Disparate-Impact Theory Is Unconstitutional Disparate-impact theory, a legal doctrine that holds individuals can be held liable for actions that have a disproportionate adverse impact on a protected group, has been a subject of debate for many years. Proponents argue that it is a necessary tool to combat systemic discrimination, while critics claim that it can lead to unintended consequences and reverse discrimination. In a recent opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal, the author argues that disparate-impact theory is unconstitutional because it effectively imposes liability without proof of intent to discriminate. The author contends that this approach undermines the principles of individual responsibility and equal treatment under the law. The author further asserts that disparate-impact theory can incentivize employers and other entities to make decisions based on demographic considerations rather than merit, leading to outcomes that are fundamentally unfair and discriminatory. By focusing on statistical disparities rather than intentional discrimination, the theory can create perverse incentives that harm both the accused and the protected groups it aims to help. In conclusion, the author calls for a reevaluation of disparate-impact theory and a return to a legal framework that prioritizes individual intentions and actions rather than statistical outcomes. This, the author argues, is essential to upholding the principles of fairness, justice, and equality enshrined in the Constitution.

<The Wall Street Journal 뉴스 본문 전체읽기>