Understanding Why 'Who George Zimmerman Is" Was Irrelevant To The Objective....

Trayvon Martin was not an end, he was a beginning to an end. His death was a useful tool at a specific moment in time. The actual goal was established long before George and Trayvon encountered each other.

Affirmative Action had run its natural course. Doors had opened and what began as an extension of the Civil Rights movement was no longer a useful tool for social engineering.
Equality in opportunity (Affirmative Action) had long been established. What was now needed was a progressive evolution to equality in outcome; enter “Disparate Impact” to take its place.
The entire construct of all the various alliances which sought benefit from using the Trayvon Martin shooting had one thing in common – the goal of social justice through equal outcomes. Zimmerman himself was irrelevant, merely a face/name to replace the worn out mantra of “the man”.
In the 60’s the Civil Rights Act was established to legislate equal opportunity. In the 70’s and 80’s Affirmative Action, or broadly “quota systems”, were put into place to leverage a social-equity in organizational entry. Through the 90’s and early part of the 21st century various studies were conducted to insure the entry opportunity was fundamentally well established. The entry was there, but for the social scientists the problem shifted to the “outcomes”. The outcomes were simply not matching the opportunities.
Simultaneously, and directly because of the forced shift in opportunity, the “quotas”, another problem for the social engineers began to surface. Qualified candidates were blocked from entry because they did not fall into any protected category.
During the growth of Affirmative Action categories of personage or “classifications” were created so that measures within the quotas could be quantified. These categories were called “protected classes”.
Originally the protected classes were based on Race, Sex, Gender, Color, Creed and National Origin. However, over time, and due in large part to political pressure, the protected categories grew to include: Sexual Orientation (LGBT), Marital status, Pregnancy Status, Age (40+), Physical or Mental Disability and Religion.
With the expansion of categories of protected status, the Affirmative Action system was struggling.
The definition of ‘diversity’ became challenging for organizations as enhanced representation of each protected category was needed to stay compliant.
Qualified applicants into various organizational systems began challenging the concept of expanded affirmative action in court; and judicial legal common sense began to show that indeed qualified candidates were kept out of various opportunities: schools, employment, etc. merely because they did not fit the correct number of check boxes for the organization to affirm.
Courts found multiple examples of highly qualified candidates being discriminated against merely because they did not fit the various sub-sects of personage or definition of minority class needs. Simultaneously, far less qualified candidates were successful simply because they did bring enough check-boxes with them.
Compliance with the law actually created discrimination practices.
Subsequently social scientists and social engineers within the progressive movement were becoming frustrated. Not only were the “outcomes” not favorable, but the “entry” quotas were being reversed with increasing frequency.
A new engineering approach was needed.
Enter the new world phase of social outcome manipulation with “Disparate Treatment” and “Adverse Impact”.

Adverse Impact. Under EEO law, adverse or disparate impact is defined as a less favorable effect on one group than for another. Disparate impact results when rules applied to all employees have a different or more inhibiting effect on members of a protected class. For example, height requirements for a particular job might have a disparate impact on women or other groups who are generally shorter in stature.
Disparate Treatment. Disparate treatment occurs when there is an inconsistent application of rules and policies to one group of people over another. This type of discrimination, then, may result when rules and policies are applied differently to members of protected classes. For example, disciplining employees of a protected group for tardiness, while ignoring tardiness among other employees, is an example of disparate treatment.
When you combine both of these EEO rules you end with modern “Disparate Impact“.
You also end up with diametrically opposite problems.
For example: If you screen eligible applicants for employment through the Social Security system to insure they are presenting valid employment documentation you might think that just makes common sense. However, you would be wrong.
Verifying employment eligibility can have an “adverse impact” because it can disqualify a specific protected category of personage at a greater rate. In this example Hispanics may be more susceptible to disqualification because most of the fraudulent documentation (fake SS #’s) are presented by illegal aliens who are Latino.
Therefore the practice of employment eligibility verification is unlawful. Your screening process is unlawful. It has now become unlawful to insure legal status.
It is unlawful NOT to hire an illegal applicant !
See the problem ?

This is the inherent flaw within Disparate Treatment as applied to various social engineering constructs:

Not all protected categories violate the qualifying rule being applied at the same rate their of their proportional representation.

If you have 100 school students, 50 black / and 50 white, under the rules of “disparate impact” if 10 students are suspended from school – 5 must be black and 5 must be white.
If, as a matter of enforcing a standard, you suspend 7 blacks and 3 whites your enforcement mechanism, to punish inappropriate behavior, is just as unlawful as a the pre-screening process for employment eligibility described above.
Sounds ridiculous, but this is what is fundamentally at play behind all of the various applications you are now seeing with the Dept of Justice, Civil Rights Division. They are extending the EEO principles of “disparate impact’ into all manner of social organizations. Education with School Discipline, Healthcare with treatment access, Criminal Justice with law enforcement, and many others.

In Miami-Dade Public Schools, Alberto Carvalho instituted a diversionary process as a direct result of these social justice perspectives.
However, the negative behaviors did not match the statistical population. A higher percentage illegal incidents were from the behavior of black male students. The frequency of black illegal activity was disproportionate to their population – so Carvalho needed to remove the criminality to align with the statistical goals.

But what about severity?

You see, THAT is an unaddressed school conundrum. Schools are not equipped to deal with severely unlawful conduct, nor should they be expected to. But Alberto Carvalho was blinded by his own career and ideology. What he created were unintended consequences. Those consequences they are desperate to hide.
With student Trayvon Martin the violations were very severe, actually criminal, and the school discipline was not designed to compensate for such severe anti-social behavior.
Absent of the ability to put Trayvon into the Criminal Justice system, Krop Senior High School was left with no other option other than the most severe punishment they had at their disposal, 10-day suspensions.
It was during the third of those 10-day suspensions (in less than half a school year) that Trayvon was sent to Sanford where he encountered George Zimmerman.