Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath

[Loren Pechtel]

No. "Disparate impact" is legal voodoo created where evidence of discrimination is absent.

You have proof of this?

When actual evidence of discrimination exists, "disparate impact" isn't used.

Again, you have proof of this?

In United States anti-discrimination law, the theory of  disparate impact holds that practices in employment, housing, or other areas may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on persons in a protected class.

Wikipedia has a substantial bias to the left and should not be trusted on issues such as this.

At least the part you are quoting is omitting a very important aspect of it: A policy may be seen as discriminatory if it has a disproportionate impact and adds no meaningful value to those doing it.

Thus, for example, height requirements on jobs where there's no actual need to exclude short people--it used to be a common dodge to keep women out.

Furthermore, this only applies to a policy. It says nothing about reality having a disparate impact.

 

[Toni]

Criteria for selecting NBA players would fall under "disparate impact" as well.

You are equating criteria for performance (NBA player selection) with nonuniformly applied criteria for voting eligibility (a constitutional and legal right0? Really?

Of course he's not. He's just pulling a typical 'Derec' and attempting to divert attention away from something that makes him uncomfortable.

It would be so much easier and so much more comfortable if we could all just believe that a)blacks in the US do not face discrimination and b) if they do, it's because they don't deserve to be treated as equals. Some people just skip over small things like facts and history and jump to the NBA, where race is not a requirement.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You have proof of this?

When actual evidence of discrimination exists, "disparate impact" isn't used.

Again, you have proof of this?

In United States anti-discrimination law, the theory of  disparate impact holds that practices in employment, housing, or other areas may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on persons in a protected class.

Wikipedia has a substantial bias to the left and should not be trusted on issues such as this.

At least the part you are quoting is omitting a very important aspect of it: A policy may be seen as discriminatory if it has a disproportionate impact and adds no meaningful value to those doing it.

Thus, for example, height requirements on jobs where there's no actual need to exclude short people--it used to be a common dodge to keep women out.

Furthermore, this only applies to a policy. It says nothing about reality having a disparate impact.

Loren,

first, you are always welcome to click a link and go further.

second, you are also free to use the Google for yourself. If it helps you to use it, think of it as the white man's google.

third, I understand there are black people in Las Vegas (I have this understanding from family who actually live there) Since you are such an expert on black people, I am sure they are all waiting to hear from you and your ideas. I'm sure the residents of Westside can hardly stand the anticipation.

 

[Toni]

You have proof of this?

When actual evidence of discrimination exists, "disparate impact" isn't used.

Again, you have proof of this?

In United States anti-discrimination law, the theory of  disparate impact holds that practices in employment, housing, or other areas may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on persons in a protected class.

Wikipedia has a substantial bias to the left and should not be trusted on issues such as this.

At least the part you are quoting is omitting a very important aspect of it: A policy may be seen as discriminatory if it has a disproportionate impact and adds no meaningful value to those doing it.

Thus, for example, height requirements on jobs where there's no actual need to exclude short people--it used to be a common dodge to keep women out.

Furthermore, this only applies to a policy. It says nothing about reality having a disparate impact.

Wiki is not often my favorite source, either. Could you please share your favorite sources?

 

[blastula]

Are you thinking about poll taxes and 'literacy' tests used in the south? Grandfather laws?

Criteria for selecting NBA players would fall under "disparate impact" as well.

It also does for the coaches, but for different reasons.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You have proof of this?

When actual evidence of discrimination exists, "disparate impact" isn't used.

Again, you have proof of this?

In United States anti-discrimination law, the theory of  disparate impact holds that practices in employment, housing, or other areas may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on persons in a protected class.

Wikipedia has a substantial bias to the left and should not be trusted on issues such as this.

At least the part you are quoting is omitting a very important aspect of it: A policy may be seen as discriminatory if it has a disproportionate impact and adds no meaningful value to those doing it.

Thus, for example, height requirements on jobs where there's no actual need to exclude short people--it used to be a common dodge to keep women out.

Furthermore, this only applies to a policy. It says nothing about reality having a disparate impact.

Wiki is not often my favorite source, either. Could you please share your favorite sources?

Would that be the ones with that agree with the beliefs of the reader?