4 ms·

It is not and should not be the duty of anyone to mitigate disparate impact. It is, by definition, not the fault of the "accidentally discriminatory party".

by gragas 10y ago

rtpg 10y ago
The Civil Rights Act outlines protected classes from discrimination. I don't really see the argument against the government taking action against disparate impact in such situations. After all, the point of the CRA is to remove discriminatory situations. Much like a firefighter trying to stop a fire, whether intent is there is beside the point. The objective is to fix the problem. Though I don't really know whether what's mentioned in the article is really a case warranting action. The harm applied here seems pretty minor (no assigned seating).
- gragas 10y ago
  By your argument, no analysis should ever be applied to any decision involving humans because that has disparate impact. Car insurance companies should only charge one rate, because otherwise they're discriminating against teenagers and men. Health insurance companies should only charge one rate, otherwise they are discriminating against smokers. Life insurance companies should charge one rate, otherwise they discriminate against men. Annuities should all have the same payouts, otherwise they discriminate against women for the mere fact that they live longer on average. Really, I understand your sentiment, but government mandate is not the solution.
  - rtpg 10y ago
    Have you thought that maybe this is an argument against private insurance? Why should life insurance be necessary, instead of proper safety nets provided to all by he government. Why shouldn't car insurance be somehow "built in" to the cost of the car? Considering everyone needs it and everyone needs cars in America. Annuities are also just generally bad in practice for the consumer. Also, health insurance companies can discriminate against smokers, they're not a protected class for a reason. I think insurance is a bit tricky because it's a mess of adverse selection and other effects that make it very different from "classic" free-market stuff.

It is not and should not be the duty of anyone to mitigate disparate impact. It is, by definition, not the fault of the "accidentally discriminatory party".

by gragas 10y ago

It is not and should not be the duty of anyone to mitigate disparate impact. It is, by definition, not the fault of the "accidentally discriminatory party".

rtpg 10y ago

The Civil Rights Act outlines protected classes from discrimination. I don't really see the argument against the government taking action against disparate impact in such situations. After all, the point of the CRA is to remove discriminatory situations. Much like a firefighter trying to stop a fire, whether intent is there is beside the point. The objective is to fix the problem. Though I don't really know whether what's mentioned in the article is really a case warranting action. The harm applied here seems pretty minor (no assigned seating).

gragas 10y ago
By your argument, no analysis should ever be applied to any decision involving humans because that has disparate impact. Car insurance companies should only charge one rate, because otherwise they're discriminating against teenagers and men. Health insurance companies should only charge one rate, otherwise they are discriminating against smokers. Life insurance companies should charge one rate, otherwise they discriminate against men. Annuities should all have the same payouts, otherwise they discriminate against women for the mere fact that they live longer on average. Really, I understand your sentiment, but government mandate is not the solution.
- rtpg 10y ago
  Have you thought that maybe this is an argument against private insurance? Why should life insurance be necessary, instead of proper safety nets provided to all by he government. Why shouldn't car insurance be somehow "built in" to the cost of the car? Considering everyone needs it and everyone needs cars in America. Annuities are also just generally bad in practice for the consumer. Also, health insurance companies can discriminate against smokers, they're not a protected class for a reason. I think insurance is a bit tricky because it's a mess of adverse selection and other effects that make it very different from "classic" free-market stuff.