It’s been a challenging weekend with the recent terrorist attacks in Australia, the Brown shooting, and the murders of Rob Reiner and his wife, Michelle. My initial thoughts on these events—maybe a bit unfiltered—are that the situation in Australia highlights issues tied to mass immigration. As Jeff pointed out, the Brown case seems to stem more from incompetence than anything else. The loss of Reiner and his friends was really tragic.
But today, let’s shift gears and delve into another topic.
Different Influences
A few days ago, Attorney General Pam Bondi dropped a significant press release related to anti-discrimination laws in the U.S. It appears that “foreign influences” have largely vanished.
According to Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, the previous “disparate impact” regulations pushed people to file lawsuits against racially neutral policies without proving intentional bias. In the release, she stated, “By rejecting this theory, we can restore true equality under the law.” The emphasis now is on requiring actual evidence of discrimination rather than adhering to quotas or assumptions based on race or gender.
Under this new standard, the Justice Department plans to deprioritize discrimination cases that depend on “disparate impact.” Most media outlets have overlooked this announcement. However, Politico took a different stance, suggesting in a supposedly neutral report that this movement is “coming to an end”—essentially challenging a long-standing civil rights policy. They warned it would be more difficult to address implicit bias in critical areas such as housing, law enforcement, and employment.
There are two crucial phrases tucked away in that discussion—“disproportionately harm” and “potential bias.” Civil rights laws are meant to combat real discrimination. “Foreign influence,” however, implies something entirely different. If a policy merely leads to unequal outcomes for racial groups, organizations can still be deemed liable for civil rights violations, even if no intentional harm was meant.
Consider this example: a local police department conducts a skills test for new recruits. If white applicants pass at a higher rate than black applicants, the police could face discrimination claims under the “disparate influence” rules, even if the test wasn’t designed to be racially biased.
The Biden administration seemed set on penalizing employers based on this “impact differential” idea. For instance, during a visit to a Sheetz gas station—known for its family-run appeal—Biden bought sandwiches for construction workers. Yet, on the same day, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a suit against Sheetz for alleged racial discrimination.
You might wonder, why? Mr. Sheets wasn’t accused of tossing out resumes just based on names or ending interviews when certain faces appeared. Instead, he was sued for not hiring individuals with criminal records.
The EEOC claimed, “Sheetz has a long-standing practice of screening all applicants for criminal convictions and denying employment based on that record.” It’s worth noting that Sheetz doesn’t automatically disqualify applicants just because they have criminal histories, though they likely avoid hiring those with violent felonies. These nuances matter less in this context because black individuals statistically have more extensive criminal records than white individuals, leading to a higher rejection rate of black applicants.
Though Mr. Sheets wasn’t responsible for high crime rates among blacks, he still faced allegations of class discrimination according to the EEOC. Interestingly, as someone pointed out at the time of this lawsuit, the gap between white and black applicants failing background checks was actually smaller than the disparity in incarceration rates. Isn’t that evidence suggesting that Mr. Sheets was actually making more inclusive hiring choices?
But that didn’t matter to the EEOC; if a convicted felon wasn’t behind the counter, Sheetz still had to face consequences.
The EEOC eventually dropped its case against Sheetz following a Trump executive order that scaled back various influence responsibilities. This case serves as a striking example of the absurdity tied to the “differential effects” theory. You could have a perfectly sensible policy aimed at protecting both your workplace and customers, yet if it results in fewer black jobs, you’re still considered unjust, even without any malintent.
Remarkably, even the Washington Post Editorial Board supported the Justice Department’s decision to limit liability under disparate influence. They noted, “Intent matters. Without it, the federal government has a license to scrutinize the racial makeup of private institutions.” While some policies from the Trump administration have drawn criticism, they felt this was a reasonable correction to earlier extremes.
In essence, unequal impact can become an underhanded method for the government to enforce racial quotas. When disparities in outcomes are deemed illegal, workplaces must confront intentional discrimination to mitigate these gaps.
Let’s circle back to our police example from Maryland a few years ago. The police mandated that candidates complete physical exams for recruitment, requiring candidates to perform 18 push-ups per minute and other demanding tasks. Since female candidates struggled with this exam more than men, they subsequently sued the police force, which resulted in nearly $3 million in back pay awarded to those turned away.
This unique ripple effect means that to sidestep similar lawsuits, police may unintentionally prioritize hiring less qualified women, potentially jeopardizing public safety.
Yet under the new rules from the Trump administration, police can finally focus on hiring the most qualified applicants. Imagine that—it feels like we’re inching toward a healthier society.
What else is on my radar?
I’ve got to mention this story—
Comedian David Sedaris goes viral after discussing the challenges of dialogue with liberals.
Then there’s this—
Left-wing podcaster proposes a boycott of CBS after celebrating a controversial incident involving Erica Kirk.
— They really want us to feel afraid.
In other news, German police have arrested five foreigners linked to a terrorist plot targeting a Christmas market.
