IOW, you’re assuming that changing the US’s race-based policies so that they be based on accurate beliefs would be less hard than letting go of them altogether?
Let’s just be clear on where the status quo is. Eugine_Nier has mentioned disparate impact analysis several times. In addition to that is the far more important disparate treatment prohibition.
In the US, a worker can get fired even if it is not for cause. If you boss thinks you are a terrible worker, you can be fired even if you could prove your boss is wrong and you actually are a great worker. But you boss would be liable for wrongful termination if the boss said “I think [blacks / whites / Germans / Russians] are likely to be bad at your job, and you are [black / white / German / Russian], so you’re fired.” Likewise, an employer can’t refuse to hire on that basis.
Proving that is a separate issue, but having no public policy based on race implies repeal of both disparate impact prohibitions and disparate treatment prohibitions (and lots of other stuff, but it’s complicated).
In practice firing a black worker even if he is a terrible worker leaves employers open to wrongful termination suits. Whereas it’s harder to prove that with not hiring a black worker, so frequently the safest route for employers (especially small employers) is to find excuses to avoid hiring black workers rather then risk getting stuck with a bad employee that you can’t fire.
In practice, complying with laws has costs, some of which fall on innocent and semi-innocent third parties. As a lawyer, this is not news to me. The question is whether the benefits of implementing those social policies outweighs the costs. Clarence Thomas, a black Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States thinks the answer is no.
But that is a very different question from asking, as a matter of first principles, whether certain kinds of discrimination are allowed even if the facts don’t support the discrimination. In the United States, most discrimination of this kind is allowed, and restrictions on the factors employers and others may consider are fairly narrow (race, gender, religion, national origin—not ok. youth, poverty, moral character, basically anything else—ok).
Accurate beliefs about what? If a group (however defined) has been subject to negative discrimination, however arbitrary,
then there is an argument for treating them to a period of positive discrimination to compensate. That has nothing
to do with how jusitfied the original negative discrimination was.
But “black people in 1960” (for example) isn’t the same group as “black people today”, as many of the former are dead now and many of the latter hadn’t been born in 1960, and it’s not obvious to me that it makes sense to treat people according on who their grandparents were.
It is morally right to do so. But society is deeply conflicted about doing so (for reasons good and bad), so I’m not sure that “typical” is an accurate description of how often it happens.
Regardless of the frequency of compensation, you really should address head on why you think society should do so. The fact that society occasionally does provide such compensation is barely the beginning of the discuss of whether it should and says almost nothing about how much compensation should be provided, or who should pay.
I am not arguing that Affirmative Action/Positice Discrimination is necessarily right. Just that it doesn’t necessarily have anything at all to do with any facts about DNA.
If actually significant differences in competence have a genetic component, then public policy should reflect that difference. Particularly if the differences are easy / cheap to identify anyway. (I don’t think this is true about race / ethnicity, but that’s a different issue).
If history and practice led to blacks being treated as if the mean IQ was 20 points lower, and the actual difference is 5 points, then the proper public policy is to act as if the difference is 5 points, not zero points to remedy the history and practice.
I suspect that g is not interestingly different between race / ethnicity, and that the IQ test, which seeks to measure g, is culturally biased. But if there is a difference in g that cannot be attributed to environment, then we should consider it in making policy.
In the real world, I think all the important observed difference is culturally driven, so this nod towards facts doesn’t change my policy preferences. I think the facts are in my favor. I just think that we should be explicit about how policy should change if the facts turn out to be different.
If history and practice led to blacks being treated as if the mean IQ was 20 points lower, and the actual difference is 5 points, then the proper public policy is to act as if the difference is 5 points, not zero points to remedy the history and practice.
Why isn’t the proper public policy to treat people as individuals?
You didn’t answer my question about treating other things as equal. If genetics based discrimination leads to $X million lost in strikes and rioting, shoulnd’t that be taken into account?
Why isn’t the proper public policy to treat people as individuals?
Staying out of the racial-politics discussion, but my answer to this question generally is that it’s expensive.
For example, we don’t actually evaluate each individual’s level of maturity before judging, for that individual, whether they’re permitted to purchase alcohol, sign contracts, vote in elections, drive cars, etc.… instead we establish age-based cutoffs and allow the occassional outlier. We understand perfectly well that these cutoffs are arbitrary and don’t actually reflect anything about the affected individuals; at best they reflect community averages but often not even that, but we do it anyway because we want to establish some threshold and evaluating individuals costs too much.
But, sure, bring the costs down far enough (or treat costs as distinct from propriety) and the proper public policy is to separately evaluate individuals.
For example, we don’t actually evaluate each individual’s level of maturity before judging, for that individual, whether they’re permitted to purchase alcohol, sign contracts, vote in elections, drive cars, etc...
On the other hand, job interviewers judge by individual quaifications, not group membership..
Why isn’t the proper public policy to treat people as individuals?
Let’s compare two different types of employment discrimination law (in the US). For simplicity, let’s ignore the burden of proof.
Racial Discrimination: It is illegal to consider an employee’s (or potential employee’s) race when making an employment decision. If a person is fired, but would not have been fired if the person were a different race, the employer has committed wrongful termination. (Substitute “hire,” “promote,” or basically any other employment decision—the rule is unchanged).
Disability Discrimination: First, the disabled employee must be able to perform the job, with or without accommodations. Then, the employer must make reasonable (but not unreasonable) accommodations.
I think it is reasonably clear that disability discrimination law is more individualized. If there really were differences based on race / ethnicity, then I think racial discrimination law ought to look more like disability discrimination law. But I think there aren’t such differences, so I think the law as written is basically right.
If genetics based discrimination leads to $X million lost in strikes and rioting, shoulnd’t that be taken into account?
Seems like this is a question of baseline. Who said we should respect rioting? Or rioting is likely to result from treating people differently based on their actual genetic differences.
Just to be clear, I don’t practice employment law. I practice a very narrow kind of child disability law. Reading this post does not make me your lawyer.
It could mean you don’t translate scientific findings about groups directly into policy without considering ethical and practical implications. It could mean that treating people as individuals should be the default. It could mean there is nonetheless a case for treating people as groups where they were discriminated against as groups in the past.
IOW, you’re assuming that changing the US’s race-based policies so that they be based on accurate beliefs would be less hard than letting go of them altogether?
Let’s just be clear on where the status quo is. Eugine_Nier has mentioned disparate impact analysis several times. In addition to that is the far more important disparate treatment prohibition.
In the US, a worker can get fired even if it is not for cause. If you boss thinks you are a terrible worker, you can be fired even if you could prove your boss is wrong and you actually are a great worker. But you boss would be liable for wrongful termination if the boss said “I think [blacks / whites / Germans / Russians] are likely to be bad at your job, and you are [black / white / German / Russian], so you’re fired.” Likewise, an employer can’t refuse to hire on that basis.
Proving that is a separate issue, but having no public policy based on race implies repeal of both disparate impact prohibitions and disparate treatment prohibitions (and lots of other stuff, but it’s complicated).
In practice firing a black worker even if he is a terrible worker leaves employers open to wrongful termination suits. Whereas it’s harder to prove that with not hiring a black worker, so frequently the safest route for employers (especially small employers) is to find excuses to avoid hiring black workers rather then risk getting stuck with a bad employee that you can’t fire.
In practice, complying with laws has costs, some of which fall on innocent and semi-innocent third parties. As a lawyer, this is not news to me. The question is whether the benefits of implementing those social policies outweighs the costs. Clarence Thomas, a black Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States thinks the answer is no.
But that is a very different question from asking, as a matter of first principles, whether certain kinds of discrimination are allowed even if the facts don’t support the discrimination. In the United States, most discrimination of this kind is allowed, and restrictions on the factors employers and others may consider are fairly narrow (race, gender, religion, national origin—not ok. youth, poverty, moral character, basically anything else—ok).
Accurate beliefs about what? If a group (however defined) has been subject to negative discrimination, however arbitrary, then there is an argument for treating them to a period of positive discrimination to compensate. That has nothing to do with how jusitfied the original negative discrimination was.
But “black people in 1960” (for example) isn’t the same group as “black people today”, as many of the former are dead now and many of the latter hadn’t been born in 1960, and it’s not obvious to me that it makes sense to treat people according on who their grandparents were.
If someone was wrongfully executed, killed in a medical bliunder, etc, it is typically their families who are compensated.
It is morally right to do so. But society is deeply conflicted about doing so (for reasons good and bad), so I’m not sure that “typical” is an accurate description of how often it happens.
Regardless of the frequency of compensation, you really should address head on why you think society should do so. The fact that society occasionally does provide such compensation is barely the beginning of the discuss of whether it should and says almost nothing about how much compensation should be provided, or who should pay.
To put it slightly differently, Eugine_Nier is not wrong when he asserts anti-discrimination laws impose significant cost on society as a whole. I think the benefits are worth the costs, but that is a fact-bound inquiry, not a statement of first principles.
I am not arguing that Affirmative Action/Positice Discrimination is necessarily right. Just that it doesn’t necessarily have anything at all to do with any facts about DNA.
If actually significant differences in competence have a genetic component, then public policy should reflect that difference. Particularly if the differences are easy / cheap to identify anyway. (I don’t think this is true about race / ethnicity, but that’s a different issue).
Otherwise, our preferred policies won’t work in the Least Convenient Possible World.
Are you assuming all other things are equal? They never are.
If history and practice led to blacks being treated as if the mean IQ was 20 points lower, and the actual difference is 5 points, then the proper public policy is to act as if the difference is 5 points, not zero points to remedy the history and practice.
I suspect that g is not interestingly different between race / ethnicity, and that the IQ test, which seeks to measure g, is culturally biased. But if there is a difference in g that cannot be attributed to environment, then we should consider it in making policy.
In the real world, I think all the important observed difference is culturally driven, so this nod towards facts doesn’t change my policy preferences. I think the facts are in my favor. I just think that we should be explicit about how policy should change if the facts turn out to be different.
Why isn’t the proper public policy to treat people as individuals?
You didn’t answer my question about treating other things as equal. If genetics based discrimination leads to $X million lost in strikes and rioting, shoulnd’t that be taken into account?
*
Staying out of the racial-politics discussion, but my answer to this question generally is that it’s expensive.
For example, we don’t actually evaluate each individual’s level of maturity before judging, for that individual, whether they’re permitted to purchase alcohol, sign contracts, vote in elections, drive cars, etc.… instead we establish age-based cutoffs and allow the occassional outlier. We understand perfectly well that these cutoffs are arbitrary and don’t actually reflect anything about the affected individuals; at best they reflect community averages but often not even that, but we do it anyway because we want to establish some threshold and evaluating individuals costs too much.
But, sure, bring the costs down far enough (or treat costs as distinct from propriety) and the proper public policy is to separately evaluate individuals.
On the other hand, job interviewers judge by individual quaifications, not group membership..
Or at least, they can do so with minimal investment. Agreed.
I’m not sure what the relationship between job interviews and public policy is, though.
Let’s compare two different types of employment discrimination law (in the US). For simplicity, let’s ignore the burden of proof.
Racial Discrimination: It is illegal to consider an employee’s (or potential employee’s) race when making an employment decision. If a person is fired, but would not have been fired if the person were a different race, the employer has committed wrongful termination. (Substitute “hire,” “promote,” or basically any other employment decision—the rule is unchanged).
Disability Discrimination: First, the disabled employee must be able to perform the job, with or without accommodations. Then, the employer must make reasonable (but not unreasonable) accommodations.
I think it is reasonably clear that disability discrimination law is more individualized. If there really were differences based on race / ethnicity, then I think racial discrimination law ought to look more like disability discrimination law. But I think there aren’t such differences, so I think the law as written is basically right.
Seems like this is a question of baseline. Who said we should respect rioting? Or rioting is likely to result from treating people differently based on their actual genetic differences.
Just to be clear, I don’t practice employment law. I practice a very narrow kind of child disability law. Reading this post does not make me your lawyer.
What does this mean in practice? Does this mean employers should be free to hire any individual they choose?
It could mean you don’t translate scientific findings about groups directly into policy without considering ethical and practical implications. It could mean that treating people as individuals should be the default. It could mean there is nonetheless a case for treating people as groups where they were discriminated against as groups in the past.