Dr. Sowell on 'Disparate Impact'

In this article on the Ricci case, Dr. Sowell knocks it out of the park yet again.

As you read the article, notice how the concept of 'disparate impact' only makes sense to one who views the world in terms of groups rather than individuals, and completely discounts the possibility of individual or group exceptionalism. It also assumes that the world is essentially 'zero-sum': if one person wins, another must lose. This view creates the sense that those who attain a certain level of success have, in fact, taken that success from others. And that is how people like Judge Sotomayor and Justice Ginsburg have come to rationalize the redistribution of success in the name of civil rights, without regard for individual rights.

Here's a sample of the article:

[T]he growing complexity and murkiness of civil rights law over the years recalls the painful saying: "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."
...
A key notion that has created unending mischief, from its introduction by the Supreme Court in 1971 to the current firefighters' case, is that of "disparate impact." Any employment requirement that one racial or ethnic group meets far more often than another is said to have a "disparate impact" and is considered to be evidence of racial discrimination.

In other words, if group X doesn't pass a test nearly as often as group Y, then there is something wrong with the test, according to this reasoning or lack of reasoning. This implicitly assumes that there cannot be any great difference between the two groups in the skills, talents or efforts required.

That notion is the grand dogma of our time-- an idea for which no evidence is asked or given, and an idea that no amount of contradictory evidence can change in the minds of the true believers, or in the rhetoric of ideologues and opportunists.

Trying to reconcile that dogma with the principle of equal treatment for all has led courts into feats of higher metaphysics that the Medieval Scholastics could be proud of.
...
It is not stupidity, but ideology and politics, which allow the "disparate impact" dogma to create a tangled web of deception in even the highest levels of our legal system. The recent Supreme Court's decision in the New Haven firefighters' case was a rare example of sanity prevailing, even if only by a vote of 5 to 4.