The article discusses the importance of the disparate impact framework in civil rights legislation, highlighting its historical context and application. Bipartisan efforts in Congress aimed to dismantle intentional racial discrimination, while also recognizing that race-neutral policies could perpetuate inequities. The framework asserts that if a policy disproportionately harms a racial group without legitimate reasoning, it is legally unacceptable. The landmark case Griggs v. Duke Power Co. exemplifies the framework's origins, as it illustrated how seemingly neutral policies could uphold systemic racism, underscoring the need for vigilance in policy-making to ensure equitable outcomes.
"If a policy harms members of one group much more than others and if there is no good reason for the policy, it violates the law."
"The disparate impact framework is significant because it addresses policies that, while seemingly neutral, perpetuate discrimination against marginalized groups without valid justification."
Collection
[
|
...
]