The Trump-led Department of Justice (DOJ) has recently unveiled new regulations that put an end to the application of the 'disparate impact' theory, a controversial leftist concept that attributes any racial disparity in outcomes to racism and discrimination.
According to the Western Journal, Attorney General Pam Bondi declared, This Department of Justice is eliminating its regulations that for far too long required recipients of federal funding to make decisions based on race. This move is seen as a significant step towards restoring true equality under the law, a sentiment echoed by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the DOJs Civil Rights Division.
Dhillon emphasized the negative impact of the 'disparate impact' theory on American society, stating, The prior disparate impact regulations encouraged people to file lawsuits challenging racially neutral policies, without evidence of intentional discrimination. She further added, 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.
The 'disparate impact' theory has been a subject of criticism among conservatives, who view it as a policy that fabricates racism. The theory suggests that any racial disparity, such as a higher number of arrests among black suspects compared to white or Asian suspects, or a higher failure rate among black police/fire applicants, is a direct result of racism and discrimination.
This theory has led to significant consequences. For instance, black female applicants who failed the Maryland State Polices new officer tests were labeled victims of racism and awarded $2.75 million in backpay. Furthermore, the state police announced plans to lower the standards of its physical tests. Critics argue that such outcomes are typical when the 'disparate impact' theory is applied, as it results in lowered standards under the guise of avoiding racism.
In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, law professors Elizabeth Price Foley and Jason Torchinsky called for the 'disparate impact' theory to be declared unconstitutional to prevent its potential revival by a future Democratic administration. They wrote, Disparate-impact theory, which recasts neutral standards as discriminatory, was imposed undemocratically and conflicts with the Constitution. The Supreme Court, which has sent mixed signals over the years, should eventually reject it.
The 'disparate impact' theory, which emphasizes group outcomes over individual merit, is often associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. Critics argue that this theory can be used to justify almost any DEI policy, regardless of its potential harm.
The late Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, once 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.
The editors of National Review Online also advocated for the elimination of the 'disparate impact' theory in an April op-ed, stating, 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. The impact of that would benefit us all.
Indeed, the elimination of the 'disparate impact' theory could mark a significant step towards restoring true equality and merit-based decision making in America.
Login