Skip to comments.George Will: The Toll of a Rights 'Victory'
Posted on 01/04/2009 2:42:35 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON -- Like pebbles tossed into ponds, important Supreme Court rulings radiate ripples of consequences. Consider a 1971 Supreme Court decision that supposedly applied but actually altered the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
During debate on the act, prescient critics worried that it might be construed to forbid giving prospective employees tests that might produce what was later called, in the 1971 case, a "disparate impact" on certain preferred minorities. To assuage these critics, the final act stipulated that employers could use "professionally developed ability tests" that were not "designed, intended or used to discriminate."
Furthermore, two Senate sponsors of the act insisted that it did not require "that employers abandon bona fide qualification tests where, because of differences in background and educations, members of some groups are able to perform better on these tests than members of other groups." What subsequently happened is recounted in "Griggs v. Duke Power: Implications for College Credentialing," a paper written by Bryan O'Keefe, a law student, and Richard Vedder, a professor of economics at Ohio University.
In 1964, there were more than 2,000 personnel tests available to...
Griggs and its consequences are timely reminders of the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is increasingly pertinent as America's regulatory state becomes increasingly determined to fine-tune our complex society. That law holds that the consequences of government actions often are different than, and even contrary to, the intended consequences.
Soon the Obama administration will arrive, bristling like a very progressive porcupine with sharp plans -- plans for restoring economic health by "demand management," for altering the distribution of income by using tax changes and supporting more muscular labor unions, for cooling the planet by such measures as burning more food as fuel and for many additional improvements. At least, those will be the administration's intended consequences.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Just look how school busing turned out...
An occasion when everybody spontaneously stops obeying the government and starts ignoring it, instead...
It’s a good article.
This is a point made often by Thomas Sowell in his excellent book “Basic Economics”. The left — to the extent that it actually is driven by good will and not power lust — confuses benevolent intentions with positive results. When the results of regulation result in unintended negative consequences (as they always do), they are driven to enact yet more legislation and intervention to “correct” the previous laws.
The process is also the thin end of the wedge of socialism, a point made clearly by Hayek in his popular classic, “The Road to Serfdom.”
Problem solved for $150:
George Will, writes with the political winds. My respect for him is zero....I hope the cocktail circuit makes up for his lack of moral backbone.
You explicitly stated that McCain's temperament issues rendered him less preferable than the slick and smooth Obama with rippling pecs. You helped push the "everybody, even conservatives, love Obama" story that was deeply demoralizing to those actually fighting to prevent horrors that your effete little brain is just now discovering. You did your part to bring on the predicament we now find ourselves in. STHU.
Thanks for the ping. I’m with ScreamingFist and Minn on this one. The best Will article I ever read was about baseball and that was probably 25-30 years ago. A grand slam is meaningless when your team is getting pummeled 20-2 in the bottom of the ninth with 2 out and the pitcher is throwing strikes to get the 3rd out.
For his career Will’s average is so far below the Mendoza line that he makes Mendoza look like Ted Williams in 1941.
He should take over Chrissy Matthews job on softball when Matthews becomes a distinguished Senator. (Where’s Eddie Matthews when you need him?)
Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio...?