Tag: Disparate Impact

Member Post


What’s your bottom-ranking memory of AIDS hysteria? They should all be tied for last but here is one that for me anyway manages to stay just above the crowd: a story in the Brazilian newsmagazine VEJA about Ayds. The diet candy/drug. I’d forgotten about it, having only ever seen it advertised in American magazines years […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Sudden Disparate Impact


I showed up fifteen minutes early this morning at the office of Thomas “Red” Perez, Secretary of Labor. I was nervous as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs because D.O.L. had seized my onshore bank accounts and my wife’s flex fuel Vespa. D.O.L. also had placed liens on my house. In fact, when I left home at 7:00 a.m., I had to dodge big SEIU scholars in purple shirts liening on my stately front porch columns.

So, I did what my late father told me after he passed away recently, I went to the very top.

HUD Makes a Further Mess Out of Housing


shutterstock_170154509Last week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development released its final rule on “affirmatively furthering fair housing,” a regulation intended in part to advance HUD’s goal of making sure that government agencies that receive public funds take “meaningful actions” to eliminate “historic patterns of segregation, achieve truly balanced and integrated living patterns, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities that are free from discrimination.” As I note in my new column for Defining Ideas, the result is a mess:

The tedious Final Rule, which has been hailed as “historic and overdue,” is an intellectual shipwreck. Its empty and vacuous commands are incapable of rational implementation. Yet notwithstanding HUD’s pious denials, the department is sure to continue its history of contentious litigation brought to chastise and correct local governments whose actions have not met its standard. One inherent difficulty in both the previous and current versions of the Final Rule is that its objectives are often in deep conflict with one anther.

HUD gives backhanded recognition to this point when it notes: “The Fair Housing Act does not prohibit individuals from choosing where they wish to live, but it does prohibit policies and actions by covered entities and individuals that deny choice or access to housing or opportunity through the segregation of persons protected by the Fair Housing Act.” But it does not grasp the magnitude of this concession. It turns out, of course, that most individuals do not wish to live in communities that meet HUD’s sterile definitions of “truly balanced and integrated communities.” They often prefer to live with individuals with whom they share common values in neighborhoods that offer the social support and companionship that they so clearly want.