WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 27: U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, joined by President Donald Trump, speaks on recent Supreme Court rulings in the briefing room at the White House on June 27, 2025 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that individual judges cannot grant nationwide injunctions to block executive orders, including the injunction on President Trump’s effort to eliminate birthright citizenship in the U.S. The justices did not rule on Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship but stopped his order from taking effect for 30 days.
“This Department of Justice is eliminating its regulations that for far too long required recipients of federal funding to make decisions based on race,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement earlier this month.
In a separate statement, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division stressed that the use of disparate impact was a net negative for America, not a positive.
“The prior ‘disparate impact’ regulations encouraged people to file lawsuits challenging racially neutral policies, without evidence of intentional discrimination,” she said.“Our rejection of this theory will restore true equality under the law by requiring proof of actual discrimination, rather than enforcing race- or sex-based quotas or assumptions,” Dhillon added.
Conservatives view disparate impact as a destructive policy because it creates racism out of thin air.
For example, disparate impact says that if the police in a particular town arrest more black suspects than white/Asian suspects in any given period of time, it must be because of racism and discrimination.
Disparate impact also says that if a disproportionate number of black police/fire applicants fail their required exam compared to their white and Asian peers, that too must be because of racism and discrimination.
Thanks to disparate impact, last year black female applicants who failed the Maryland State Police’s new officer tests were labeled victims of racism and given $2.75 million in backpay.Related:
The Bondi Beach Hanukkah Massacre and the Islamist Blind Spot the West Refuses to Confront
In addition, the state police announced plans to make its physical tests even easier by removing time limits for pushups and more.
This is what almost always happens when disparate impact theory is followed: Standards are lowered because holding certain minorities to the same standards as everybody else becomes racist.
In a recent op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, law professors Elizabeth Price Foley and Jason Torchinsky argued that disparate impact theory ought to be ruled outright unconstitutional so as to prevent a future Democratic administration from resurrecting it.
“Disparate-impact theory, which recasts neutral standards as discriminatory, was imposed undemocratically and conflicts with the Constitution,” they wrote. “The Supreme Court, which has sent mixed signals over the years, should eventually reject it.”
The central thesis of disparate impact is that society should focus on group outcomes, not individual merit.
It’s why disparate impact goes hand in hand with so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
As noted by critics, disparate impact theory can be used to justify almost any DEI policy, no matter how backwards and harmful.The late Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, once correctly tweeted that disparate impact “is the legal super weapon that is responsible for gutting merit-based hiring and is why all our companies think they have to have bogus DEI jobs.”
In an April op-ed of their own, the editors of National Review Online also called for an elimination of disparate impact.
“It is past time to let go of group-obsessed thinking and inspire us once again to aspire to treat every American equally — no matter the outcome,” they wrote. “The impact of that would benefit us all.”
Yes, it would.
No comments:
Post a Comment