Question

Disparate Impact: A policy, rule, or practice that looks neutral on its face but ends up harming or excluding members of a particular protected group disproportionately. The focus is on the effect of the policy rather than any intent to discriminate.


Neutral policy: A rule or practice that applies equally to everyone and does not explicitly target any group. (A neutral policy can still cause disparate impact if its effects fall unevenly on a protected group.)

Structural discrimination:Patterns built into social systems, institutions, laws, or practices that systematically disadvantage certain groups over time, even without overt individual prejudice. It’s discrimination embedded in structure
Activity 2: Graphic Organizer — Two Sides of the Debate – 20 Points

Fill in the chart. Add three points per side.

Supporters say…

Critics say…

1.

2.

3.

1.

2.

3.

Answer 1

Supporters say…
1. Neutrality and fairness: A single rule applied to everyone prevents subjective favoritism and ensures consistent treatment across people.
2. Efficiency and predictability: Clear, uniform policies (e.g., minimum qualifications, standardized tests) simplify administration and set objective expectations.
3. Legitimate business/operational need: Many neutral requirements are justified by safety, job performance, cost, or other valid goals; changing them could undermine effectiveness.

Critics say…
1. Harmful outcomes matter more than intent: Even neutral rules can produce disparate impact, excluding protected groups and reinforcing inequality.
2. Ignores context and structural barriers: Applying the same rule to everyone fails to account for unequal starting points or systemic disadvantages that make the rule unfair in effect.
3. Must seek alternatives and remedies: Organizations should measure impacts, justify necessity, and adopt less-discriminatory means (accommodations, adjusted criteria, targeted supports) when a neutral policy disproportionately harms a group.