Advocates of limited government are sometimes accused of being blind to issues of race and sex. Here's one way in which that might be true: Over the last few decades our legal system has been increasingly shaped by identity politics. Legislation often contains numerous benefits aimed at one or more identity groups. But perhaps even more strikingly, race and sex increasingly permeate the activity of regulatory agencies. For example, disparate impact liability, originally the brainchild of EEOC lawyers, used to be limited to employment law. But in more recent years it has spread to areas like housing and credit, thus putting lenders and landlords in the same boat with employers, where every criterion they use for hiring, promoting, lending, or leasing is presumptively illegal. Elected officials who otherwise support the principles of limited government are often reluctant to push back when expansions of the administrative state are couched in terms of race or sex. Are they being prudent? Or something else?

Prof. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
Mr. Peter Kirsanow, Partner, Benesch Attorneys at Law
Prof. R. Shep Melnick, O'Neill Professor, Boston College, Department of Political Science
Prof. Ted Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law & Director of the Center for Civil Rights, University of North Carolina School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Rachel L. Brand, Associate Attorney General, United States Department of Justice