states tried to insure a minimal level of competence among high school teachers by requiring them to pass a high school exit exam: Yep, the teacher’s unions sued under the “disparate impact” theory because so many black teachers couldn’t pass the (very easy) test. This latest thing requiring renting to convicted criminals is just one in a long line of outrages, but a very very dangerous one.

Blacks, hispanics, whites, and asians commit violent at different per capita rates. Just go to the FBI website for the numbers. Those groups are represented in the prison population very closely to their group crime rates. The criminal justice system actually does a very good job at treating people based on their individual circumstances, not on their race. This is true of gender also—there are about 1/10th as many women in prison as men. Guess why: Women typically don’t commit serious, prison eligible crimes at nearly the rate men do. Disparate impact on men? Well, taken to the ridiculous illogical extreme, this would be an argument to lock up only as many men as women, since laws against violent crimes obvious have a “disparate impact” on men.

This “disparate impact” nonsense is simple cultural marxism—equality of outcome enforced by the state, and to heck with fairness, standards, or even public safety.