Obama admin continues its racial quest using “disparate impact”

If anything demonstrates the current administration’s radicalism on racial issues, it’s its predilection to utilize the concept of “disparate impact” to justify remedial measures — even when there has been NO demonstrated discrimination/prejudice/bigotry whatsoever. The latest incident comes from Pepsi, where the company “has agreed to pay $3.13 million and provide job offers and training” to [primarily] African-Americans after the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) went after it for — GASP! — not granting full-time employment to applicants who had arrest records:

In a press release on Wednesday, the Obama administration announced that Pepsi “has agreed to pay $3.13 million and provide job offers and training”after a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission “investigation revealed that more than 300 African Americans were adversely affected when Pepsi applied a criminal background check policy that disproportionately excluded black applicants from permanent employment.” The press release says that, under that policy, “job applicants who had been arrested pending prosecution were not hired for a permanent job even if they had never been convicted of any offense,” and that the policy “also denied employment to applicants from [sic] employment who had been arrested or convicted of certain minor offenses.”

The very concept of “disparate impact” preposterously overrides what should be how law deals with discrimination. It automatically assumes “invidious intent” on the part of the so-called offender. Did Pepsi actually plan to exclude blacks with its policy? Of course not. The fact that blacks disproportionately have more criminal records doesn’t factor into the equation — even though it obviously should. And, as it should in other arenas, like school discipline (also mentioned in the link above). Consider: Would the EEOC seriously consider investigating the NBA or NFL for its “disparate impact” against white athletes? Of course not. The leagues set a standard, and if players meet it, they’re put on a team. How is Pepsi’s standard any different? Doesn’t a company have a justifiable interest in security … by excluding criminals from employment (or certain areas of employment)? Of course it does. But this doesn’t matter to “progressive” racial bean counters.

Another example of this lunacy comes from our old (literally) pal Perry. At First Street Journal, he’s been hijacking numerous threads attempting to convince (futilely) anyone who will listen that voter ID laws are “voter suppression” — utilizing the “disparate impact” reasoning. African-Americans, among others, will be “disproportionately affected” by such laws. But, as was argued by, among others, commenter “Koolo” there, such a rationale must explain an “invidious intent.” Programs like affirmative action are permissible because their discrimination is not, supposedly, “invidious.” Likewise, a general requirement that voters show a photo ID at a polling station is not “invidious,” despite how much progressive morons like Perry think they are.