Re: The Awesomesauce of the American 2024 Presidential Elections
Reply #98 –
DEI in the military, schools and corporations? If it's so bad, why did not Trump do anything to stop it? Maybe because in truth he really doesn't care to govern, as was demonstrated by his first term.
You'll see mentioned in the article from the City Journal that, indeed, Trump promptly rescinded Obama's DEI "guidance" from the Department of Education...
The intensity of the battle doesn’t guarantee the longevity of the war. Sometimes, the defeated party accepts the public’s verdict and stops demanding rematches.
That may be happening in American civil rights law. In its name, contemporary progressives advocate the use of disparate-impact analysis to force private parties to treat Americans differently based on race and ancestry. Yet, after promising loudly to do otherwise, the Biden administration has largely avoided defending the legality of this practice in its enforcement of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Because of the size of the federal government, the stakes for Title VI enforcement are high. Federal outlays account for about 20 percent of American GDP. Title VI applies to all recipients of those outlays. Many non-recipients may plan to bid for federal contracts or grants in the future, so they’ll need to demonstrate compliance with Title VI, too. Title VI, then, directly or indirectly, effectively governs more than 20 percent of the national economy.
But Title VI is a nondiscrimination statute. Applying the theory of disparate impact—which seeks to uncover intentional but hidden discrimination—turns Title VI on its head by transforming the statute into a cudgel that would require discrimination. The Biden administration wants to compel the very practice that Congress passed Title VI to forbid. The administration has indeed deployed disparate-impact theory through Title VI, pushing for what it calls “equity” through a host of administrative actions.
Still, in at least two settings where parties challenged that deployment as illegal—school disciplinary policies and environmental policy—the administration has dodged consequent litigation. The White House implicitly concedes that it lacks the power to use civil rights regulations to require discrimination.
The intensity of the battle doesn’t guarantee the longevity of the war. Sometimes, the defeated party accepts the public’s verdict and stops demanding rematches. That may be happening in American civil rights law. In its name, contemporary progressives advocate the use of disparate-impact analysis to force private parties to treat Americans differently based on race and ancestry. Yet, after promising loudly to do otherwise, the Biden administration has largely avoided defending the legality of this practice in its enforcement of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Because of the size of the federal government, the stakes for Title VI enforcement are high. Federal outlays account for about 20 percent of American GDP. Title VI applies to all recipients of those outlays. Many non-recipients may plan to bid for federal contracts or grants in the future, so they’ll need to demonstrate compliance with Title VI, too. Title VI, then, directly or indirectly, effectively governs more than 20 percent of the national economy. But Title VI is a nondiscrimination statute. Applying the theory of disparate impact—which seeks to uncover intentional but hidden discrimination—turns Title VI on its head by transforming the statute into a cudgel that would require discrimination. The Biden administration wants to compel the very practice that Congress passed Title VI to forbid. The administration has indeed deployed disparate-impact theory through Title VI, pushing for what it calls “equity” through a host of administrative actions. Still, in at least two settings where parties challenged that deployment as illegal—school disciplinary policies and environmental policy—the administration has dodged consequent litigation. The White House implicitly concedes that it lacks the power to use civil rights regulations to require discrimination.
-more-
———————————————
(Your comment about inflation shows a surprising ignorance! Like the weather? Really? )