Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 76
Thanks Tree1Thanks

Thread: So it appears no lefties are willing to defend "disparate impact..."

  1. #1
    Senior Member Raoul_Duke's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,696
    Thanks
    2638

    So it appears no lefties are willing to defend "disparate impact..."

    dis·pa·rate (dspr-t, d-sprt)
    adj.
    1. Fundamentally distinct or different in kind; entirely dissimilar.
    2. Containing or composed of dissimilar or opposing elements: a disparate group of people who represented a cross section of the city.

    disparate - definition of disparate by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

    im·pact
    vb [ɪmˈpækt]

    1. to drive or press (an object) firmly into (another object, thing, etc.) or (of two objects) to be driven or pressed firmly together
    2. to have an impact or strong effect (on)

    impact - definition of impact by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

    Disparate impact = dissimilar effect. If you can't have dissimilar effects, how can you have a meritocracy? How can you have competition? How can you have capitalism? Disparate impact = communism. Yes? No?

  2. #2
    Rigid Member Inkslinger's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    75,014
    Thanks
    3509

    From
    Richmond Va
    Did you learn a new word today and decide to make a political argument of it?

  3. #3
    Senior Member Dangermouse's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    9,076
    Thanks
    3828

    From
    Darzit, England
    He's disparate for attention.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Raoul_Duke's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,696
    Thanks
    2638

    Quote Originally Posted by Inkslinger View Post
    Did you learn a new word today and decide to make a political argument of it?
    Nope, I'm merely making another ironclad argument that the policies being employed by the Obama Administration are Marxist. Just another day at the office for me. You have anything to show that "disparate impact" is not an anti-capitalist concept?

  5. #5
    Sofa Can Coded! Sparta's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    15,426
    Thanks
    1965

    From
    Connecticut
    Quote Originally Posted by Raoul_Duke View Post

    disparate - definition of disparate by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
    Disparate impact = dissimilar effect. If you can't have dissimilar effects, how can you have a meritocracy? How can you have competition? How can you have capitalism? Disparate impact = communism. Yes? No?
    Disparate Impact refers to an unintentional discrimination which may be justified.

    If you offer a job which requires the applicant be of a certain height or body fat% that would have a disparate impact on females, yet it could be considered perfectly acceptable if you could show that the requirments for the position are legitimate, and affect job performance.

    Disparate Treatment is something all together different, that would be a situation in which you'd have the same criteria for applicants above (for instance height/body fat), your hiring practices led to under representation of females, and you could not show that your requirments had any inpact on job performace.

  6. #6
    Sofa Can Coded! Sparta's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    15,426
    Thanks
    1965

    From
    Connecticut
    Quote Originally Posted by Raoul_Duke View Post
    Nope, I'm merely making another ironclad argument that the policies being employed by the Obama Administration are Marxist. Just another day at the office for me. You have anything to show that "disparate impact" is not an anti-capitalist concept?
    It's not a policy of the Obama administration it's language from the civil rights act of 1968 and validated by the SCOTUS.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Raoul_Duke's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,696
    Thanks
    2638

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparta View Post
    Disparate Impact refers to an unintentional discrimination which may be justified.

    If you offer a job which requires the applicant be of a certain height or body fat% that would have a disparate impact on females, yet it could be considered perfectly acceptable if you could show that the requirments for the position are legitimate, and affect job performance.

    Disparate Treatment is something all together different, that would be a situation in which you'd have the same criteria for applicants above (for instance height/body fat), your hiring practices led to under representation of females, and you could not show that your requirments had any inpact on job performace.
    That may be how it was initially "sold." But is it or is it not used, say, to argue that if a school suspends African Americans at a higher rate than whites, that their discipline policies are inherently racist, regardless of the actual acts committed by the students?

  8. #8
    Senior Member Raoul_Duke's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,696
    Thanks
    2638

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparta View Post
    It's not a policy of the Obama administration it's language from the civil rights act of 1968 and validated by the SCOTUS.
    Your next Secretary of Labor:

    The Justice Department documents show that Mr. Perez, the department's top civil-rights lawyer, was concerned that if St. Paul won its Supreme Court case, the justices might strike down the legal tactic. That tactic revolves around the notion that the federal government and private litigants can rely on statistics and other measures to show that a company's or city's policies have a disparate impact on minorities, and that they don't need to prove intentional discrimination.


    Obama Nominates Thomas Perez for Labor Secretary - WSJ.com

  9. #9
    Senior Member Dr Sampson Simpson's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    12,822
    Thanks
    3339

    Quote Originally Posted by Raoul_Duke View Post
    Nope, I'm merely making another ironclad argument that the policies being employed by the Obama Administration are Marxist. Just another day at the office for me. You have anything to show that "disparate impact" is not an anti-capitalist concept?
    Except your OP makes no comments about Obama, capitalism, nothing about marxism, just definitions. How is that ironclad argument when nobody has a clue what you were trying to get across in the OP?

    Secondly, you should learn definition of marxist and communist, then you would know that Obama is neither of those.

    Thirdly, if you want an ironclad argument why Obama is anti-Capitalism, it helps to point out specifics of OBama's policies, along with how they are anti-capitalist.

    Fourthly, considering you think provide a couple of definitions is an ironclad argument, I'm not expecting any of the above.

  10. #10
    Sofa Can Coded! Sparta's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    15,426
    Thanks
    1965

    From
    Connecticut
    Quote Originally Posted by Raoul_Duke View Post
    That may be how it was initially "sold." But is it or is it not used, say, to argue that if a school suspends African Americans at a higher rate than whites, that their discipline policies are inherently racist, regardless of the actual acts committed by the students?
    No, you're maybe describing a situation where a school has taken political correctness to an ultra bullshit level.

    Disparate Impact has specific criteria to meet. Here's a legal explination (segmented):


    The Supreme Court, in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971), articulated the disparate impact theory and constructed a model of proof that the plaintiff and defendant must use in presenting their cases. In Griggs, the employer required a high school diploma and a passing score on two professionally developed tests. Although the lower courts found no liability because the plaintiff failed to prove that the employer had a discriminatory motive for the requirements, the Supreme Court reversed the decision. The Court stated that Title VII "proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation." In a famous quote, the Court said that the "absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as 'built in headwinds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capacity."

    In the three-step model defined by the Griggs Court, the plaintiff must first prove that a specific employment practice adversely affects employment opportunities of Title VII protected classes. If the plaintiff can establish a disparate impact, the employer must demonstrate that the challenged practice is justified by "business necessity" or that the practice is "manifestly related" to job duties. The courts, between 1971 and 1989, used these two phrases interchangeably. If the employer does not meet the burdens of production and persuasion in proving business necessity, the plaintiff prevails. If the employer does meet these burdens, the third step requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that alternative practices exist that would meet the business needs of the employer yet would not have a discriminatory effect.

    The plaintiff has the burden of persuading the fact finder that the employment practice used by the employer adversely affects the employment opportunities of a Title VII protected class. If the plaintiff fails to meet this burden, the court will dismiss the action under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    Demonstrating that the employer's workforce does not reflect the racial, ethnic, or gender percentage of the population of the area does not prove disparate impact. Such an imbalance may be the product of legitimate factors, such as geography, cultural differences, or the lack of unchallenged qualifications for the job. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show that the imbalance is because of the challenged practice. The most compelling evidence of disparate impact is proof that an employment practice selects members of a protected class in a proportion smaller than their percentage in the pool of actual applicants, or, in promotion and benefit cases, in a proportion smaller than in the actual pool of eligible employees.

    If the plaintiff proves that the employer's practice had a disproportionate impact on a protected class, the burden shifts to the defendant to justify its use of the challenged practice. Griggs labeled this burden as business necessity, but suggested that exclusionary practices would be justified if they were manifestly related to job duties.

    Disparate Impact legal definition of Disparate Impact. Disparate Impact synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed