"You pick an issue, with 10 imperfect solutions over 50 years"
Are you suggesting that disparate impact is part of a delicate system that reduces or eliminates unfair discrimination? And that its elimination would make the situation worse than it is today?
If so, why?
I've given you many reasons why disparate impact is bad and has bad effects. You have given no reasons why, with the state of the country as it is today, it is helpful. Your argument seems to boil down to (i) well, there must have been some reason for its introduction, and (ii) status quo is a fragile system that must be changed all at once and not piecemeal.
Everything can be changed. Previous status quo might not even have been a good thing. And I actually agree with the argument that people should be treated as individuals and not grouped. But I also acknowledge that groups do get discriminated against. This EO attempts to solve the former without addressing the latter.
Disparate impact rules (and similar rules that encourage quotas) aren't solving a real problem today.
Employers aren't choosing inferior employees because they don't like certain ethnicities or sexes. They want to make money and get the best employees they can.
You claim that without disparate impact there are groups who would be discriminated against.
Are you suggesting that disparate impact is part of a delicate system that reduces or eliminates unfair discrimination? And that its elimination would make the situation worse than it is today?
If so, why?
I've given you many reasons why disparate impact is bad and has bad effects. You have given no reasons why, with the state of the country as it is today, it is helpful. Your argument seems to boil down to (i) well, there must have been some reason for its introduction, and (ii) status quo is a fragile system that must be changed all at once and not piecemeal.