3 ms·

It was supposed to be temporary in the 60s. Care to predict when it will end? Do you really see diversity and inclusion departments, speakers and writers declar

It was supposed to be temporary in the 60s. Care to predict when it will end? Do you really see diversity and inclusion departments, speakers and writers declaring success and dissolving their departments and jobs? Do you have any proof that unfairness against a group mostly harms those with advantage? For instance if white men are over represented as professors, it may seem fair to discriminate until the numbers are equal. But if you broke the group of white men up into young and old, you'd find it's the young who are being punished for the success of the old. Suddenly by redrawing the groups it's gone from being fair to unfair. Who divides up the groups? Is it even possible to be fair to groups without being unfair to individuals?

jonathanstrange 6y ago
> It was supposed to be temporary in the 60s. Care to predict when it will end? When fair participation has been reached among equally skilled and trained participants. A lot of progress has been made. Women and black people are allowed to vote now, for example. People in wheelchairs can to some extent travel on their own and even enter their workplace. That used to be impossible in the 60s. More members of disadvantaged groups are in better positions in society than in the past. There was even one black president in the US among 45. It still seems impossible for a woman to become president, though. By "temporary" I meant 50-100 years or so. It also depends on the willingness of people like you. > Do you really see diversity and inclusion departments, speakers and writers declaring success and dissolving their departments and jobs? Let's just say they will have almost nothing to do any more, similar to the fact there is no longer a need for meetings of the suffragette movement nowadays. > For instance if white men are over represented as professors, it may seem fair to discriminate until the numbers are equal. Yes. That seems fair. > But if you broke the group of white men up into young and old, you'd find it's the young who are being punished for the success of the old. Nobody is punished for anything. The goal is to help people who are at a systematic disadvantage due to sheer bad luck when they otherwise have the same skills and qualifications. I'm not saying that relative quotas are the solution to all problems of society, but I do argue they sometimes make sense - within reasonable limits, of course, which are always contestable. > Suddenly by redrawing the groups it's gone from being fair to unfair. Yes, there can be cases of trading a local optimum for a better global optimum, and these can create temporary local unfairness. That was the point of my analogy to the role of Pareto optimality in theories of resource distribution. None of these problems are unsolvable. There are only finitely many disadvantaged groups anyway, and the goal is not to create perfect justice, but to improve society a little bit step by step. > Is it even possible to be fair to groups without being unfair to individuals? Fairness primarily concerns the state of society. I believe that what is going on in reality is that the people who attempt to find arguments against fairer treatment of under-represented groups do that very often based on selfish motives. For example, some privileged white male might think he's treated unfairly if an equally qualified woman is hired instead of him because there are not enough female professors in the department. As a white male academic, I understand the personal feeling. I just don't think it's justified upon sincere reflection. If a group is privileged and at a systematic advantage, members of the group will tend to consciously or subconsciously resist giving up that advantage. But reaching a fairer state of society is not unfair, even if it may feel like that for individuals.
- haihaibye 6y ago
  >> no longer a need for meetings of the suffragette movement Suffrage is clearly defined, "fair participation has been reached among equally skilled and trained participants" is extremely fuzzy. Given blank slatism and any difference in outcome, there's an infinite retreat using a "God of the gaps" argument saying any difference must be due to systematic racism. Even with blank slates it'll never work. If innate ability was equally distributed, but preference is given to a group in university entry, or job opportunities, then that group will have lower innate ability for a level of training or job position. The non-preferenced group would then do better on average! >> Nobody is punished for anything In a zero sum game (like competing for a job) giving some an advantage is the same as giving others a disadvantage. You are suggesting giving someone a penalty, not for something they have done, but because of what group they belong to. >> privileged white male Are all advantages unearned privilege? I chose my mate carefully, worked hard, spent less than I earn and spend time educating my kids. If I give them an advantage in life, should they be handicapped back down to average? I'm a piece of replicating DNA, and I work hard, delaying gratification so my DNA does well in the future. Society is an artifact built on top of this reality. Similarly, my ancestors sacrificed for me. They picked mates with care, followed laws, built societies... They both built a society for themselves, and were shaped by that society. All that work to make me do well, and you want to make us all equal? Why bother working hard or sacrificing for the future? >> members of the group ... resist giving up that advantage You admit above it can "create temporary local unfairness". Then you wonder why people resist it! Especially when they disagree that it's temporary!
  - jonathanstrange 6y ago
    No disagreement with most of your arguments. Just for the record, I did not wonder why people resist, I offered an explanation.

jonathanstrange 6y ago

> It was supposed to be temporary in the 60s. Care to predict when it will end? When fair participation has been reached among equally skilled and trained participants. A lot of progress has been made. Women and black people are allowed to vote now, for example. People in wheelchairs can to some extent travel on their own and even enter their workplace. That used to be impossible in the 60s. More members of disadvantaged groups are in better positions in society than in the past. There was even one black president in the US among 45. It still seems impossible for a woman to become president, though. By "temporary" I meant 50-100 years or so. It also depends on the willingness of people like you. > Do you really see diversity and inclusion departments, speakers and writers declaring success and dissolving their departments and jobs? Let's just say they will have almost nothing to do any more, similar to the fact there is no longer a need for meetings of the suffragette movement nowadays. > For instance if white men are over represented as professors, it may seem fair to discriminate until the numbers are equal. Yes. That seems fair. > But if you broke the group of white men up into young and old, you'd find it's the young who are being punished for the success of the old. Nobody is punished for anything. The goal is to help people who are at a systematic disadvantage due to sheer bad luck when they otherwise have the same skills and qualifications. I'm not saying that relative quotas are the solution to all problems of society, but I do argue they sometimes make sense - within reasonable limits, of course, which are always contestable. > Suddenly by redrawing the groups it's gone from being fair to unfair. Yes, there can be cases of trading a local optimum for a better global optimum, and these can create temporary local unfairness. That was the point of my analogy to the role of Pareto optimality in theories of resource distribution. None of these problems are unsolvable. There are only finitely many disadvantaged groups anyway, and the goal is not to create perfect justice, but to improve society a little bit step by step. > Is it even possible to be fair to groups without being unfair to individuals? Fairness primarily concerns the state of society. I believe that what is going on in reality is that the people who attempt to find arguments against fairer treatment of under-represented groups do that very often based on selfish motives. For example, some privileged white male might think he's treated unfairly if an equally qualified woman is hired instead of him because there are not enough female professors in the department. As a white male academic, I understand the personal feeling. I just don't think it's justified upon sincere reflection. If a group is privileged and at a systematic advantage, members of the group will tend to consciously or subconsciously resist giving up that advantage. But reaching a fairer state of society is not unfair, even if it may feel like that for individuals.

haihaibye 6y ago
>> no longer a need for meetings of the suffragette movement Suffrage is clearly defined, "fair participation has been reached among equally skilled and trained participants" is extremely fuzzy. Given blank slatism and any difference in outcome, there's an infinite retreat using a "God of the gaps" argument saying any difference must be due to systematic racism. Even with blank slates it'll never work. If innate ability was equally distributed, but preference is given to a group in university entry, or job opportunities, then that group will have lower innate ability for a level of training or job position. The non-preferenced group would then do better on average! >> Nobody is punished for anything In a zero sum game (like competing for a job) giving some an advantage is the same as giving others a disadvantage. You are suggesting giving someone a penalty, not for something they have done, but because of what group they belong to. >> privileged white male Are all advantages unearned privilege? I chose my mate carefully, worked hard, spent less than I earn and spend time educating my kids. If I give them an advantage in life, should they be handicapped back down to average? I'm a piece of replicating DNA, and I work hard, delaying gratification so my DNA does well in the future. Society is an artifact built on top of this reality. Similarly, my ancestors sacrificed for me. They picked mates with care, followed laws, built societies... They both built a society for themselves, and were shaped by that society. All that work to make me do well, and you want to make us all equal? Why bother working hard or sacrificing for the future? >> members of the group ... resist giving up that advantage You admit above it can "create temporary local unfairness". Then you wonder why people resist it! Especially when they disagree that it's temporary!
- jonathanstrange 6y ago
  No disagreement with most of your arguments. Just for the record, I did not wonder why people resist, I offered an explanation.