THOMAS SOWELL, The ‘Disparate Impact’ Racket

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

One man smarter then the entire justice department.

The U.S. Department of Justice issued two reports last week, both growing out of the Ferguson, Missouri shooting of Michael Brown. The first report, about “the shooting death of Michael Brown by Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson” ought to be read by every American.

It says in plain English what facts have been established by an autopsy on Michael Brown’s body — by three different pathologists, including one representing the family of Michael Brown — by DNA examination of officer Darren Wilson’s gun and police vehicle, by examination of the pattern of blood stains on the street where Brown died and by a medical report on officer Wilson, from the hospital where he went for treatment.

The bottom line is that all this hard evidence, and more, show what a complete lie was behind all the stories of Michael Brown being shot in the back or being shot while raising his hands in surrender. Yet that lie was repeated, and dramatized in demonstrations and riots from coast to coast, as well as in the media and even in the halls of Congress.

The other Justice Department report, issued the same day — “Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department” — was a complete contrast. Sweeping assumptions take the place of facts, and misleading statistics are thrown around recklessly. This second report is worth reading, just to get a sense of the contrast with the first.

According to the second report, law enforcement in Ferguson has a “disparate impact” on blacks and is “motivated” by “discriminatory intent.”

“Disparate impact” statistics have for decades been used, in many different contexts, to claim that discrimination was the reason why different groups are not equally represented as employees or in desirable positions or — as in this case — in undesirable positions as people arrested or fined.

Like many other uses of “disparate impact” statistics, the Justice Department’s evidence against the Ferguson police department consists of numbers showing that the percentage of people stopped by police or fined in court is larger than the percentage of blacks in the local population.

The implicit assumption is that such statistics about particular outcomes would normally reflect the percentage of people in the population. But, no matter how plausible this might seem on the surface, it is seldom found in real life, and those who use that standard are seldom, if ever, asked to produce hard evidence that it is factually correct, as distinct from politically correct.

Blacks are far more statistically “over-represented” among basketball stars in the NBA than among people stopped by police in Ferguson. Hispanics are similarly far more “over-represented” among baseball stars than in the general population. Asian Americans are likewise far more “over-represented” among students at leading engineering schools like M.I.T. and Cal Tech than in the population as a whole.

READ THE REST OF THE LOGIC HERE
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2015/03/the-disparate-impact-racket/

 

[Webster]

There's 2 problems with 'disparate impact' statistics: (1)that, like most types of statistics, they can be made to fit anything the statistician wants them to fit. Case in point: crime statistics. In general, most of those stats are undercooked in that no one wants to report higher crime numbers from year-to-year; for instance, its' a near-criminal - no pun intended - running joke in New York that during NYPD COMPSTAT meetings, every so often, a precinct commander would go in at one rank...and leave a lower rank sans' his command. Why? Because the officer honestly reported the stats as they were, not as his bosses wanted them. The second problem: disparate impact doesn't take into account the actions of people in the specific communities that are being studied and the behavior of those who come into contact w/law enforcement. Most cops do not go out on a shift looking for every Tom, Dick and Harry black person that's out there, but why does it seem weird to outsiders w/no knowledge of the community whenever they look at the stats and notice it? Could it be because of the offenders and not the cops?

All-in-all, disparate impact statistics are a big steaming pile of ....

 

[Webster]

One man smarter then the entire justice department.

*deadpans* Yeah, 'cause every conservative needs their own lil' Uncle Thomas....

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

*deadpans* Yeah, 'cause every conservative needs their own lil' Uncle Thomas....

One of my great quotes from the past. I share it with all.

The uncle I would like to meet.

 

[Webster]

He's also wrong about disparate impact...

(Nolo) Disparate impact is a way to prove employment discrimination based on the effect of an employment policy or practice rather than the intent behind it. Laws that prohibit employment discrimination apply not only to intentional discrimination, but also to apparently neutral policies and practices that have a disproportionate adverse affect on members of a protected class. For example, a strength requirement might screen out disproportionate numbers of female applicants for a job, and requiring all applicants for promotion to receive a certain score on a standardized test could adversely affect candidates of color.

Proving Disparate Impact
To get a disparate impact case off the ground, the employee must present evidence that an employer's neutral policy, rule, or practice has a disproportionate negative impact on members of a protected class. Objective criteria, such as tests, degree requirements, and physical requirements (for lifting or stamina, for example), may be challenged under a disparate impact theory. Subjective criteria, such as performance, collegiality, or impressions made during an interview, may also be the subject of a disparate impact case.

Once the employee makes this showing, the employer may defend itself either by challenging the employee's evidence (usually by attacking the statistics used to demonstrate the disparate impact) or by proving that the policy or rule in question is job-related and consistent with business necessity. If the employer proves the business necessity defense, the employee can still win by proving that the employer refuses to adopt an alternative practice with a less discriminatory effect.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

He's also wrong about disparate impact...

He isn’t wrong, there is intent and there is actually what it is. And he is correct.

 

[Webster]

He isn’t wrong, there is intent and there is actually what it is.

And often times, seemingly neutral rules can have disparate effects depending on how they're enforced.
Just look at how cops treat suspects of different races/ethnicities for the same/similar crimes for instance.