5 ms·
Of course. There is however a subtle but important distinction between talking about (race-based) "past discrimination" (RBPD) versus any "past disadvantage" (s
by cgiles 8y ago
Of course. There is however a subtle but important distinction between talking about (race-based) "past discrimination" (RBPD) versus any "past disadvantage" (such as grandpa with polio).
It is this limitation of focus to RBPD that I'm objecting to. First, I think it is a form of selection bias, as I said.
Selection bias is a big issue in politics -- I have found that climate activists like my wife hate hearing "we can deal with climate later once we've solved poverty" -- because they very reasonably know that "later" in politics means "never", and they interpret this statement to mean "poverty is more important than climate".
Interestingly, I think this is what is going on in reverse when affirmative action advocates hear people say "We should do something about RBPD, but poverty is even worse, we should focus on that first". AA advocates hear "RBPD is unimportant and we'll do it later (never)".
Perhaps you could help me with the following summary of every discussion I've had about this topic:
- Why do we care about RBPD?
Because it has lingering bad effects.
- But so does any form of past disadvantage. Why then do we focus on RBPD?
Because we have to start somewhere, and we don't have enough bandwidth to focus on everything.
- OK, but wouldn't it be simpler then to target disadvantaged individuals rather than disadvantaged groups because then we wouldn't have to solve the impossible problem of quantifying everyone's group-based net advantages and disadvantages? And also, if you adjust outcomes based on group outcomes, rather than individual outcomes (poverty), won't it be impossible to ever balance the ledger, because every time you give an advantage to one group, you disadvantage another, some members of which are disadvantaged on other axes?
And this is where it breaks down. The answer usually given is "Don't you believe in RBPD? It is horrible and there is plenty of evidence it exists!" But this doesn't answer the question at all. I've already agreed RBPD exists.
The only answer I can think of is perhaps that we should distinguish between problems caused by society (slavery) and problems not caused by society (polio), and to say that society only has an obligation to fix the former. But in this case, it becomes an issue of justice rather than outcome, and we are no longer justifying affirmative action on the basis of current bad outcomes but rather on past injustice. And if you do that, then you lose the ability to ever say when the ledger has been balanced and consequently remedies will have to go on forever.
- tptacek 8y agoI mean, yes, isn't that the rationale? That we as a nation directly imposed de jure segregation and then for dozens of years afterwards provided a legal framework that enabled de facto segregation? Having done that, we can't simply stop and then pretend that the wrong has been righted; the victims of that discrimination operate at a persisting disadvantage as a result of it. Also: I'm not arguing that we can't address other societally-imposed disadvantages. I'm all in favor of means-tested benefits as well. It's the opponents of affirmative action who are arguing that one form of assistance is verboten.
- cgiles 8y ago> I'm not arguing that we can't address other societally-imposed disadvantages...<AA opponents> are arguing that one form of assistance is verboten. I didn't think you were. But, as a (weak) AA opponent, I would say that the fundamental problem with AA is that it needlessly replaces data about individuals, which we have, with group-mean data. Throwing away information like this naturally leads to all sorts of perverse results, where a poor white is considered to be doing well because the average white is, and vice-versa for blacks, etc. So I don't say AA is "verboten", but that AA is not an alternative to means-testing, it IS means-testing, except it is means-testing of groups instead of individuals. It is also a far worse intervention than means-testing, on its own terms, for a variety of reasons [1]. It is possible to argue that AA is about justice, but in practice the benefits are always allocated based on current bad outcome. Otherwise, Asians would get preference at Harvard. --- [1] AA disadvantages: - AA gives advantages to people based on ethnicity, regardless of whether an individual's ancestors actually suffered the abuse in question. - Means-testing turns the philosophical and intractable question of "how much should past suffering be worth? (in terms of admission preference, etc)" with the concrete and measurable question "how poorly is this individual doing now?" - Means-testing is far less politically controversial. - The AA mindset encourages people to invent an ever-expanding list of disadvantaged groups so that people can get a slice of the redress pie, leading to disputes over the relative value of different kinds of oppression. - Even wealthy, beautiful, well-educated members of a disadvantaged group get the AA benefits. AA "subsidizes" individuals who don't need it.