Opponents of diversity programs are increasingly banking on an 1866 civil rights law meant to protect Black people from economic exclusion as a way to challenge corporate diversity and equity policies as well as funding to Black-owned businesses.
In the United States, there is quite a lot of data showing that race is a predictor of wealth, education, and (for lack of a better term) ‘having your life fucked around with by the system’ (e.g. stop and frisk, POC being arrested more frequently for the same crimes with longer sentences, etc).
So, barring a fairly detailed analysis about where and how every individual grew up, yes. Skin color is a good indicator.
I see you slipped the word ‘always’ in there. This is silly. You can’t have indicators be ‘always’. The whole point of an indicator is that it’s not always. If something were always, it wouldn’t be an indicator.
I didn’t “slip” the word always in there. That’s the point.
In the past we did not have good methods or even good understanding of what kinds of indicators we should look at or how. The idea of privilege as a concept wasn’t even being studied until the late 1980s. So it was reasonable to use less precise predictive measures (like skin color) when looking at data in aggregate in order to remediate prior harm. But we’re not talking about anthropology here. We’re talking about policies that affect individual living persons, and if we want to know whether those persons experienced disadvantages, we can just ask them. This isn’t a matter of “Are you more likely to have suffered x disadvantage if you’re black in America?” It’s “Did you personally suffer x?” or at the very least “Did one of your ancestors personally suffer x?” If institutions are deciding they don’t need to ask that question because they can instead just screen all applicants of a particular skin color instead, they’re doing the exact racial stereotyping that we’re attempting to correct. That exact kind of screening is how the FHA and lenders prevented black people from owning homes historically: They decided that all black applicants were more likely to have certain bad qualities, and they categorically excluded them. Now, some well-intentioned but misguided liberals (and occasionally racists) are instead deciding that all black applicants have certain good qualities, and they categorically exclude everyone other than them. It shouldn’t take a huge logical leap to understand how that’s not better.
Can you help me form a question to a candidate that would objectively measure how much their parents were financially impacted by red lining or over policing, and how that impacted the candidate’s opportunity? I’m not sure how to phrase that in a way that won’t just have everyone gaming the system.
Let me ask another question so I understand your thought process a bit better. Would you say it’s good or bad or neutral if we disadvantage (-1) exactly 100 white people in order to advantage (+1) exactly 200 black people?
Can I? Probably. Will I? No. I’m also frankly a little offended that you’re willing to devolve into explicitly racist utility hypotheticals. If that’s the tool upon which you need to depend for your argument, I don’t think there’s anything further to discuss. If you want to debate how many black people are worth one white person, you can have that conversation with someone else. Happy MLK Day.
You thought that was a racist hypothetical? That says a lot. That question was, literally, “Do you think it’s good if I can increase all of humanity’s benefit by +100?” The answer is yes, unless you hate people, or unless you care a lot about race.
In the United States, there is quite a lot of data showing that race is a predictor of wealth, education, and (for lack of a better term) ‘having your life fucked around with by the system’ (e.g. stop and frisk, POC being arrested more frequently for the same crimes with longer sentences, etc).
So, barring a fairly detailed analysis about where and how every individual grew up, yes. Skin color is a good indicator.
I see you slipped the word ‘always’ in there. This is silly. You can’t have indicators be ‘always’. The whole point of an indicator is that it’s not always. If something were always, it wouldn’t be an indicator.
I didn’t “slip” the word always in there. That’s the point.
In the past we did not have good methods or even good understanding of what kinds of indicators we should look at or how. The idea of privilege as a concept wasn’t even being studied until the late 1980s. So it was reasonable to use less precise predictive measures (like skin color) when looking at data in aggregate in order to remediate prior harm. But we’re not talking about anthropology here. We’re talking about policies that affect individual living persons, and if we want to know whether those persons experienced disadvantages, we can just ask them. This isn’t a matter of “Are you more likely to have suffered x disadvantage if you’re black in America?” It’s “Did you personally suffer x?” or at the very least “Did one of your ancestors personally suffer x?” If institutions are deciding they don’t need to ask that question because they can instead just screen all applicants of a particular skin color instead, they’re doing the exact racial stereotyping that we’re attempting to correct. That exact kind of screening is how the FHA and lenders prevented black people from owning homes historically: They decided that all black applicants were more likely to have certain bad qualities, and they categorically excluded them. Now, some well-intentioned but misguided liberals (and occasionally racists) are instead deciding that all black applicants have certain good qualities, and they categorically exclude everyone other than them. It shouldn’t take a huge logical leap to understand how that’s not better.
Can you help me form a question to a candidate that would objectively measure how much their parents were financially impacted by red lining or over policing, and how that impacted the candidate’s opportunity? I’m not sure how to phrase that in a way that won’t just have everyone gaming the system.
Let me ask another question so I understand your thought process a bit better. Would you say it’s good or bad or neutral if we disadvantage (-1) exactly 100 white people in order to advantage (+1) exactly 200 black people?
Can I? Probably. Will I? No. I’m also frankly a little offended that you’re willing to devolve into explicitly racist utility hypotheticals. If that’s the tool upon which you need to depend for your argument, I don’t think there’s anything further to discuss. If you want to debate how many black people are worth one white person, you can have that conversation with someone else. Happy MLK Day.
You thought that was a racist hypothetical? That says a lot. That question was, literally, “Do you think it’s good if I can increase all of humanity’s benefit by +100?” The answer is yes, unless you hate people, or unless you care a lot about race.