The big buzzword amongst woke “urban planners” is “equity“. If ever you hear your local government elected officials talk about it or hear them being informed about it, then you have fair warning that something sinister is afoot. Equity, in effect, is a positing that all superficial inequalities are caused by some fundamental evil that can only be corrected by “re-balancing” society by punishing the effect of unequal outcomes by not only forcibly changing the superficial effect in the hopes of changing the cause, but also by declaring people guilty of deracination because the unequal outcome was caused by a “disparate impact” even if there was literally no discrimination, let alone intent.
A recent legal paper by Gail L. Heriot of the University of San Diego examines how this is an attack on the rule of law, and how it benefits some over others.
“In Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), the Supreme Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 went far beyond prohibiting intentional discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. According to the Court, it also presumptively outlawed job actions that have a ‘disparate impact,’ regardless of whether the employer had an intent to discriminate.
“The evidence that this was a misinterpretation of both the text and Congressional intent is overwhelming. Up until 1991, Griggs would have been an excellent candidate for an outright and explicit overruling. But the Civil Rights Act of 1991’s backhanded recognition of the disparate impact cause of action makes that more difficult than it otherwise might be.
“This article discusses various ways in which disparate impact liability has been bad policy and various arguments for its unconstitutionality.”
The full paper can be read below: