> the firings can be racist/sexist -- even if race or gender is not involved in the firing decision
Uh? Can you elaborate?
Uh? Can you elaborate?
https://www.scarsdaleschools.k12.ny.us/cms/lib5/NY01001205/C...
I think "racist/sexist" may be muddying the waters a little bit since they are not narrowly defined and probably have more implication of motive, but de facto discrimination is a well recognized concept and it is illegal.
>> If the firings disproportionately or systemically impact races or genders, the firings can be racist/sexist -- even if race or gender is not involved in the firing decision.
If race or gender are not involved in the firing decisions, it means that the decision is based on other factors. If some male workers declare an illegal strike because they think they're discriminated, and they are fired as a consequence, this has nothing to do with their gender, but with the illegal strike. If people imprisoned for religious terrorism are all religious, this doesn't mean religious people are discriminated, but that terrorists are imprisoned. Etc.
Or it means that race/gender were involved due to implicit biases or systems beyond what the firing party believed they were evaluating.
One can unintentionally have discriminatory behavior. It might not have been a factor in the discussions of the firings, but it still could be a root cause.
In which case it was a factor.
For example, post redlining, many cities still have economically depressed areas that correlate with race. The policies that caused the issue are largely gone, but the systems created by them remain. (Systems, in this context can mean both formalized systems, e.g. welfare systems, and de facto systems, e.g. wealth inequality, incarceration rates, and prejudice).
Applied to employment decisions, there may be any number of factors that were not directly discussed as reasons to fire someone, but still impacted the firing decision. People may be unconsciously biased, there may be fundamental attribution errors applied because the person is in an outgroup, etc.
> prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior
Sure. However this contradicts what you wrote earlier:
>> If the firings disproportionately or systemically impact races or genders, the firings can be racist/sexist -- even if race or gender is not involved in the firing decision.
(italics mine)
If race or gender is not involved in the firing decision, consciously or unconsciously, why would it be racist or sexist? The fact it disproportionally involve a group however identified (say, all vegans declare an illegal strike for veganism, and they're fired because of this) cannot be construed as a form of discrimination towards that group.
Disparate impact is a matter of practicality. It isn't how a person should base their life or interactions with other human beings.
Cutting to the chase... You have been describing disparate impact as a philosophical principle in and of itself. Whereas, in reality, disparate impact exists as a matter of political expediency. Its not a doctrine that should be adopted. Its one that may be necessary to adopt when real intentions and real motives are concealed.