Sentences with phrase «disparate impact of the policy»

required an annual report on any disparate impact of the policy based on race or national origin.

For example, we know that African Americans are disproportionately affected by sickle cell disease, so if research proposals to control sickle cell were systematically turned down, one might argue that this is racially discriminatory, because of the disparate impact of the policy.

Not exact matches

Should the Supreme Court strike down disparate impact, it would end the most mischievous and destructive policies imposed by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and would also stop pernicious lawsuits (like one just decided in New York) that seek to eliminate basic standards for new teachers.

Supporters of disparate impact, including the Obama Administration, worked to have the cases settled, fearing that the Court might eliminate its use in a range of federal policies including housing, employment, and education.

While the Court's decision does try to limit the indiscriminate use of disparate impact analysis, those who abuse it to reshape education policy will interpret the ruling as a green light to carry on.

At the same time, he emphasized that any disparate impact remedies can not violate the Constitution and worried that the application of disparate impact doctrine might lead to the «pervasive injection of race» into policy decisions.

The departments, citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, gave the school districts «guidance on how to identify, avoid, and remedy discriminatory discipline,» telling them they risked legal action if school disciplinary policies had «a disparate impact, i.e., a disproportionate and unjustified effect on students of a particular race.»

• Epstein says the DOJ and ED err when arguing against disciplinary policies on the basis of «disparate impact,» a phrase with a legal history that, «when applied to schools, imputes race - conscious behavior on the part of school administrators.»

One stated objective was to address the «disparate impact» of policies that might lead to racial minorities taking fewer challenging classes than their peers, totally ignoring the obvious fact that African American and Hispanic students are, on average, much less prepared for AP courses by the time they reach 11th and 12th grade.

Critics of disparate impact have long pointed out that the doctrine actually compels discrimination, since remedying any disparities caused by neutral policies requires racial quotas and classifications.

They will likely rescind the policy guidance promulgated by the Obama team that applied «disparate impact theory» to the issue of school discipline.

A new report assembles evidence documenting the disparate impact of exclusionary disciplinary policies like suspension and expulsion on certain groups of students: minority students, students with disabilities, and gay and lesbian students.

The core question for disparate impact is whether the policy is justifiable in light of its harmful impact.

Most importantly, the guidance reminded schools and districts that, pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (and the corresponding disparate impact regulations established in that era), they have an obligation to eliminate unjustifiable policies associated with excessive and disparate discipline.

Half of the public opposes «no disparate impact» policies, while just 19 percent back the idea, with the remaining 32 percent taking no position one way or the other.

But in June 2015 the Supreme Court, in a Texas housing case, bolstered the departments» position by holding that statistical evidence of «disparate impact» of policies across racial groups could be used as evidence of racial discrimination by a government agency.

District officials were advised that they risk legal action if school disciplinary policies have «a disparate impact, i.e., a disproportionate and unjustified effect on students of a particular race.»

That division of opinion is essentially the same among the second group, which was asked about a federal «no disparate impact» policy.

The package included a «Dear Colleague» letter, issued jointly by DOE and DOJ, warning against intentional racial discrimination but also stating that schools unlawfully discriminate even «if a policy is neutral on its face — meaning that the policy itself does not mention race — and is administered in an evenhanded manner but has a disparate impact, i.e., a disproportionate and unjustified effect on students of a particular race.»

In 2014 the departments of Education and Justice together sent each school district a letter advising them that they risked legal action if disciplinary policies had a disparate impact on students of a particular race.

A hefty 59 % of teachers oppose federal «no - disparate impact» policies, while only 23 % favor them.

But the DOJ and ED err in arguing against the policies on the basis of «disparate impact,» a phrase with a legal history that, when applied to schools, imputes race - conscious behavior on the part of school administrators.

Dunn argues that the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education has been using «disparate impact analysis» to issue profoundly misguided policies on school discipline and school finance.

By a large margin, the public opposes «no - disparate impact» policies, regardless of whether the federal government or the local school district formulates them.

Under this «disparate impact analysis,» once federal officials determine that the distribution of any resource disadvantages a protected minority, schools must not only «demonstrate that the policy or practice is necessary to meet an important educational goal,» but also show that there is no «comparably effective alternative policy or practice that would meet the school district's stated educational goal with less of a discriminatory effect.»

The Children's Defense Fund has been highlighting the disparate impact of school discipline policies on children of color and poor children since the publication of our 1975 report, School Suspensions: Are They Helping Children?

We still need to challenge policies which subsidize or needlessly result in grossly disparate impacts for children of color.

Mr. Marcus has written about limiting the use of disparate impact claims, even though this is a critical method for identifying and addressing discipline policies that may seem neutral but have a discriminatory impact on students of color.

Examples of policies that can raise disparate impact concerns include policies that impose mandatory suspension, expulsion, or citation (e.g., ticketing or other fines or summonses) upon any student who commits a specified offense — such as being tardy to class, being in possession of a cellular phone, being found insubordinate, acting out, or not wearing the proper school uniform; corporal punishment policies that allow schools to paddle, spank, or otherwise physically punish students; and discipline policies that prevent youth returning from involvement in the justice system from reenrolling in school.

More recently, the advocacy group Parents United for Responsible Education put the issue on the front burner when it filed a federal civil rights complaint against the district's retention policy because of its disparate racial impact.

Reviewing policies and procedures and identifying issues that might support a disparate impact or «pattern and practice» claim of discrimination;

The agency published guidelines in April 2012 that incorporated the idea of «disparate impact» into policy and subsequently filed lawsuits against employers based on it.

Known as «disparate impact» discrimination, the problem is that blanket policies may disproportionately exclude protected classes (based on racial groups, gender, or one of several other categories) from employment because the reason for exclusion is more common in a certain group.

Rasheed Malik is a senior policy analyst for Early Childhood at the Center where he focuses on child care infrastructure and supply, the economic benefits of child care, and the disparate impacts of early childhood policy.

General Recommendation XIV is not a means by which the implementation of government policy which results in a negative disparate impact on a particular racial group can, nonetheless, be acceptable if it is reasonable in all the circumstances and adopts proportionate means.

Craddock warned attendees that if their leasing policies disallow tenants who have committed a felony, it could have a disparate impact on a certain group of people — which is a violation of fair housing law.

Thus, if your policy makes a blanket rejection of anyone with a criminal record, it's likely to have a disparate impact on minorities.

«I believe there is much in the decision that reflects an understanding of the type of concerns that NAR members shared in the disparate impact working group and reflected in NAR policy,» says Fred Underwood, NAR's director of diversity and community outreach programs.