Disparate impact: DeVos and the Obama directive on school discipline
How many people who think Trump is a tyrant because he does too much by executive decree felt the same way about Obama when he used the same tool? Does the Venn diagram of those two groups intersect at all?
Whatever one thinks about that, I think it’s crystal clear that what was done by executive fiat can be ondone by executive fiat. For example, i heartily applaud the Trump administration move under Betsy DeVos to rescind the following Obama directive;
In January 2014, a “Dear Colleague” letter was sent out that essentially required that students be disciplined in accordance with their representation in the student body. The letter states that even a race-neutral policy that results in more minority students being disciplined will be termed discriminatory and Department of Education will intervene. In fact, arrests of students by law enforcement for school related reasons could trigger federal action against the school system…
In addition to being stupid, the letter appears to be illegal.
The letter was rescinded last Friday.
The Obama administration directive was one of many that followed the dictates of what is known as “disparate impact“;
Disparate impact in United States labor law refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral…
A violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class. Therefore, the disparate impact theory under Title VII prohibits employers “from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class. A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its application or effect.” Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination unless the defendant employer demonstrates that the practice or policy in question has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job in question.
The application of this concept is from employment law. The doctrine of disparate impact rests on the fiction that all groups are equal and that all differences among them are the result of some sort of discrimination even if the discrimination can’t be detected and is unintentional. Although I’ve not researched its history (and don’t have a lot of time to do so right now), my guess is that the use of the disparate impact doctrine came about because equalizing the rules didn’t have the desired effect of racially and sexually proportionate hiring.
With school discipline, the Obama-era directive was absurd because it violates common sense to believe that disciplinary problems are evenly spread out among all groups. A person doesn’t have to believe such differences are innate to believe that they exist. They may indeed be mediated by cultural causes and differences, but they are real and to pretend otherwise is to let PC thought run rampant, and the people who will suffer will be the entire school system and the children in it. Those children will be both those who don’t need disciplining and those who do, because no child benefits from a chaotic classroom and fear of aggression or the ability to commit aggression without external controls. However, the left must sacrifice all those children in order to pretend that the world conforms to its vision of what should be.
I’m glad that DeVos has managed to correct this—for now. However, does anyone doubt that if a Democrat is elected president in 2020, the disparate impact directive is likely to be put in place again?
“However, the left must sacrifice all those children in order to pretend that the world conforms to its vision of what should be.”
Very well put!
I’m sure the Left will find a federal judge who will order, on a nationwide basis, that the Obama directive be continued, on the same basis that a federal judge refused to allow Obama’s DACA executive order to be cancelled, — Non revocatas Obamum.
Richard Saunders:
That occurred to me, too. They will certainly try.
That linked RedState piece says that the 2014 “Dear Colleague” letter “states that even a race-neutral policy that results in more minority students being disciplined will be termed discriminatory and Department of Education will intervene”. I just read the full letter and it doesn’t actually say that. Rather it lays out three steps that should be taken with regard to assessing disparate impact:
Ann, the “three-step process” you quoted really boils down to a simple implicit position: disparate impact is discrimination, and if it isn’t, we’re gonna make it so. Making schools jump through three hoops to avoid being deemed “discriminatory” really means that the burden of proof is on the school districts and not on the parties suing for relief. The “Dear Colleague” letter itself represents the absolute worst in unaccountable Administrative State malfeasance.
This also has a disparate impact on race relations. What this means in practice is the blacks get away with things that get the whites disciplined. This causes the whites to resent the blacks.
I knew a guy that got out of teaching because it was impossible to control the students. He would send a disruptive student to the principals office and an hour later the student would be back in class doing the same thing. He had students threaten to kill him and nothing happened to the students.
The doctrine of “disparate impact” normalizes the belief in diversity or color judgments (e.g. racism, sexism, genderism).
When consequences for those who refuse to adhere to civil norms, are a minor, short lived pinky tap on the wrist the wild things will rule.
I think the disparate impact evidenced in the NBA, where a minority group representing 13% of the population manages to get 80% of the jobs paying multiple million dollars is a real travesty. Not only that, but those of us who are of a certain age, short in stature and little spring in our legs are discriminated against. There must be a law against this cruelty.
Two can play this game of ‘tribalism’. European/whites invented the internal combustion engine, refrigerant, digital tech, modern medicine, modern agriculture, etc. Any use of these by those who are not European/evil whites is hereby forbidden. Any use by European/whites of the boomerang is forbidden. I can live in that world. Anyone from anywhere who did not grow up as citizens of Western Civilization, should be denied access to the fruits of WC, and return to their dream land. Otherwise, don’t piss down my leg and tell me it is raining.
The Disparate Impact scam was started by Jesse Jackson over 20 years ago when he went to Pontiac Illinois and led demonstrations because black boys were suspended more than white boys. It creates chaos in schools. The Powerline guys have about the effect on schools in the Minneapolis area.
When the witnesses who were teachers were asked what effect it would have on non-disruptive students if the disruptive student were back in class, the witnesses agreed it would be very negative. This is partly because the disruptive student continues to disrupt the classroom.
But it also has a negative effect on other students because it demonstrates that there is no real punishment for misbehavior. As an educator, you are doubtless aware of this, yet your new policy is designed to make it more difficult to remove disruptive students from the classroom. You may disavow that is the case, but teachers and administrators will get the message: we must reduce racial disparities in discipline, so suspend fewer black and brown kids.
And here.
Edina is one of the Twin Cities’ wealthiest suburbs. For decades, its public schools have been viewed as among the nation’s finest. But no longer: a leftist political agenda now dominates the Edina school system, and quality of instruction has slipped badly. Edina is not alone. What has happened there is going on in public schools across the country. Edina’s experience should be a warning to all of us.
That is a wealthy suburb, not an inner city school.
However, the left must sacrifice all those children in order to pretend that the world conforms to its vision of what should be. –neo
With the added benefit — those children will likely grow up to resent whites and become reliable Democrat voters.
Creating the conditions that will lead to societal “idiocracy” is entirely in the Left’s interest. Ignorance is easily led by appealing to the ignorant with the meme that they are victims of an unjust society.
None of this is accidental and given its intentionality and desired outcome, it easily qualifies as treason.
Rhetorical questions; how bad must things get before the obvious is acknowledged? And once forced to face reality, will we act to cut out the cancer or will we go quietly into the night?
Rhetorical questions; how bad must things get before the obvious is acknowledged? And once forced to face reality, will we act to cut out the cancer or will we go quietly into the night?
Geoffrey Britain: Europe will go first. We get the chance to learn from her example. No guarantees, of course, that we will.
Mike,
Thanks for the link to Mr. Mirengoff’s piece at Powerline. I am particularly struck by his quote from Richard Posner, which hits the nail square on the head. It’s only common sense, yet it’s brilliant:
As a case involving the Rockford (where I now live) Board of Ed, I’ll have to check that out.
Edit…here again gone again…currently AWOL, what a surprise.
I just wanted to add that I hope Santa was exceptionally beneficent in the matter of Ms. Kerstein’s gifts a couple of days ago. Her letter, which Mr. Mirengoff discusses, should earn her a Medal of Freedom at the very least, plus thankful Hallelujahs! from the populace at large.
Sigh: Edit again: The person I mean is Mr. Peter Kirsanow, then of the Office of Civil Rights, not Ms. Kersten (whose name I also misspelled). :>((J
only one class is not protected…
Disperate Impact was a viable theory in employment discrimination cases until the early 1990s when appellate decisions including the Supreme Court made it completely impractical for a plaintiff to establish. The concept lives on but only as an abstraction.
An illustration would be that I decide to lay off 10 employees and select a racially neutral criterion – the 10 most recently hired must go. But when I put names with the numbers I see that I have eight Asian employees and all eight of them are the most recently hired. Clearly, what seems a racially neutral filter is not, because the result is a policy that effectively wipes out my Asian employee group as if I had decided to just get rid of my Asians. Then the employer can still win by showing that it was tuly a goid faith criterion as opposed to deciding that the Asians were most recently hired, aha, I’ll use last in/first out!
As I say, there are now so many hoops to jump through it’s totally impractical and I can’t recall any Disperate Impact cases won by a plaintiff in the past 25 years; the concept is understandable, though, and when a company eliminates 100 employees and they’re all black/female/disabled, it should raise a few eyebrows.