The Wall Street
Journal Editorial Report is a weekly program that covers news events in an
analytical format. The
3/24/2013 broadcast had a segment on President Obama’s nomination of Thomas
Perez for Secretary of Labor.
In the discussion, Jason Riley, editor of Political Diary
brought up “disparate impact” as a theory of racial discrimination. Here is his explanation:
Adherents of disparate impact believe that statistics can be used to prove discrimination. They sort of worship at the altar of racial parity in outcomes. Blacks are 13% of the population? They should be 13% of dentists and 13% of the freshman class of UCLA or 13% of the firemen. And if they're not, then legal action should be taken, and discrimination can be shown on that basis alone.
That’s a powerful concept. If a policy is in place and it produces disparate
outcomes (regardless of how race neutral that policy might be) it is deemed
“discriminatory” and action must be taken.
We see multiple case
studies on this effect at the U. S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development.
If “disparate impact” has achieved
legitimacy with issues of race, can it achieve legitimacy on issues of
politics? Consider the situation of
people with dark skin tone. In the
United States, the odds are ten to one that a given adult from this group is
affiliated with the Democratic Party.
“Disparate impact” in matters of race is thus a measure of disparate impact on the
Democratic Party, with race being used as a proxy.
Does it make sense to contrive public
policy to favor a political party, regardless of the subterfuge?
Maybe. It is (of course) what politics is all about,
but to hide behind a veneer of racial pretense seems awkward.
No comments:
Post a Comment