3 ms·
> Of course, you may not accept that there is de facto discrimination by private actors, but then you need to explain the underrepresenation of different demogr
by slibhb 5y ago
> Of course, you may not accept that there is de facto discrimination by private actors, but then you need to explain the underrepresenation of different demographics, and likely in order to appear reasonably sane, your argument needs to be something other than "that's just the way it is". What argument is there to explain the underrepresentation that doesn't ultimately confirm that it is actually discrimination?
Why do you believe that all positions in all domains should be perfectly proportional with the underlying population across the six dimensions you've decided to care about? Is that reasonable?
That is not to say that discrimination is imaginary. It is not to say we should ignore it. It is to say that disproportionate outcomes are not evidence of discrimination. In other words, the fact that 20% of Nobel prize winners are Jews is not evidence of a global Jewish cabal. Nor should you stay up at night wondering where all the white rappers are.
If you actually want to help disadvantaged groups, focus on existing programs that don't effectively serve those groups. Like public schools. How can we make public schools work better?
The truly inane thing about mandating one black/gay/woman/whatever on every board is that those people won't be disadvantaged. They aren't going to invite people off the street to sit on their boards. It's just cosmetic bullshit.
- rectang 5y agoRepresentation matters. It matters when all white juries try black defendants. It matters when all-male boards decide that sexual harassment isn't a big deal.
- slibhb 5y agoJuries are randomly drawn from the population...
- rectang 5y agoYes, they are now. (As far as I know.) But such was not always the case, for example in the Jim Crow south — where all-white juries routinely convicted innocent black defendants and routinely exonerated guilty white defendants. Proper Jury representation had to be foisted on Southern states, who resisted it mightily.
- slibhb 5y agoAs far as I know there is no law that says that all juries must have a black/gay/woman/whatever on them. Is your point that board members should be randomly drawn from the population like jury members?
- rectang 5y agoI'm not proposing a specific remedy at this time. My point is that representation matters. Which I don't imagine we'll ever agree about.
- slibhb 5y agoRepresentation matters when it's the result of discrimination. You're assuming that any deviation from proportional representation is due to discrimination. I see no reason to assume that.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago> the fact that 20% of Nobel prize winners are Jews is not evidence of a global Jewish cabal Two points: 1. when there are relatively small numbers of X, I agree that we should not expect the set of all X to proportionally represent the whole population. This leads to the question of what a "relatively small number" is, and while there is a mathematical/statistical way to answer this (sampling/set theory etc.), I think there's room for there to be a political/social dimension to it as well. 2. it is true that the Nobel situation does not indicate a Jewish cabal. However, it is interesting enough to raise questions about the specific histories of those winners, and whether there was anything about their being Jewish that helps to explain their success (I have no idea of the answer). Likewise, I think it is absolutely worth wondering where all the white rappers are, even though their absence doesn't indicate discrimination or a cabal. I largely agree with your final paragraph.