Zone1 The Doctrine of Disparate Impact

[IM2]

When people start talking about discrimination, they generally leave out an important doctrine that until recently was considered in cases of discrimination. It is called the Doctrine of Disparate Impact. Based on that Doctrine, the Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College case should never have been seen by the Supreme Court. This same doctrine renders the claim of Anti White Discrimination moot and without merit.

Definition:​

Disparate Impact refers to a legal doctrine in employment law and civil rights that addresses situations where a seemingly neutral policy or practice disproportionately affects a particular group based on race, gender, age, or other protected characteristics. Unlike disparate treatment, which involves intentional discrimination, disparate impact focuses on the consequences of a policy rather than the intent behind it.

Disparate Impact - Definition and Explanation

Disparate Impact refers to a legal doctrine in employment law and civil rights that addresses situations where a seemingly neutral policy ...

oxford-review.com

Examining Affirmative Action under this definition debunks the claim made by some members of the white community pertaining to the policy discriminating against whites. Since the policy was first implemented has the policy created a negative impact upon the white population in America to the extent that they can claim they were being discriminated against just as bad or worse than people of color?

This should have been the standard. But lets look at one area where the claim was made.

"Black women and men have worked in the United States of America long before national employment and unemployment data began being collected in 1940, but we can only directly track our unemployment experience back to 1972. This blog takes a step toward communicating what many may have already suspected: due to systematic exclusion and discrimination of Black people in the labor market, racism in the education system and throughout U.S. society, Black men and women have endured double the unemployment rates of white men and women since at least 1954."

Historical unemployment for Black women and men in the United States: 1954-2021

www.brookings.edu

So for the past 70 years, black men and women have had double the unemployment rate of whites. All of this was not caused by the unwillingness for blacks to take education seriously, or due to the lack of a work ethic. Further, it is evidence that there has been no anti white discrimination in hiring.

So lets look at the Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College case that ended Affirmative Action.

In this case, the contention is that Asians are discriminated against based on the number of Asians turned down for Harvard admission. Harvard admission numbers do not support this claim. Asians are six percent of the American population, but they were 25.9 percent of the students entering Harvard in 2021. That is ten percentage points more than African Americans (15.9%) and more than double the percentage of both Hispanics (12.5%) and Native Americans (11%). By the definition of disparate impact provided by the Oxford Review, there was no disparate impact on Asians especialy since more Asians were admitted than any other non white group and certainly no disparate impact on whites because they were the majority of the students at Harvard. So then, what we see is a right wing activist court erasing equal opportunity.

 

[roderick]

TLDR

Affirmative action is hiring/admitting/accepting based on innate qualities rather than qualification. Affirmative action is, therefore, wrongful discrimination.

 

[roderick]

TLDR

Affirmative action is hiring/admitting/accepting based on innate qualities rather than qualification. Affirmative action is, therefore, wrongful discrimination.

btw, Last year's Supreme Court affirmative action decision all but ended quotas in college admissions. We celebrated at my school.

 

[BackAgain]

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

btw, Last year's Supreme Court affirmative action decision all but ended quotas in college admissions. We celebrated at my school.

No, the Bakke decision ended the policy of reserving x number of spots for minority students or "quotas" in college admissions, circa 1978.

It also ruled that race could however be one of the factors taken into consideration.

And in spite of the latest SCOTUS ruling, race can still be considered as a factor in admissions, particular for those institutions who evaluate the applicant as a whole as opposed to just going with what the numbers say.

 

[roderick]

No, the Bakke decision ended the policy of reserving x number of spots for minority students or "quotas" in college admissions, circa 1978.

It also ruled that race could however be one of the factors taken into consideration.

And in spite of the latest SCOTUS ruling, race can still be considered as a factor in admissions, particular for those institutions who evaluate the applicant as a whole as opposed to just going with what the numbers say.

No.

 

[IM2]

No, the Bakke decision ended the policy of reserving x number of spots for minority students or "quotas" in college admissions, circa 1978.

It also ruled that race could however be one of the factors taken into consideration.

And in spite of the latest SCOTUS ruling, race can still be considered as a factor in admissions, particular for those institutions who evaluate the applicant as a whole as opposed to just going with what the numbers say.

Roderick is supposed to be black. He calls himself trying to argue. Apparently he's young. Even in the Bakke case, the Doctrine of Disparate impact shoud have shut it down. First of all, Bakke had been turned down 3 times by the law school before. So he was apparently unqualified. But what he cried about was the 16 seats out of 100 available that had been reserved for non white students. Bakke had 84 chances to get in, while a black student had less than 16 given the fact those 16 seats were reserved for Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans. So I would like to see how having 84 chances at being selected imposes a disparate impact on a white person while 16 implies preferential treatment for blacks.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

No.

I realize that you and homegirl are in all likelihood from the Twitter generation so you're accustomed to having to limit your responses to less than 150 characters but you are in the Clean DEBATE forum therefore if you don't agree with something, state why or post a citation/source.

I'm always open to expanding my knowledgebase.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Roderick is supposed to be black. He calls himself trying to argue. Apparently he's young. Even in the Bakke case, the Doctrine of Disparate impact shoud have shut it down. First of all, Bakke had been turned down 3 times by the law school before. So he was apparently unqualified. But what he cried about was the 16 seats out of 100 available that had been reserved for non white students. Bakke had 84 chances to get in, while a black student had less than 16 given the fact those 16 seats were reserved for Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans. So I would like to see how having 84 chances at being selected imposes a disparate impact on a white person while 16 implies preferential treatment for blacks.

You're absolutely right and the most telling thing about the CRA of 1964 cases, including Title VII & Section 1981 which prohibit race based discrimination in employment and contracts, generally the only plaintiffs that make any headway at all are not Black.

Part of the post-Civil War Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §1981 was initially passed to provide newly freed slaves and their descendants with the right to make and enforce contracts. Section 1981 guarantees those rights; however, if they are denied, individuals can bring a discrimination claim.​

​

Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981)​

A federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, and ethnicity when making and enforcing contracts. Section 1981 specifically grants all individuals within the US jurisdiction the same rights and benefits as "enjoyed by white citizens" regarding contractual relationships (42 U.S.C. § 1981(a)). Courts have interpreted Section 1981 to apply to the employment context, including at-will employment and the independent contractor relationship. Section 1981 also prohibits retaliation. It does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of any other protected class.​

Section 1981 applies to all private employers and labor organizations, but does not apply to discrimination by the US federal government as an employer. It also does not apply to state or local government employers.​

Section 1981 does not require an individual to exhaust administrative remedies by filing a charge before any government agency and waiting for that charge to be adjudicated or released before proceeding to court.​

There is no damages cap under Section 1981.​

For more information, see Practice Note, Race, Color, and National Origin Discrimination Under Title VII and Section 1981: Section 1981 Overview and Title VII and Section 1981 Comparison Chart.​

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VII – equal employment opportunity

See also: Bennett Amendment, United States labor law, and Employment discrimination law in the United States

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of Title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[70]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of their association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[71] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (see Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[72] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

 

[IM2]

TLDR

Affirmative action is hiring/admitting/accepting based on innate qualities rather than qualification. Affirmative action is, therefore, wrongful discrimination.

If this was too long for you to read, you have nothing to say. If you want to be in this discussion, you need to understand that you re dealing with two black professionals who have either own a business or have served at the Directors level in business. We know what we are talking about, probably far more than you. Do not listen to clowns.

Furthermore the argument by whites about quotas was disingenuous on it's face because the quota for whites had been 100 percent in nearly every field. To argue the 14th Amendment honestly, it would mean that whites would have to face the exact same thing blacks did that caused the Fourteenth Amendment to be created. At no time has that been the case. So do not come to me with the white mans opinion thinking you are going to get away with it.

So consider this, would a student at the Howard University Law School who had been denied entry into that law school 3 times be able to file a claim of racial discrimination when Howard had 84 seats open for blacks and 16 open for whites?

Would a black individual be able to file a claim of racial discrimination against a black owned business that has 70 percent black employees if they didn't get hired/promoted but a white person did?

 

[Dr.Know]

Im white and anti-white discrimination has kept me out of any decent job. 1984, my ship came in I was getting hired by the IRS as a computer technician by a guy that liked my work. The building was 99.9999% black workers in Detroit and when they heard a whiteboy was getting hired, they threatened to go on Strike if I got hired. They killed my employment and my friend got transferred to another building.

Got discriminated in Medical school,,,,,,Sorry but YOU LACK DIVERSITY BOOM OUT.

Grad program in Nutrition,,,,,,White cxnt admissions officer only hires non-whites BUT THE PROGRAM DIRECTOR GAVE ME ADMISSIONS ; He was AFRICAN and knew how white men are being discriminated in the USA. He told me that the Super wealthy White families are blaming poor working class whites for the crimes of the white elite.

Its amazing the insight foreigners have about conditions in the USA.

 

[IM2]

Im white and anti-white discrimination has kept me out of any decent job. 1984, my ship came in I was getting hired by the IRS as a computer technician by a guy that liked my work. The building was 99.9999% black workers in Detroit and when they heard a whiteboy was getting hired, they threatened to go on Strike if I got hired. They killed my employment and my friend got transferred to another building.

Got discriminated in Medical school,,,,,,Sorry but YOU LACK DIVERSITY BOOM OUT.

Grad program in Nutrition,,,,,,White cxnt admissions officer only hires non-whites BUT THE PROGRAM DIRECTOR GAVE ME ADMISSIONS ; He was AFRICAN and knew how white men are being discriminated in the USA. He told me that the Super wealthy White families are blaming poor working class whites for the crimes of the white elite.

Its amazing the insight foreigners have about conditions in the USA.

That's a lie. Its time you guys stopped telling it. You could have sued for racial discrimination if that happened. You didn't get discriminated against in medical school. You would never be told that you weren't accepted becuse you're white. It looks like the medical school was majority white with a historical pattern of underutilizing minorities meaning they were not admitting them, meaning that school was practicing racial discrimination against non whites instead of you. Apparently you got one of those Africans who got a cushy job and decided to think he was white who knew nothing about anti discrimination law. There is no anti white discrimintion based on the Doctrine of Disparate Impact.

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

I think the problem with affirmative action is that at the end of the day it isn't colorblind, and you simply can't be doing that sort of thing anymore.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

So for the past 70 years, black men and women have had double the unemployment rate of whites. All of this was not caused by the unwillingness for blacks to take education seriously, or due to the lack of a work ethic

This is an outright LIE

 

[BackAgain]

No, the Bakke decision ended the policy of reserving x number of spots for minority students or "quotas" in college admissions, circa 1978.

It also ruled that race could however be one of the factors taken into consideration.

And in spite of the latest SCOTUS ruling, race can still be considered as a factor in admissions,

Which can’t be verified without numerical analysis. Which gets us back to quotas.

 

[roderick]

If this was too long for you to read, you have nothing to say.

Girl, this is hit & run posting. If you can condense your thoughts, then good luck!

 

[roderick]

I realize that you and homegirl...

homegirl?

 

[roderick]

I realize that you and homegirl are in all likelihood from the Twitter generation so you're accustomed to having to limit your responses to less than 150 characters but you are in the Clean DEBATE forum therefore if you don't agree with something, state why or post a citation/source.

I realize that people often pretend they know more than they know. If you are going to "cleanly debate," then it's customary to know background information. Get some, and then we can talk.

 

[roderick]

Roderick is supposed to be black.

Oh, I see. When someone black doesn't agree with all your racism, then they aren't black in your book.

 

[roderick]

Even in the Bakke case, the Doctrine of Disparate impact shoud have shut it down. First of all, Bakke had been turned down 3 times by the law school before. So he was apparently unqualified. But what he cried about was the 16 seats out of 100 available that had been reserved for non white students. Bakke had 84 chances to get in, while a black student had less than 16 given the fact those 16 seats were reserved for Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans. So I would like to see how having 84 chances at being selected imposes a disparate impact on a white person while 16 implies preferential treatment for blacks.

"Minorities" were given the chance to fill any of 100 spots. They can't due to lack of qualifications.