There can be no authoritative "reasonable burden" standard of action in which the conditions for actionability are nebulous to this degree.
There cannot be an "appropriate" amount of burden, if the degree to which burden is necessary is not even understood.
To answer the question "how much work needs to be done?", the question "what are we building?" needs to be answered first. And what we are building is, in trying to figure out the puzzle of racial (in)equality, fundamentally not a practical function of law or logic that can be "solved."
How do we even begin to address a task as impossible to conceive of as establishing a burden of actionability for an undefined moral question?
Well, perhaps we start from a moral core, some fundamental principle, and work our way out of the problem.
What is our moral core? Why do we seek "equality" and what does that mean? How do "accepting" and "allowing" fit into that equation, and what do they mean?
What does overwhelmingly dominant mean? In what ways? Post too long. Click here to view the full text.