Like most weekday mornings, yesterday I was borne on a litter from my residence to the Kakistocracy presses by the physics faculty of Alcorn State University. Thereupon arrival I offered our staff a customary motivational address to begin the workday processing raw data into refined hate speech fit for discriminating palates. Unfortunately that invocation was surreptitiously captured on video, the footage of which is now flouncing about the Cobweb. See below.
You might expect I would feel a bit sheepish about those energetic proclamations of THEY SHALL DIE! But malingering is a recurrent problem among the staff here and certain of the more recalcitrant require stern discipline. I assure you it will be humane.
Though for many I anticipate a substantial discrepancy in the image they had conjured of the editor here, and that which appears above in fact. Though impressions are always different. For instance, I have seen this site described by readers at separate venues within the past day as alternately very subtle and low key and a rude, rather vicious outlet. We’re plainly striking different people dissimilarly. Let’s call it a “disparate impact.”
And disparate impact is what we’re here to discuss. For Americans, perhaps no liberal phantasmagoria has been more pernicious to the nation than this concocted legal doctrine. Evolved up from the sententious “civil rights” legislation of the 1960s, it holds that put-upon plaintiffs may seek relief not only from explicit freedom of association, but also its purely unintended effects. That is to say one can not only consciously “discriminate,” but also can not take any action that would statistically result in similar effect.
This injunction is why the NBA is staffed with more mexicans than blacks. But we’ll return to that.
So what groups are specifically sheltered under this doctrine? Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act names five protected classes: blacks, jews, amerinds, homosexuals, and transvestites. Actually, I apologize. Those are the de facto protected classes. According to long-dismissed legislative letter, the devoutly observed principle of non-discrimination applies equally to all groups based upon race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. So a person can freely associate with whomever they choose, provided that choice does not contemplate any of those five elements.
As an aside, the law offers the following caveat:
Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any employer…to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer…in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area.
So Congress made this unambiguous: employers are not required to grant preference to certain group members in efforts to thwart nature’s relentless inclination toward statistical imbalances. They’ll simply be sued, fined, or imprisoned if those imbalances occur. The name for these imbalances is disparate impact.
And the Left is in the midst of another by-the-second apoplexy over its uncertain future. Because for the third time, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a case that could cement or extirpate the concept within the statutory framework. And as you may wonder, this is the third time since the two previous plaintiffs were both bought-off in an effort to concede pin prick defeats to maintain the legal front line. Though third time is the harm and the case has already gone to oral arguments, with a ruling expected this summer.
As per custom, the factions of this tribunal will form into preordained skirmish lines. The
three AIPAC-Americans and wise latina cohering into a reflexive anti-white phalanx in opposition to four nominal conservatives and one in-play cocktail party maverick who can always be relied upon to assume the downward dog yoga position. We’ll see which one plays that role in this particular robed conflict.
The Left’s tooth gnashing is understandable; much rides on the outcome. The case is narrowly specific to disparate impact’s “fair housing” application. Though potential is far wider. It’s conceivable the case could establish precedent to defang the doctrine across the board. Thus removing one of the boots the left uses to stamp on a human face forever. I find it very unlikely, though remotely possible, that a unified conservative majority could actually hold that 14th Amendment protections even apply to white people. But I’m sure that’s a cosmic legal theory too fanciful to give serious consideration.
However, in the significant likelihood that at least a few justices are reading this blog, some considerations so apparent they must never be acknowledged:
What human endeavors generate a disparate impact?
All of them. If there is any activity that when left to native sorting results in precise demographic representation of some contrived baseline, I don’t know what it would be. Masturbation perhaps. But for everything else, there will be a disparate impact occurring along one or several of the proscribed fault lines. Build houses, teach school children, produce rap albums, design software, fix toilets, or form a chess team. None of these will sift naturally into prescribed brackets of sex and race. Life has a disparate impact. Though in modern America, reality is hardly an impediment to ideals.
What disparate impacts are prohibited?
As an unfrozen caveman lawyer would peruse the statutes and come to the reasonable conclusion that they all must be. The NBA’s hiring practices have a plain disparate impact on every group but blacks. As nursing does to men. And Federal Reserve Chairmen to gentiles. But none of these are pursued. And thus since imbalances that favor whites are illegal and those that disfavor them are ignored, inertia and gravity will inexorably work to lessen white presence in every capacity. This is neither brain science nor rocket surgery, and yet can not be matter-of-factly observed. Even the Texas plaintiffs in this case premise their position on it being best for blacks. Are there other people in America? Do they have legal standing?
And so unless this blog has been shuttered from a disparate absence of black readers, we will return in the summer to discuss how this matter has been resolved. Until then, come back after visiting a few other pro-western websites. As you can see from the video above, we’ve got a bit of a demographic imbalance here to correct.
It’s interesting to note who is grasping onto disparate impact until their bloody fingernails break–often with their own money. This article provides some of that information. Glowingly, of course.
Few groups have done more than the (Center for Responsible Lending) to document the pervasive and negative effects of disparate impact, so you can understand why one of its executives was rallying at the Supreme Court. CRL has been tracking this case with concern since it first starting winding its way to the nation’s highest court.
The center’s work came to our attention recently because we profiled Herb Sandler, the retired banking entrepreneur who, along with his wife Marion, bankrolled CRL’s founding. The Sandler Foundation remains a major backer of CRL, so that’s one funder who has a dog in the disparate impact fight.
Among the big names making large grants to the center over the past seven years are the Pew Charitable Trusts and the MacArthur Foundation, which in 2012, named CRL as a recipient of the MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions. That award is about more than a nice plaque. It comes with $1 million.
Naturally, the Ford Foundation is also a major friend to CRL, giving the center $3.5 million since 2009. Ford’s history here goes way back, since it heavily funded Self-Help, which incubated CRL, and is one of the nation’s largest community development lenders. And Ford has long been involved in the fight for fair housing, and continues to fund in this area, as we reported recently.
Other consistent high level funders of CRL include F.B. Heron, the Open Society Foundations, and the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation. Notable community foundation backers include the California Community Foundation, the San Francisco Foundation, and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.
You will recall that “Open Society” is the umbrella front for George Soros, whose principle of openness does have its limitations.