According to one federal appeals court judge–an immigrant himself–the legal problem with critical race and disparate impact theories is that they violate the presumption of innocence–a foundational legal principle.
Taiwan-born James C. Ho, a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge, said, “Congress enacted Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit intentional racial discrimination not to restrict neutral policies untainted by racial intent that happen to lead to racially disproportionate outcomes.”
“A presumption of discrimination runs into a bedrock principle of our legal system,” Ho wrote. “We ordinarily assume innocence, not bigotry. Plaintiffs must typically prove, not presume, discrimination.”
“We should not automatically presume that any institution with a neutral practice that happens to produce a racial disparity is guilty of discrimination until proved innocent,” he wrote in a concurring opinion on a case before the court.
It is another way of saying that just because someone is white, doesn’t mean they are racist. And it’s why so many Americans, including many minorities, are so opposed to CRT.
Read the full story here.