Zone1 The Doctrine of Disparate Impact

If there are only 10 spots available for a given program, how is that not a zero sum situation?
Well there is the top of the group (#1) and there is the bottom of the group (#10).

White racist would have EVERYONE believe that in each and every set of circumstances that the TOP of the group of non-white applicants ALWAYS is below the bottom of the group of the white applicants.

Whereas if you were to combine the two groups based on ranking, the "least" eligible in the white group would be displaced by a more eligible non-white.

In other words, that zero-sum that you all are referring to was traditionally populated by white individuals because they had no competition, not due to lack of ability, skills or education, but due to lack of opportunity.

So once that barrier was removed, then yes, SOME whites lost out to Black applicants but the problem is the SENSE of ENTITLEMENT. That THEY were entitled to have that job, not anyone else in spite of another candidate out-performing them.

As long as people pretend that this isn't possible we'll be stuck in the same situation from now until something gives.
 
  • Brilliant
Reactions: IM2
One guy said he did something does not a system make.

And the fix is do the same thing to anyone not in a protected class?
He's just one person who publicly admits to doing this and bragging about it, but it's a known practice. Our government has the statistics on what these companies have been doing over the last half a century.

In fact you can Google Race Based Cases EEOC and then peruse their case history over the last several decades.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
Except in your mind ALL Black people are less qualified.
No, I dont think that

But it is often the obvious conclusion after the federal government sues Georgia Pacific for racial discrimination

It seems the company had a policy requiring all new workers to read and write

And the feds decided that was racist and unfair to black people
 
No, I dont think that

But it is often the obvious conclusion after the federal government sues Georgia Pacific for racial discrimination

It seems the company had a policy requiring all new workers to read and write

And the feds decided that was racist and unfair to black people
You have a link for this from the EEOC?

And are you saying that NONE of the Black people who applied to work there could read or write? Couldn't even fill out the job application?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
He's just one person who publicly admits to doing this and bragging about it, but it's a known practice. Our government has the statistics on what these companies have been doing over the last half a century.

In fact you can Google Race Based Cases EEOC and then peruse their case history over the last several decades.
These guys always try that stuff. They know good and well that more than one person is doing that. In fact they are probably doing it themselves.
 
I have a link

Thank you for the link, it's definitely enlightening.

I have to ask though, there is a level of sarcasm in this article. Did that lead to you believe that the reason this occurred is because Black people were unable to read & write or needed special accommodations or something?

Because what this reminds me of is the alleged "literacy" test that Black people were required to pass in some jurisdictions before being allowed to vote.

The reason the company got fined was because it was requiring people, to take tests that were unrelated to their jobs.

And this is how they attempted to make the Black workers appear to be "less qualified" than the white workers:
  • (3) it focused mostly on job groups near the top of various lines of progression, but the fact that the best of those employees working near the top of a line of progression score well on a test does not necessarily mean that the test permissibly measures the qualifications of new workers entering lower level jobs; and (4) it dealt only with job-experienced, white workers, but the tests themselves are given to new job applicants, who are younger, largely inexperienced, and in many instances nonwhite. Pp. 425-435.
I hope this clears things up a bit
 
  • Brilliant
Reactions: IM2
Well, the moderators had to protect you from the truth by removing the posts and links proving it was true...and I'm not going to post them again in defiance of their opinion.

So continue to wallow in your delusion.

You'll never change until you accept that facts aren't racist... They're just facts.
Which facts are you talking about? The moderators wouldn't have removed anything for merely being factual, they would have had to have been inappropriate for the zone in some manner.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
Thank you for the link, it's definitely enlightening.

I have to ask though, there is a level of sarcasm in this article. Did that lead to you believe that the reason this occurred is because Black people were unable to read & write or needed special accommodations or something?

Because what this reminds me of is the alleged "literacy" test that Black people were required to pass in some jurisdictions before being allowed to vote.

The reason the company got fined was because it was requiring people, to take tests that were unrelated to their jobs.

And this is how they attempted to make the Black workers appear to be "less qualified" than the white workers:
  • (3) it focused mostly on job groups near the top of various lines of progression, but the fact that the best of those employees working near the top of a line of progression score well on a test does not necessarily mean that the test permissibly measures the qualifications of new workers entering lower level jobs; and (4) it dealt only with job-experienced, white workers, but the tests themselves are given to new job applicants, who are younger, largely inexperienced, and in many instances nonwhite. Pp. 425-435.
I hope this clears things up a bit
Libs wonder why anyone might have a low impression of black qualifications

Actually the wokesters dont wonder

They are convinced that its because of racism

But aside from personal experience that we all have, stories like this reenforce the belief that generally overall blacks are less qualified

I’m sure that woke do-gooders in the government wanted to help but they failed miserably

In the 21st Century there are no jobs that do not require literacy

Thanks to government we are a nation of warning labels that black job applicants at Georgia Pacific could not read

Not only that companies are constantly under pressure to promote black people alongside whites

But what good is a supervisor who cant read?

So your excuse that literacy is not important falls on deaf ears with me
 
Well there is the top of the group (#1) and there is the bottom of the group (#10).

White racist would have EVERYONE believe that in each and every set of circumstances that the TOP of the group of non-white applicants ALWAYS is below the bottom of the group of the white applicants.

Whereas if you were to combine the two groups based on ranking, the "least" eligible in the white group would be displaced by a more eligible non-white.

In other words, that zero-sum that you all are referring to was traditionally populated by white individuals because they had no competition, not due to lack of ability, skills or education, but due to lack of opportunity.

So once that barrier was removed, then yes, SOME whites lost out to Black applicants but the problem is the SENSE of ENTITLEMENT. That THEY were entitled to have that job, not anyone else in spite of another candidate out-performing them.

As long as people pretend that this isn't possible we'll be stuck in the same situation from now until something gives.

The problem is not admitting that some people need to get screwed over to meet your supposed requirements for "equity"
 
He's just one person who publicly admits to doing this and bragging about it, but it's a known practice. Our government has the statistics on what these companies have been doing over the last half a century.

In fact you can Google Race Based Cases EEOC and then peruse their case history over the last several decades.

And the solution is to do the same to the other side, but now do it legally?
 
When people start talking about discrimination, they generally leave out an important doctrine that until recently was considered in cases of discrimination. It is called the Doctrine of Disparate Impact. Based on that Doctrine, the Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College case should never have been seen by the Supreme Court. This same doctrine renders the claim of Anti White Discrimination moot and without merit.

Definition:​

Disparate Impact refers to a legal doctrine in employment law and civil rights that addresses situations where a seemingly neutral policy or practice disproportionately affects a particular group based on race, gender, age, or other protected characteristics. Unlike disparate treatment, which involves intentional discrimination, disparate impact focuses on the consequences of a policy rather than the intent behind it.


Examining Affirmative Action under this definition debunks the claim made by some members of the white community pertaining to the policy discriminating against whites. Since the policy was first implemented has the policy created a negative impact upon the white population in America to the extent that they can claim they were being discriminated against just as bad or worse than people of color?

This should have been the standard. But lets look at one area where the claim was made.

"Black women and men have worked in the United States of America long before national employment and unemployment data began being collected in 1940, but we can only directly track our unemployment experience back to 1972. This blog takes a step toward communicating what many may have already suspected: due to systematic exclusion and discrimination of Black people in the labor market, racism in the education system and throughout U.S. society, Black men and women have endured double the unemployment rates of white men and women since at least 1954."


So for the past 70 years, black men and women have had double the unemployment rate of whites. All of this was not caused by the unwillingness for blacks to take education seriously, or due to the lack of a work ethic. Further, it is evidence that there has been no anti white discrimination in hiring.

So lets look at the Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College case that ended Affirmative Action.

In this case, the contention is that Asians are discriminated against based on the number of Asians turned down for Harvard admission. Harvard admission numbers do not support this claim. Asians are six percent of the American population, but they were 25.9 percent of the students entering Harvard in 2021. That is ten percentage points more than African Americans (15.9%) and more than double the percentage of both Hispanics (12.5%) and Native Americans (11%). By the definition of disparate impact provided by the Oxford Review, there was no disparate impact on Asians especialy since more Asians were admitted than any other non white group and certainly no disparate impact on whites because they were the majority of the students at Harvard. So then, what we see is a right wing activist court erasing equal opportunity.
I'd bet if a former prosecutor ran for president with a record of incarcerating young black men for non-violent crimes and keeping them in prison after they were supposed to be released just to have cheap labor, you would fit that right into your disparate impact theory.
 
When people start talking about discrimination, they generally leave out an important doctrine that until recently was considered in cases of discrimination. It is called the Doctrine of Disparate Impact. Based on that Doctrine, the Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College case should never have been seen by the Supreme Court. This same doctrine renders the claim of Anti White Discrimination moot and without merit.

Definition:​

Disparate Impact refers to a legal doctrine in employment law and civil rights that addresses situations where a seemingly neutral policy or practice disproportionately affects a particular group based on race, gender, age, or other protected characteristics. Unlike disparate treatment, which involves intentional discrimination, disparate impact focuses on the consequences of a policy rather than the intent behind it.


Examining Affirmative Action under this definition debunks the claim made by some members of the white community pertaining to the policy discriminating against whites. Since the policy was first implemented has the policy created a negative impact upon the white population in America to the extent that they can claim they were being discriminated against just as bad or worse than people of color?

This should have been the standard. But lets look at one area where the claim was made.

"Black women and men have worked in the United States of America long before national employment and unemployment data began being collected in 1940, but we can only directly track our unemployment experience back to 1972. This blog takes a step toward communicating what many may have already suspected: due to systematic exclusion and discrimination of Black people in the labor market, racism in the education system and throughout U.S. society, Black men and women have endured double the unemployment rates of white men and women since at least 1954."


So for the past 70 years, black men and women have had double the unemployment rate of whites. All of this was not caused by the unwillingness for blacks to take education seriously, or due to the lack of a work ethic. Further, it is evidence that there has been no anti white discrimination in hiring.

So lets look at the Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College case that ended Affirmative Action.

In this case, the contention is that Asians are discriminated against based on the number of Asians turned down for Harvard admission. Harvard admission numbers do not support this claim. Asians are six percent of the American population, but they were 25.9 percent of the students entering Harvard in 2021. That is ten percentage points more than African Americans (15.9%) and more than double the percentage of both Hispanics (12.5%) and Native Americans (11%). By the definition of disparate impact provided by the Oxford Review, there was no disparate impact on Asians especialy since more Asians were admitted than any other non white group and certainly no disparate impact on whites because they were the majority of the students at Harvard. So then, what we see is a right wing activist court erasing equal opportunity.
You can put all the lipstick you want on your racism, but it’s still racism
 
When people start talking about discrimination, they generally leave out an important doctrine that until recently was considered in cases of discrimination. It is called the Doctrine of Disparate Impact. Based on that Doctrine, the Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College case should never have been seen by the Supreme Court. This same doctrine renders the claim of Anti White Discrimination moot and without merit.

Definition:​

Disparate Impact refers to a legal doctrine in employment law and civil rights that addresses situations where a seemingly neutral policy or practice disproportionately affects a particular group based on race, gender, age, or other protected characteristics. Unlike disparate treatment, which involves intentional discrimination, disparate impact focuses on the consequences of a policy rather than the intent behind it.


Examining Affirmative Action under this definition debunks the claim made by some members of the white community pertaining to the policy discriminating against whites. Since the policy was first implemented has the policy created a negative impact upon the white population in America to the extent that they can claim they were being discriminated against just as bad or worse than people of color?

This should have been the standard. But lets look at one area where the claim was made.

"Black women and men have worked in the United States of America long before national employment and unemployment data began being collected in 1940, but we can only directly track our unemployment experience back to 1972. This blog takes a step toward communicating what many may have already suspected: due to systematic exclusion and discrimination of Black people in the labor market, racism in the education system and throughout U.S. society, Black men and women have endured double the unemployment rates of white men and women since at least 1954."


So for the past 70 years, black men and women have had double the unemployment rate of whites. All of this was not caused by the unwillingness for blacks to take education seriously, or due to the lack of a work ethic. Further, it is evidence that there has been no anti white discrimination in hiring.

So lets look at the Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College case that ended Affirmative Action.

In this case, the contention is that Asians are discriminated against based on the number of Asians turned down for Harvard admission. Harvard admission numbers do not support this claim. Asians are six percent of the American population, but they were 25.9 percent of the students entering Harvard in 2021. That is ten percentage points more than African Americans (15.9%) and more than double the percentage of both Hispanics (12.5%) and Native Americans (11%). By the definition of disparate impact provided by the Oxford Review, there was no disparate impact on Asians especialy since more Asians were admitted than any other non white group and certainly no disparate impact on whites because they were the majority of the students at Harvard. So then, what we see is a right wing activist court erasing equal opportunity.
I started reading that, then white, black, black, white appeared everywhere.

Just another race thread, one of many million.
 
Roderick is supposed to be black. He calls himself trying to argue. Apparently he's young. Even in the Bakke case, the Doctrine of Disparate impact shoud have shut it down. First of all, Bakke had been turned down 3 times by the law school before. So he was apparently unqualified. But what he cried about was the 16 seats out of 100 available that had been reserved for non white students. Bakke had 84 chances to get in, while a black student had less than 16 given the fact those 16 seats were reserved for Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans. So I would like to see how having 84 chances at being selected imposes a disparate impact on a white person while 16 implies preferential treatment for blacks.
Number of competitors. Going by pure chance, you have lower odds as a marginal student if you're competing with 10,000 students for 84 seats vs 1,000 for 16, and the same applies elsewhere. You have a better chance of making your high school basketball team if your school has 250 students than if it has 1,500. This is also why a high school standout gets more notice if he's from a big school than a small one.

Basically, he's saying that white students are being forced to compete with more applicants than minority students.
 
Number of competitors. Going by pure chance, you have lower odds as a marginal student if you're competing with 10,000 students for 84 seats vs 1,000 for 16, and the same applies elsewhere. You have a better chance of making your high school basketball team if your school has 250 students than if it has 1,500. This is also why a high school standout gets more notice if he's from a big school than a small one.

Basically, he's saying that white students are being forced to compete with more applicants than minority students.
Basically, your argument is weak. Whites had 84 seats. Native Americans, Asians, Blacks and Hispanics had 16. If there are 10,000 whites and 1000 blacks there are more marginal or less than marginal white students too than there are blacks.
 
Basically, your argument is weak. Whites had 84 seats. Native Americans, Asians, Blacks and Hispanics had 16.
Basically, you're ignoring a very vital part of the equation. How many Caucasian students applied vs minority students that qualified for the set-aside seats? Let's illustrate with an extreme example. Are white students disparately impacted if there are 16 seats set aside for which they cannot compete and for which 16 students are applying vs 84 seats that are not set aside for anyone but for which 10,000 students are applying? If you are honest, you would acknowledge the importance of that piece that you left out.
 

Forum List

Back
Top