Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

3 Whisky Happy Hour
The Ricochet Podcast
GLoP Culture
Beyond the Polls with Henry Olsen
Chicks on The Right
Parsing Immigration Policy
Federalist Radio Hour
What the Hell Is Going On
Freedom to Learn
Daily Signal
The Erick Erickson Show
3 Martini Lunch
The Learning Curve
The Conservative Woman’s Guide
Heritage Explains
Not Dead Yet
Giving Ventures
Who Funds that?
The Radio Free Hillsdale Hour
The Glenn Show
Call Me Back - with Dan Senor
Hillsdale Dialogues
Law Talk with Epstein, Yoo & Cooke
The Libertarian
The Report Card with Nat Malkus
The Kevin Roberts Show with Larry O’Connor
The American Idea
Madison’s Notes
Conservative Crossroads with Henry Olsen
Mom Wars
The Back of the Book
Gray Matters
Martini Shot
The Dave Carter Show
The Powerline Show
In Dissent
Heard at Heritage
Smart Girl Politics
James Lileks’ The Diner
Case in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and Culture
JobMakers
One on One with Robert Doar
Homeschooling Journeys with Curious MikeRicochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.
Last week the Trump administration did something I hope will be remembered years from now as a good thing. It repealed a regulation that required large employers to send periodic reports to the Federal government on the race of each employee.
The regulation began in the 1960s as one of the first acts of the newly created Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC was given the job of prosecuting employers who discriminated based on racial and ethnic origin (later, sex and sexual orientation were added). Every break room in every business in America had a notice pinned on a bulletin board telling employees that if they thought they were being discriminated against, they should contact the EEOC. The commission had lawyers and investigators standing by, waiting to investigate and prosecute wrongdoers.
The EEOC, and those notices, still exist. The action stated above did not affect the EEOC’s mandate to detect, investigate and address specific acts of discrimination. What Trump ended was the collection of data that could be used to support allegations of discrimination in situations where no one was complaining.
The important term here is “disparate impact.” This is where you see a difference in results when you compare racial groups. To those on the left, a disproportionately high share of jobs going to white men is proof that black men are discriminated against.
If you are a progressive in 2009, such disparate impacts are proof of “systemic racism.” Progressives, naturally, condemn this. In 2009, progressives controlled both the presidency and Congress. Did they pass any new laws to combat systemic racism? No, they did not. Progressives controlled the EEOC in 2009. The EEOC created a special Systemic Racism Task Force. Did that task force prosecute anyone? No, it did not. In 2009, there existed (and still exists) a small army of plaintiff’s lawyers eager to win large attorneys’ fee awards for successful lawsuits against racial discrimination. Did any of these lawyers sue anyone over systemic racism? No, they did not.
Systemic racism, you see, is everywhere in America—to our great shame, we have failed to eliminate it. It is everywhere, but no law can be written to end it, and there is no one to sue to combat it. Systemic racism will plague America until the day everyone in America has the exact same amount of money. Only the purest form of socialism can end systemic racism.
The expense of collecting these racial statistics is not trivial. Furthermore, the accuracy has been steadily declining due to the rise of many employees refusing to claim membership in any racial group. These refusals are partly based on principle, and partly based on the fact that the individual is, in fact, a member of multiple racial or ethnic groups.
The Trump Department of Justice believes disparate impacts, at best, might provide a reason to look into a situation to see if any tangible acts of discrimination can be found. At worst, disparate impacts inquiries are an annoying distraction that merely give demagogues something to shout about. The goal is a color blind society. This is a step towards that goal.
G-Pub
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.
Discussion (10)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Good riddance!
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Finally, more proof of Trump's racism...as if the voices in my head weren't proof enough.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Good riddance to bad rubbage! Where was the EEOC when the player numbers from the NBA indicated disparate impact? I guess the "principle" of disparate impact only went one way . . .
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The reg was kinda like an ongoing discovery demand as if every employer were just a potential defendant. Now, a claim of discrimination needs to use old-fashioned evidentiary measures like actual merit/skills/resume of the plaintiff versus those of the people actually hired.
You're seeing five of ten comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.