Disparate impact NEEDS to go

In US law, Disperate impact refers to any practice that negatively affects a protected group, even though the practice that lead to said "injustice" was race/gender/etc. neutral.

Now, in the US, there is a limit to this. The 80% rule. Unlike other laws this one is real simple. It's a rule for determining that a company's selection system has an "adverse impact" on a minority group. The same rule applies for things such as housing and other "applicant endevours", governmental or private.

Want to build a highway in a certain area that your architects have deemed to be ideal? "WRONG!", your census taker yells, citing that the affected area would produce to much noise polution for a predominently 82% black area and therefore is liable to be sued into oblivion. There goes your highway.

Do you prefer 5 ft 10+ (178+ cm) people to be in your security firm? WRONG, similar to what the European Supreme Court decided, you can't do that, since women, who are statistically shorter than men, would be rejected at much higher rates.

Many will argue that these laws serve to protect minorities. Ironically, in 2013, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a suit, against the use of typical criminal-background and credit checks during the hiring process. While admitting that there are many legitimate reasons for employers to screen out convicted criminals and debtors, the EEOC claimed that this practice is discriminatory because minorities in the U.S. are more likely to be convicted criminals with bad credit histories. Ergo, employers should have to include criminals and debtors in their hiring. ("Just hire a felon, bro")

This law needs to go. It is counterproductive and adds to already strained race relations. Don't feed into the narrative of actual bigots ("See, the fed-pigs are protect these damn *insert slur*")