By Michael Barone
Friday, February 14, 2014
Disparate impact. That's a phrase you don't hear much in
everyday conversation. But it's the shorthand description of a legal doctrine
with important effects on everyday American life -- and more if Barack Obama
and his political allies get their way.
Consider the Department of Justice and Department of
Education policies on school discipline. In a "dear colleague" letter
distributed last month, the departments noted that "students of certain
racial or ethnic groups tend to be disciplined more than their peers."
Specifically, blacks made up 15 percent of the student
population but accounted for more than 35 percent of suspensions.
The letter breezily explains that "research
suggests" that this disparate impact of student discipline is not
explained by more frequent misbehavior and concludes that "racial
discrimination in school discipline is a real problem."
The upshot is that teachers and principals are on notice
that they may get into trouble if they suspend or penalize black students in
disproportion to their numbers.
It's not hard to imagine the likely results: quotas on
student discipline and a double standard if, as appears likely, black students
misbehave at higher rates than non-blacks.
And it's important, as U.S. Civil Rights Commission
member Gail Heriot wrote, to "consider the other side of the coin -- that
African-American students may be disproportionately victimized by disorderly
classrooms."
Not much learning takes place in classrooms disrupted by
misbehaving students. This policy could end up hurting black students who do
not misbehave.
A similar price may be paid by law-abiding blacks and
Hispanics in New York City if incoming Mayor Bill de Blasio follows through on
his campaign promise to end the police department's stop-and-frisk policy.
That policy was disapproved as "indirect racial
profiling" by a federal judge who used disparate impact analysis: The
percentage of blacks and Hispanics stopped and frisked was far higher than
their share of the city population.
But as Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has
pointed out, the relevant comparison group is not population data, but crime
data. The judge, she wrote, "ignored the fact that blacks commit nearly 80
percent of all shootings in New York and two-thirds of the violent crime."
The appeals court removed the judge from the case and
stayed her decision, and de Blasio appointed William Bratton, who has defended stop-and-frisk,
as police commissioner. This suggests that the police tactics that have made
the city safer for law-abiding blacks, and Hispanics will not be entirely
abandoned.
Another area in which disparate impact analysis has been
deployed is in housing. Department Housing and Urban Development Secretary
Shaun Donovan referred approvingly to a study by Zillow, an online real estate
data company, that said blacks and Hispanics are denied home mortgages at rates
higher than whites and Hispanics. "(T)hese fundamental disparities affect
the abilities of members of each group to accumulate financial assets,"
Zillow's economist writes.
But he also admits that black and Hispanic applicants had
significantly lower incomes than whites and so presumably tend to be less
creditworthy. Dispensing with credit standards to promote minority
homeownership led directly to the 2008 financial collapse -- and to
foreclosures on blacks and Hispanics.
Disparate impact analysis came into the law when courts
faced disingenuous and sometimes violent resistance to civil rights rulings and
laws by Southern whites. It was a drastic remedy for drastic obstruction of the
law.
A 1971 Supreme Court case ruled that employment
discrimination could be inferred by seemingly neutral practices that had
disparate impact on blacks and whites.
Around that time, the Nixon administration was imposing
racial quotas and preferences on building trades unions, where desirable
positions tended to be doled out to sons, nephews and cousins of current members.
Ultimately, disparate impact analysis rests on what
ordinary citizens instinctively recognize as a fiction, the notion that in a
fair society you would find the same racial and ethnic mix in every school,
every occupation and every neighborhood.
This runs against the sometimes uncomfortable fact that
abilities and interests are not evenly distributed among ethnic and racial
groups.
That doesn't justify racial discrimination. Ordinary
Americans understand that the variation within groups is much higher than the
variation between groups. They understand that it's unfair and unwise to judge
individuals by their race of ethnicity.
Unfortunately, disparate impact doctrine produces
policies that lead people to do just that. And in the process, it produces
results that hurt many of the intended beneficiaries.
No comments:
Post a Comment