Disparate impact is the racist theory that if practices result in an imbalance (as defined by disparate impact aficionados) in racial representation in this or that arena (see housing, for instance), than the practices must stop until—based solely on race—sufficient races are brought into the arena to achieve an acceptable balance of races. Notice that none of disparate impact has anything to do with the wishes of members of this or that race, already present or absent from the arena. By design, it has nothing to do, also, with the intent of the managers of the arena.
Consider, now, a case brought by
64 organizations alleging that Harvard uses de facto quotas to limit Asian-Americans on campus.
The case was brought to the Civil Rights division of the Department of Education—who promptly dismissed the case, ostensibly because of “pending litigation.” There is a case pending, but as DoE knows full well it’s unlikely to be finally adjudicated for another two or three—or more—years.
Never mind that
Asian-Americans need to score 140 points higher on the SAT than white students to be considered equal applicants on paper, and 450 points higher than African-Americans
and that they’re still underrepresented in Harvard admissions.
Never mind, either, how insulting that 450 point handicap is for blacks–the very group Harvard pretends to be wanting to help. Or the insult of those 140 points for whites. But that’s OK, whites have too much privilege; they need to be insulted every now and then.
Apparently, disparate impact is applicable only to certain government-favored groups of Americans. But then, such special treatment is at the very hearts of racism and of bigotry in general.