By now you know if you care. MSNBC suspended Keith Olberman because he donated to some congressional candidates. The reasoning was that those donations demonstrated bias on Olberman's part. Well yes they did and we would like our news people to be unbiased. That is pretty obvious and it will be no surprise that I disagree strongly with Olberman's views. However I also disagree with his suspension. In fact I believe all news people, judges etc. should demonstrate their bias so we can know what their real beliefs are.
The fact is that news people do have political beliefs, that is inevitable. The better ones try, often quite successfully, to keep those biases out of their work but they still have political beliefs. Wouldn't it be better if they were all up front about it so we could know where they are coming from?
A similar problem affects judicial candidates in many states. In Oregon, for example, judicial candidates are prohibited from expressing their views during their campaigns. A candidate may believe that criminals should not be incarcerated, or he may oppose the death penalty, or he may think that freedom of speech should be restricted. Voters should be made aware of those beliefs but under the current system he is not allowed to tell them what he believes. He may only list qualifications, endorsements etc. Aside from its first amendment implications, that restriction puts voters at a disadvantage.
Now there may be some reason for judicial candidates to be discrete in their campaigns. They should not express views on particular cases since the evidence will not yet be in. However they should tell us what they believe in general terms, things like if they support the constitution or specific laws etc.
I would support MSNBC if they suspended Olberman for expressing flagrantly biased views on the air. If they want to present unbiased information they should insist that their employees do just that (though it is questionable if that is MSNBC's objective). I would also support disciplining judges for allowing their bias to influence courtroom decisions. Judges are entitled to their beliefs but their job is to deal with the law as written, not to make or modify law (except when the law violates the constitution). However I cannot support institutional hiding of the beliefs of either judges or news people. That sort of policy withholds important information from the citizens.
If a news person is so biased that he will refuse to publish stories that go contrary to his belief, we have a right to know that.
If a judicial candidate is so set against the death penalty, for example, that he will never apply it, voters have a right to know that.
We need news people who can say openly, “I have these political beliefs. This story seems to contradict my beliefs but I also believe it is important to get the information to the public so I am publishing it.”
We need judges and judicial candidates who can say openly, “I believe this law is wrong and should be changed. However it is the law and until it is changed I must follow it.”
The problem is not when such people admit to their biases; it is when they allow those biases to affect their work. That problem is exacerbated when they are required to hide their biases.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Monday, August 3, 2009
The Diversity Trap
What would you call a workforce that is 74% of one sex with 69% of employees in the higher pay ranges of that same sex? The Oregon Department of Human Services calls it diverse. To them diverse means women and minorities – even when women make up over two thirds of employees, that is diversity. In addition they have goals for hiring a certain number of handicapped people and those specific ethnic groups. That includes a goal to increase skilled craft employees “by 4 women, 1 person of color and 1 person with a disability.” This is affirmative action run amok, a clear sign that “diversity” is simply another name for preferential treatment of favored groups.
In fact, why would any employer, private or public, want a diverse workforce? This takes us back to the means vs. ends question. As I see it, there are two reasons:
a. Fairness
b. A productive workforce.
If fairness is the goal then emphasizing diversity is at best a confusion of means and ends. The fairest thing to do is for employers to just hire the best person for the job, regardless of skin color or number of X chromosomes. That provides a fair chance for all who have the ability and who have made the effort to prepare themselves. If you want is fairness, you should not look at ethnicity or sex at all in the hiring or promotion process. The push for “diversity” is just a way to prefer one group over another.
Having a productive workforce is similar. Employers should hire or promote the best person for the job.
There are some good reasons for seeking diversity – but diversity of the right kind. In most cases that should be a diversity of background and knowledge rather than of ethnicity. Consider an executive committee planning the design of a new product:
If engineers dominate, they will have lots of fun putting in all the latest features, using state of the art technology and maybe some of their own ideas. The product they design will be a wonder of human intelligence. If they are very lucky, it might be manufacturable and customers might actually like it and buy some of them.
If finance people make the decision, they will make sure that only very cost effective components and processes are used. However they know nothing of engineering or marketing so it may be impossible to design or sell. Whatever comes out won't cost much to make, but it may not be what customers want.
If manufacturing dominates the planning, they will make certain that the product is easy to make. That may require elimination of any technology that requires unfamiliar manufacturing methods. It may also require use of more expensive components that are easier to work with. The product will be manufacturable but it may be impossible to sell it at a profit.
If marketing dominates, the design will probably be just what the customer wants. However it may be difficult to manufacture and may also be a copy of 10 similar products already available. Making and selling it at a profit may be impossible.
This is where diversity comes in. That decision-making board needs a diversity of background and knowledge in those who contribute to the decision. Limiting decision-making influence to those of only one background leads to groupthink. Of course that leads to poor decisions.
Now consider what might happen if people with varied backgrounds are placed on that decision-making board. The marketing experts can keep the focus on what the customer wants. Manufacturing can make sure that they can actually make the thing. Finance can look at trade-offs between cost, manufacturing difficulty, and what the customer will be willing to pay. Then engineering can create innovative ways to design the product, possibly even giving the company an advantage in the marketplace.
The purpose of diversity should be to get a wide variety of viewpoints. That takes work on the part of management and frankly it can be a messy process. The leader can't just say, “Go design a replacement for product X.” Instead he has to arbitrate the differences between all the viewpoints. Some people will be upset when their pet ideas are rejected. Some will be reluctant to speak up and, unless the leader draws them out, valuable information may be lost.
To make this work, a manager or leader must be able to listen to all perspectives and put together the best from everybody. He must be able to help people understand that their contributions are valued, even if they didn't make it into the final product. Of course he cannot do that unless he has those diverse people on the team.
A diversity of this kind, properly used, will benefit any organization. Government, business, even home life can be improved by obtaining and openly discussing different viewpoints. However an emphasis on skin color or sex will only skew the process.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
In fact, why would any employer, private or public, want a diverse workforce? This takes us back to the means vs. ends question. As I see it, there are two reasons:
a. Fairness
b. A productive workforce.
If fairness is the goal then emphasizing diversity is at best a confusion of means and ends. The fairest thing to do is for employers to just hire the best person for the job, regardless of skin color or number of X chromosomes. That provides a fair chance for all who have the ability and who have made the effort to prepare themselves. If you want is fairness, you should not look at ethnicity or sex at all in the hiring or promotion process. The push for “diversity” is just a way to prefer one group over another.
Having a productive workforce is similar. Employers should hire or promote the best person for the job.
There are some good reasons for seeking diversity – but diversity of the right kind. In most cases that should be a diversity of background and knowledge rather than of ethnicity. Consider an executive committee planning the design of a new product:
If engineers dominate, they will have lots of fun putting in all the latest features, using state of the art technology and maybe some of their own ideas. The product they design will be a wonder of human intelligence. If they are very lucky, it might be manufacturable and customers might actually like it and buy some of them.
If finance people make the decision, they will make sure that only very cost effective components and processes are used. However they know nothing of engineering or marketing so it may be impossible to design or sell. Whatever comes out won't cost much to make, but it may not be what customers want.
If manufacturing dominates the planning, they will make certain that the product is easy to make. That may require elimination of any technology that requires unfamiliar manufacturing methods. It may also require use of more expensive components that are easier to work with. The product will be manufacturable but it may be impossible to sell it at a profit.
If marketing dominates, the design will probably be just what the customer wants. However it may be difficult to manufacture and may also be a copy of 10 similar products already available. Making and selling it at a profit may be impossible.
This is where diversity comes in. That decision-making board needs a diversity of background and knowledge in those who contribute to the decision. Limiting decision-making influence to those of only one background leads to groupthink. Of course that leads to poor decisions.
Now consider what might happen if people with varied backgrounds are placed on that decision-making board. The marketing experts can keep the focus on what the customer wants. Manufacturing can make sure that they can actually make the thing. Finance can look at trade-offs between cost, manufacturing difficulty, and what the customer will be willing to pay. Then engineering can create innovative ways to design the product, possibly even giving the company an advantage in the marketplace.
The purpose of diversity should be to get a wide variety of viewpoints. That takes work on the part of management and frankly it can be a messy process. The leader can't just say, “Go design a replacement for product X.” Instead he has to arbitrate the differences between all the viewpoints. Some people will be upset when their pet ideas are rejected. Some will be reluctant to speak up and, unless the leader draws them out, valuable information may be lost.
To make this work, a manager or leader must be able to listen to all perspectives and put together the best from everybody. He must be able to help people understand that their contributions are valued, even if they didn't make it into the final product. Of course he cannot do that unless he has those diverse people on the team.
A diversity of this kind, properly used, will benefit any organization. Government, business, even home life can be improved by obtaining and openly discussing different viewpoints. However an emphasis on skin color or sex will only skew the process.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Identity Politics, Part 3, A Polarized Society
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Yugoslavia. When it existed as a country it was in the Balkan region, an area known for ethnic and religious strife and for fomenting violence. That violence too often spread to other countries and even triggered World War I. Yugoslavia itself was composed of diverse groups with historical animosities. Yet for a time under Tito the country was relatively peaceful. Whatever Tito’s faults, he kept ethnic tensions under control by not allowing demagogues to stir up old hatreds. That all ended after his death. Slobodan Milosevic re-ignited the historical mistrust and tensions. He undoubtedly saw political gain for himself by use of “divide and conquer” rhetoric. The result was that the country disintegrated, but not before thousands died in internecine violence.
Sri Lanka is another example. The Tamil and Sinhalese generally got along peacefully for decades. Then the newly independent government decided to make Sinhalese the official language and to institute an affirmative action plan, ostensibly to make up for past discrimination against the Sinhalese majority. The result was 25 years of nasty civil war and terrorist actions, even now only partly settled.
Yugoslavia and Sri Lanka illustrate the dangers of identity politics. Sadly, they are not isolated examples. Sunni and Shiites in Iraq, Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, Armenians and Turks, etc. Wherever one group is pitted against another there will be strife, and it is not possible at the outset to know where that strife will lead. Favoritism in education, employment, and government benefits is nearly certain, but the problem often goes farther. It is common for both sides (or all sides when more than two groups are involved) to see themselves as victims and others as oppressors. That leads to a mob-like mentality, regarding the “oppressors” as a group of faceless enemies. This helps justify all manner of anti-social behavior, ranging from isolated attacks on individuals all the way up to armed revolution.
Where will the identity politics in the U.S. today take us? It is impossible to say. However we can know where it has taken us in the past. This country has seen Blacks lynched just because someone accused them of looking at white women. We have seen church burnings and bombings. We have seen race riots in which innocent shopkeepers were assaulted for the crime of being of a different ethnicity than the neighborhood majority. Fortunately at present we do not face overthrow of our government by armed revolutionaries, at least as far as I can foresee. However continued demagoguery can stir up strife in this country, including riots and other violence.
What can we do about this? First we must publicly and vociferously oppose the demagogues who try to pit one group against another. When a politician or other misleader advocates favoritism we must call it the bigotry it is.
Secondly we should emulate those parts of our society in which bias is most nearly eradicated. The most color-blind areas today are probably the military and professional sports. In those fields people are rewarded for performance, not for skin color. Few people care much about the color of LeBron James’ or Tom Brady’s skin. However both men have fans who care very much about their ability to get a basketball in a basket or a football into the hands of a receiver. Millions of young people work very hard to develop abilities similar to those of Brady and James.
What if we could spread the ethic of hard work and personnel qualification beyond sports and the military? What if we told the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world that they should encourage education and work instead of preference as the way to succeed (something Jackson used to do)? How would that change our society? Imagine millions of young people working as hard to learn math as some do to learn basketball. What would that do for them individually and for the country as a whole within a few years?
Let us tell the identity politics demagogues to crawl back under their rocks. Instead let’s encourage everybody to find enjoyable, fulfilling work and to become good at their work. And let’s reward them for performance, not for ethnicity or gender.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Yugoslavia. When it existed as a country it was in the Balkan region, an area known for ethnic and religious strife and for fomenting violence. That violence too often spread to other countries and even triggered World War I. Yugoslavia itself was composed of diverse groups with historical animosities. Yet for a time under Tito the country was relatively peaceful. Whatever Tito’s faults, he kept ethnic tensions under control by not allowing demagogues to stir up old hatreds. That all ended after his death. Slobodan Milosevic re-ignited the historical mistrust and tensions. He undoubtedly saw political gain for himself by use of “divide and conquer” rhetoric. The result was that the country disintegrated, but not before thousands died in internecine violence.
Sri Lanka is another example. The Tamil and Sinhalese generally got along peacefully for decades. Then the newly independent government decided to make Sinhalese the official language and to institute an affirmative action plan, ostensibly to make up for past discrimination against the Sinhalese majority. The result was 25 years of nasty civil war and terrorist actions, even now only partly settled.
Yugoslavia and Sri Lanka illustrate the dangers of identity politics. Sadly, they are not isolated examples. Sunni and Shiites in Iraq, Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, Armenians and Turks, etc. Wherever one group is pitted against another there will be strife, and it is not possible at the outset to know where that strife will lead. Favoritism in education, employment, and government benefits is nearly certain, but the problem often goes farther. It is common for both sides (or all sides when more than two groups are involved) to see themselves as victims and others as oppressors. That leads to a mob-like mentality, regarding the “oppressors” as a group of faceless enemies. This helps justify all manner of anti-social behavior, ranging from isolated attacks on individuals all the way up to armed revolution.
Where will the identity politics in the U.S. today take us? It is impossible to say. However we can know where it has taken us in the past. This country has seen Blacks lynched just because someone accused them of looking at white women. We have seen church burnings and bombings. We have seen race riots in which innocent shopkeepers were assaulted for the crime of being of a different ethnicity than the neighborhood majority. Fortunately at present we do not face overthrow of our government by armed revolutionaries, at least as far as I can foresee. However continued demagoguery can stir up strife in this country, including riots and other violence.
What can we do about this? First we must publicly and vociferously oppose the demagogues who try to pit one group against another. When a politician or other misleader advocates favoritism we must call it the bigotry it is.
Secondly we should emulate those parts of our society in which bias is most nearly eradicated. The most color-blind areas today are probably the military and professional sports. In those fields people are rewarded for performance, not for skin color. Few people care much about the color of LeBron James’ or Tom Brady’s skin. However both men have fans who care very much about their ability to get a basketball in a basket or a football into the hands of a receiver. Millions of young people work very hard to develop abilities similar to those of Brady and James.
What if we could spread the ethic of hard work and personnel qualification beyond sports and the military? What if we told the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world that they should encourage education and work instead of preference as the way to succeed (something Jackson used to do)? How would that change our society? Imagine millions of young people working as hard to learn math as some do to learn basketball. What would that do for them individually and for the country as a whole within a few years?
Let us tell the identity politics demagogues to crawl back under their rocks. Instead let’s encourage everybody to find enjoyable, fulfilling work and to become good at their work. And let’s reward them for performance, not for ethnicity or gender.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Identity Politics, Part 2
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me
Senator Patrick Leahy has strongly implied that criticism of Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor is racist. And what were those “racist” remarks? The culprits quoted Sotomayor verbatim. There is no doubt that Sotomayor made a racist statement. There is no doubt that she said it multiple times. Yet Leahy has the nerve to accuse people of racism when they simply point out what she said. Worse, he misquoted her, apparently deliberately.
Leahy claimed, “[Sotomayor] said that, quote, you 'would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions.'" Notice that he claims to be quoting her verbatim. That was a lie; he was creatively editing her words to make her statement sound neutral when in fact it was racist.
What Sotomayor in fact said was, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The claim that her race and sex would reach better decisions is clearly racist, as I’ve discussed in my blog on the Gander Test. Removing the racist part of the quote is dishonest. Leahy is a liar when he says that he is quoting her statement.
However we should not be surprised that someone like Leahy, well on the left of the political spectrum, would do such a thing. Many of those people are incapable of recognizing racism in anybody but a white person. Leahy probably thinks that telling his lie is actually serving a good cause. Many of those people actually believe that it is not possible for a Black or Hispanic to be a bigot. That is a part of identity politics, they judge people by the color of their skin or their sex, not by what they actually say or do. However racist is as racist does, contrary to what the leftists claim.
This is the other side of identity politics, excusing all manner of sin on the basis that the culprit is a minority. Worse, anyone who criticizes a minority, even for valid reasons, is labeled a bigot for having the temerity to speak the truth or a non-politically-correct opinion. This is widespread in our country today. For example, anyone who opposes homosexual marriage will be called homophobic and anyone who opposes affirmative action will be called racist. That is just the way identity politics works.
Another aspect of this is the article of faith on the left that any minority must be leftist. Many go so far as to call a black person who does not toe the leftist line “not an authentic Black.” In fact recently Senator Barbara Boxer used testimony by Harry Alford, chair of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, to imply that the other groups represent black people but that Alford’s organization does not because it does not go along with the leftist agenda.
Many of Boxer’s ilk think that minorities should remain in lockstep and not be allowed to stray from the leftist reservation. They think that minorities off that reservation lose their identity.
Can we change the adherents of identity politics? I doubt it, at least not most of them. They tend to have closed minds on the subject and will reject facts or sound reasoning. In fact they will call such facts and reasoning bias, but of course cannot tell us how they are biased. Oh there may be a few who listen to reason but most won’t. Most regard the accusation as proof, no more discussion needed.
What we can do is refuse to give in to the twisted accusations of identity politics. Of course first we must examine ourselves to be certain the charges are untrue. If they are all we need do is make a simple statement of that fact.
A leftist might say, “You’re a bigot, you called Sotomayor racist.”
A good response might be, “I am not a racist, in fact I have many Black and Hispanic friends. I simply quoted her own words, words she has spoken multiple times. Then I pointed out that if someone made a similar statement, claiming that a white man could make better decisions than a Latina woman, it would be recognized for the racism it is. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and Sotomayor’s statements are racist.”
Such a response probably won’t change the mind of the accuser; he is likely too closed-minded to understand it. However it will have an effect on neutral observers. Furthermore it will help us avoid the temptation to become as biased as the accuser in an attempt to avoid the accusation.
Leahy and his ilk will undoubtedly continue to make false accusations of bigotry. However I do not believe they are the majority in this country. I believe most people are smart enough to see how ridiculous those accusations are.
If you don't like it, please tell me
Senator Patrick Leahy has strongly implied that criticism of Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor is racist. And what were those “racist” remarks? The culprits quoted Sotomayor verbatim. There is no doubt that Sotomayor made a racist statement. There is no doubt that she said it multiple times. Yet Leahy has the nerve to accuse people of racism when they simply point out what she said. Worse, he misquoted her, apparently deliberately.
Leahy claimed, “[Sotomayor] said that, quote, you 'would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions.'" Notice that he claims to be quoting her verbatim. That was a lie; he was creatively editing her words to make her statement sound neutral when in fact it was racist.
What Sotomayor in fact said was, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The claim that her race and sex would reach better decisions is clearly racist, as I’ve discussed in my blog on the Gander Test. Removing the racist part of the quote is dishonest. Leahy is a liar when he says that he is quoting her statement.
However we should not be surprised that someone like Leahy, well on the left of the political spectrum, would do such a thing. Many of those people are incapable of recognizing racism in anybody but a white person. Leahy probably thinks that telling his lie is actually serving a good cause. Many of those people actually believe that it is not possible for a Black or Hispanic to be a bigot. That is a part of identity politics, they judge people by the color of their skin or their sex, not by what they actually say or do. However racist is as racist does, contrary to what the leftists claim.
This is the other side of identity politics, excusing all manner of sin on the basis that the culprit is a minority. Worse, anyone who criticizes a minority, even for valid reasons, is labeled a bigot for having the temerity to speak the truth or a non-politically-correct opinion. This is widespread in our country today. For example, anyone who opposes homosexual marriage will be called homophobic and anyone who opposes affirmative action will be called racist. That is just the way identity politics works.
Another aspect of this is the article of faith on the left that any minority must be leftist. Many go so far as to call a black person who does not toe the leftist line “not an authentic Black.” In fact recently Senator Barbara Boxer used testimony by Harry Alford, chair of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, to imply that the other groups represent black people but that Alford’s organization does not because it does not go along with the leftist agenda.
Many of Boxer’s ilk think that minorities should remain in lockstep and not be allowed to stray from the leftist reservation. They think that minorities off that reservation lose their identity.
Can we change the adherents of identity politics? I doubt it, at least not most of them. They tend to have closed minds on the subject and will reject facts or sound reasoning. In fact they will call such facts and reasoning bias, but of course cannot tell us how they are biased. Oh there may be a few who listen to reason but most won’t. Most regard the accusation as proof, no more discussion needed.
What we can do is refuse to give in to the twisted accusations of identity politics. Of course first we must examine ourselves to be certain the charges are untrue. If they are all we need do is make a simple statement of that fact.
A leftist might say, “You’re a bigot, you called Sotomayor racist.”
A good response might be, “I am not a racist, in fact I have many Black and Hispanic friends. I simply quoted her own words, words she has spoken multiple times. Then I pointed out that if someone made a similar statement, claiming that a white man could make better decisions than a Latina woman, it would be recognized for the racism it is. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and Sotomayor’s statements are racist.”
Such a response probably won’t change the mind of the accuser; he is likely too closed-minded to understand it. However it will have an effect on neutral observers. Furthermore it will help us avoid the temptation to become as biased as the accuser in an attempt to avoid the accusation.
Leahy and his ilk will undoubtedly continue to make false accusations of bigotry. However I do not believe they are the majority in this country. I believe most people are smart enough to see how ridiculous those accusations are.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Identity Politics, Part 1
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” So spoke the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963. To a great extent his dream has been realized. Official barriers to certain races have been eliminated. The Jim Crow laws are no longer with us. Of course there are still bigots in the country but at least they can no longer use the force of law to keep people out of schools or jobs just because of skin color. However the official forces of evil have are still with us, ironically now sometimes represented by the very people who claim to follow Dr. King.
The identity politics of Dr. King’s time involved blatant discrimination against black people. Today’s identity politics is not as blatant but still advocates discrimination. In the name of civil rights some are now advocating that people be judged by the color of their skin or by their sex instead of by the content of their character or their ability. In the state of Oregon for example, the Department of Human Services brags about having a great majority of women in upper pay ranges. They claim that having a majority of women somehow gives them diversity. They also say that they need to hire more people of certain races. That is hardly the color-blind society of Dr. King’s dreams. I have to admit that I fail to see how that can be squared with the constitutional requirement for equal protection under the law.
Identity politics is based on the idea that certain people should be given preference. That used to mean not hiring Blacks, Irish or people of certain other ethnicities. Today it again means discrimination against people of a certain skin color or sex. It is a group-based instead of an individual based legal theory. If a white man of 50 or 100 years ago discriminated against a black man of that same time, identity politics says that today we should discriminate against a white man to make up for it. The fact that both men from 50 or 100 years ago are now dead does not enter into the equation, nor does the fact that neither the white man discriminated against today or the black man benefiting from discrimination were even born when the earlier discrimination occurred. This theory punishes and rewards people for actions outside their control, actions done by people long dead.
Suppose your neighbor whose hair is the same color as yours were to steal a large amount of money, then disappear. His victim also moves away to parts unknown. Would it be fair to require you to pay back the money to someone in the victim’s old neighborhood whose hair is the same color as the victim’s? Yet that is essentially what today’s identity politics does under the name of affirmative action. Its advocates want to punish people for having an appearance similar to dead bigots. They want to use that punishment to the advantage of people who look like dead victims of discrimination. Rewards and punishments are handed out to people who had no control over the actions on which those rewards and punishments are based.
Consider three babies born the same day in the same city. One is the child of a wealthy black physician, another the child of a white single mother who struggles to pay the rent, while the third is born into a middle-class Chinese family. The physician’s child goes to a top-tier university, expenses paid by his father. The white child manages to get into the same university, taking out loans and working part-time to get his education. Both graduate with honors and apply for the same job. Who do you think will be hired? Most likely the doctor’s child because of his skin color. In fact, for many jobs the black person will be hired even if his qualifications are lower than those of the white person.
And what about the child of Chinese ancestry? He wasn’t even admitted to that university, even though he was more qualified than the other two. He had the misfortune to live and study in California where students of oriental ancestry have done too well. They are discriminated against in order to restore “racial balance.”
Affirmative action is discrimination, pure and simple.
In the long run identity politics harms everybody. While it’s obvious how in harms those discriminated against, there is also real damage to the supposed beneficiaries. Those people are encouraged to spend their time and energy defending their preference instead of working to get educated and preparing to compete on a level playing field. The person who spends his time working to get preference in hiring may come away with a job but will probably not feel competent in that job. If he spends that time studying engineering, science, business or something similar he will probably become qualified for a rewarding and possibly lucrative career.
Fairness and the constitution both require a color-blind society. We must work toward that end. Identity politics and affirmative action mean judging people on ethnicity or other irrelevant characteristics, not on character or ability. That is discrimination, pure and simple.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” So spoke the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963. To a great extent his dream has been realized. Official barriers to certain races have been eliminated. The Jim Crow laws are no longer with us. Of course there are still bigots in the country but at least they can no longer use the force of law to keep people out of schools or jobs just because of skin color. However the official forces of evil have are still with us, ironically now sometimes represented by the very people who claim to follow Dr. King.
The identity politics of Dr. King’s time involved blatant discrimination against black people. Today’s identity politics is not as blatant but still advocates discrimination. In the name of civil rights some are now advocating that people be judged by the color of their skin or by their sex instead of by the content of their character or their ability. In the state of Oregon for example, the Department of Human Services brags about having a great majority of women in upper pay ranges. They claim that having a majority of women somehow gives them diversity. They also say that they need to hire more people of certain races. That is hardly the color-blind society of Dr. King’s dreams. I have to admit that I fail to see how that can be squared with the constitutional requirement for equal protection under the law.
Identity politics is based on the idea that certain people should be given preference. That used to mean not hiring Blacks, Irish or people of certain other ethnicities. Today it again means discrimination against people of a certain skin color or sex. It is a group-based instead of an individual based legal theory. If a white man of 50 or 100 years ago discriminated against a black man of that same time, identity politics says that today we should discriminate against a white man to make up for it. The fact that both men from 50 or 100 years ago are now dead does not enter into the equation, nor does the fact that neither the white man discriminated against today or the black man benefiting from discrimination were even born when the earlier discrimination occurred. This theory punishes and rewards people for actions outside their control, actions done by people long dead.
Suppose your neighbor whose hair is the same color as yours were to steal a large amount of money, then disappear. His victim also moves away to parts unknown. Would it be fair to require you to pay back the money to someone in the victim’s old neighborhood whose hair is the same color as the victim’s? Yet that is essentially what today’s identity politics does under the name of affirmative action. Its advocates want to punish people for having an appearance similar to dead bigots. They want to use that punishment to the advantage of people who look like dead victims of discrimination. Rewards and punishments are handed out to people who had no control over the actions on which those rewards and punishments are based.
Consider three babies born the same day in the same city. One is the child of a wealthy black physician, another the child of a white single mother who struggles to pay the rent, while the third is born into a middle-class Chinese family. The physician’s child goes to a top-tier university, expenses paid by his father. The white child manages to get into the same university, taking out loans and working part-time to get his education. Both graduate with honors and apply for the same job. Who do you think will be hired? Most likely the doctor’s child because of his skin color. In fact, for many jobs the black person will be hired even if his qualifications are lower than those of the white person.
And what about the child of Chinese ancestry? He wasn’t even admitted to that university, even though he was more qualified than the other two. He had the misfortune to live and study in California where students of oriental ancestry have done too well. They are discriminated against in order to restore “racial balance.”
Affirmative action is discrimination, pure and simple.
In the long run identity politics harms everybody. While it’s obvious how in harms those discriminated against, there is also real damage to the supposed beneficiaries. Those people are encouraged to spend their time and energy defending their preference instead of working to get educated and preparing to compete on a level playing field. The person who spends his time working to get preference in hiring may come away with a job but will probably not feel competent in that job. If he spends that time studying engineering, science, business or something similar he will probably become qualified for a rewarding and possibly lucrative career.
Fairness and the constitution both require a color-blind society. We must work toward that end. Identity politics and affirmative action mean judging people on ethnicity or other irrelevant characteristics, not on character or ability. That is discrimination, pure and simple.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The Gander Test
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
There is often controversy over just what is and is not racial or sexual discrimination. Is it discrimination to give preference to someone in hiring or promotion? How about admission to a university? These questions have created lots of controversy and I’m afraid that too often our laws and court decisions have only confused the issue. However there is a clear test that can cut through the fog. It’s what I call the Gander Test.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That old saying provides the basis for the Gander Test, a sure-fire means of determining if a decision or action is discriminatory. The test is simple, quick and as far as I can tell, 100% accurate if applied honestly. It consists of simply interchanging “goose” and “gander” roles in our thinking and discussion. If we think something might be discriminatory, we switch roles of the affected parties. If it is discrimination after the switch then it was certainly discrimination before the switch.
For example, suppose you are a manager who needs to hire someone. You have two acceptable candidates for the job, one a white man, one a woman or minority. You decide to hire the white man but someone asks if that was because of your bias. Or maybe you decide on the other person and someone asks if you were overcompensating just to get racial balance or meet a quota. How can you be sure you decided fairly? All you have to do is look at what you would have done had the qualifications been switched. What if each had attended the school the other in fact attended, worked where the other in fact worked, had the references the other in fact has, etc? Would your decision change if the qualifications were reversed? If not, your decision was almost certainly based on bias.
This can also apply to the case of the New Haven firefighter promotion test (Ricci v. DeStefano), so prominent in the discussion of Judge Sotomayor. Nobody was promoted because not enough minorities qualified for promotion. What if the situation had been reversed? What if, on a similar test in some fire department, 80% of Blacks qualified for promotion but only 40% of Whites? What if the city said, “we are going to nullify the results because not enough white people qualified.” Nearly everyone would object and call it racism. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would organize demonstrations and protests. Editorials across the country would condemn the action. Almost certainly the courts would throw it out. Switching positions of goose and gander (Whites and Blacks in this case) allows us to see the discrimination clearly.
What’s that you say? Surely such a thing couldn’t happen, we would never expect Blacks to do better on any employment test than do whites. Think again. If the test involves running with a football or getting a basketball in a hoop, whites are seriously under-represented. Both the National Football League and the National Basketball Association have a much smaller percentage of white players than would be expected from the percentage of whites in the general population. What should we do about it? Should we force professional sports to use race-balancing measures when they decide which college players they are going to hire? Nearly everyone would object and call that racial discrimination. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would organize protests, justifiable protests I might add.
What if a candidate for high office were to say, “I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life”? Again everybody would recognize this as bias. In fact many did recognize bias in Judge Sotomayor’s equivalent statement, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Again the Gander Test shows the clear bias in the original statement. Even President Obama who appointed and continues to support Sotomayor recognized the problem, calling it a poor choice of words. (Though the fact that she made essentially the same statement many times over a period of at least 15 years would lead us to the conclusion that it represents her real belief, not something she said by mistake.)
But wait, you say. Is there no constitutional way to help those minorities who don’t have the same education and opportunities as the rest of us? There is as long as the efforts to help are based on disadvantage and not on skin color. What if a state identifies poor schools and institutes a program to improve them, or to allow students from those schools to attend private or charter schools. That would pass the Gander Test. If the bad schools are mostly black (as so many are) we just imagine if it would be constitutional to allow special efforts to improve education of white children in bad schools. The answer is yes it is. The program is aimed at the disadvantages of the children, not at their skin color. In fact a case might be made that equal protection under the law requires that states provide equivalent educational opportunities to children in poor and rich neighborhoods.
The 14th amendment to the constitution requires equal protection under the law for everybody, regardless of race. Giving white people special protection or other advantage violates that clause. So does giving special protection to Blacks, Hispanics, or green people if they were to exist. It is the duty of our judges and elected officials to support that equal protection. It is also the duty of the citizens to encourage their “hired hands” to support such equal protection. We should all contact our senators and ask them to consider this when they vote on the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor or any other prospective judge.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
There is often controversy over just what is and is not racial or sexual discrimination. Is it discrimination to give preference to someone in hiring or promotion? How about admission to a university? These questions have created lots of controversy and I’m afraid that too often our laws and court decisions have only confused the issue. However there is a clear test that can cut through the fog. It’s what I call the Gander Test.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That old saying provides the basis for the Gander Test, a sure-fire means of determining if a decision or action is discriminatory. The test is simple, quick and as far as I can tell, 100% accurate if applied honestly. It consists of simply interchanging “goose” and “gander” roles in our thinking and discussion. If we think something might be discriminatory, we switch roles of the affected parties. If it is discrimination after the switch then it was certainly discrimination before the switch.
For example, suppose you are a manager who needs to hire someone. You have two acceptable candidates for the job, one a white man, one a woman or minority. You decide to hire the white man but someone asks if that was because of your bias. Or maybe you decide on the other person and someone asks if you were overcompensating just to get racial balance or meet a quota. How can you be sure you decided fairly? All you have to do is look at what you would have done had the qualifications been switched. What if each had attended the school the other in fact attended, worked where the other in fact worked, had the references the other in fact has, etc? Would your decision change if the qualifications were reversed? If not, your decision was almost certainly based on bias.
This can also apply to the case of the New Haven firefighter promotion test (Ricci v. DeStefano), so prominent in the discussion of Judge Sotomayor. Nobody was promoted because not enough minorities qualified for promotion. What if the situation had been reversed? What if, on a similar test in some fire department, 80% of Blacks qualified for promotion but only 40% of Whites? What if the city said, “we are going to nullify the results because not enough white people qualified.” Nearly everyone would object and call it racism. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would organize demonstrations and protests. Editorials across the country would condemn the action. Almost certainly the courts would throw it out. Switching positions of goose and gander (Whites and Blacks in this case) allows us to see the discrimination clearly.
What’s that you say? Surely such a thing couldn’t happen, we would never expect Blacks to do better on any employment test than do whites. Think again. If the test involves running with a football or getting a basketball in a hoop, whites are seriously under-represented. Both the National Football League and the National Basketball Association have a much smaller percentage of white players than would be expected from the percentage of whites in the general population. What should we do about it? Should we force professional sports to use race-balancing measures when they decide which college players they are going to hire? Nearly everyone would object and call that racial discrimination. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would organize protests, justifiable protests I might add.
What if a candidate for high office were to say, “I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life”? Again everybody would recognize this as bias. In fact many did recognize bias in Judge Sotomayor’s equivalent statement, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Again the Gander Test shows the clear bias in the original statement. Even President Obama who appointed and continues to support Sotomayor recognized the problem, calling it a poor choice of words. (Though the fact that she made essentially the same statement many times over a period of at least 15 years would lead us to the conclusion that it represents her real belief, not something she said by mistake.)
But wait, you say. Is there no constitutional way to help those minorities who don’t have the same education and opportunities as the rest of us? There is as long as the efforts to help are based on disadvantage and not on skin color. What if a state identifies poor schools and institutes a program to improve them, or to allow students from those schools to attend private or charter schools. That would pass the Gander Test. If the bad schools are mostly black (as so many are) we just imagine if it would be constitutional to allow special efforts to improve education of white children in bad schools. The answer is yes it is. The program is aimed at the disadvantages of the children, not at their skin color. In fact a case might be made that equal protection under the law requires that states provide equivalent educational opportunities to children in poor and rich neighborhoods.
The 14th amendment to the constitution requires equal protection under the law for everybody, regardless of race. Giving white people special protection or other advantage violates that clause. So does giving special protection to Blacks, Hispanics, or green people if they were to exist. It is the duty of our judges and elected officials to support that equal protection. It is also the duty of the citizens to encourage their “hired hands” to support such equal protection. We should all contact our senators and ask them to consider this when they vote on the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor or any other prospective judge.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Judge Sotomayor and the Firefighters
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Imagine yourself in the following situation:
Your favorite sports team just won a hard-fought and important game. Their months of practice and hard physical training practice paid off. The win puts your team in good position to win the championship so the players and fans are about to start celebrating. But wait what is this? The referee is signaling for attention. He asks for a microphone and announces, “The score shows that the team with the green jerseys won. However we believe that there should be more winning teams with white jerseys so we are nullifying the results and officially this game was never played. It will not count toward the championship.”
Or if you’re not a sports fan, imagine you’ve just completed a degree that qualifies you for the career of your dreams. Maybe it’s nursing, engineering, teaching or whatever you think would be an enjoyable and rewarding career. You got high grades and have been offered several positions. You take one of those jobs and go to the human resources department to do the paperwork for new employees. The HR manager takes one look at you and says, “Oh dear! We can’t have this! You have blonde hair and we’ve just decided that at least half of our new employees must have brown, black or red hair. We are canceling your employment contract. You call the other companies who offered you employment and find that they have similarly changed their requirements.
In either case I’m sure you would be incensed that people would change the rules after the game is over. In fact in some countries any referee who made such an announcement after a soccer game would put his life in danger. Yet many of our judges make equivalent announcements in employment situations. Sonia Sotomayor, nominated for the Supreme Court is one of those judges. In the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, she and other judges allowed the rules to be changed after the game was over. This had the sole objective of disallowing a win by a group they did not want to win.
New Haven, Conn. had arranged for a test to determine which firefighters would be promoted to captain or lieutenant. That test was carefully designed to be job-related, exactly what we would want is it not? All firefighters eligible for promotion had the opportunity to study and learn the needed material, then take the test and compete for one of eight lieutenant or seven captain positions. After months of study, the pressure of the test, and the anxiety of waiting, the results were finally announced – and promptly nullified. The rules had been changed after the game was over.
Why were the results nullified? There was no question of fairness, all test takers had the same opportunity to study (including one dyslexic who had to work extra hard but qualified for promotion in spite of his difficulty). Nor was there any question of applicability, nobody questioned if the test was in fact job-related. No, the nullification was because some people did not like the outcome. Not enough minorities qualified for promotion so all the hard studying of all test takers was for naught. After it was over the city decided that the game was never played because they didn’t like the results. That was racial discrimination, pure and simple.
I find it unconscionable that a city would do such a thing and that any judge would allow it to stand. Yet Judge Sotomayor and other judges did allow it, in spite of a clear constitutional provision that equal protection under the law shall not be denied. How can they claim that it is equal protection when people of one skin color are protected from failure while those of a different color are forced into failure?
In my mind, this type of decision should prevent any judge from being promoted, especially to the Supreme Court. One of the most important functions of that court is protection of the constitution. When a judge allows such a flagrant constitutional violation, that judge should never even be considered for promotion.
The constitutional provision should be enough for the courts to overturn New Haven’s discriminatory ruling. However there are good reasons why the city should never have made such a decision, even had it been constitutional.
First is the issue of fairness to employees and the resulting adverse effects on performance. Firefighters, like most employees, perform better and have higher morale if they believe they are being treated fairly. If that is not the case, they will have low morale and little motivation to improve their skills and to go out of the way to do an outstanding job. Why spend all that time in hard, boring study if your employer is just going to ignore your improved skills? Why risk your life to save someone in a house or car fire if your employer is going to promote someone on the basis of an irrelevant characteristic such as skin color?
Second, from the point of view of a citizen, what kind of firefighters and fire department officers do we want? Suppose you are having a heart attack, or trapped in a house fire or a wrecked car with gasoline leaking. A fire truck approaches. Do you care about the skin color of the firefighters aboard? I wouldn’t. I don’t care if they are black, brown, white or green with purple polka dots. Nor would it matter to me how many are male and how many are female. It would matter a great deal that they be competent and dedicated to their job. Any employment or promotion considerations beyond that are discrimination and risk my life.
Allowing racial discrimination in public employment not only violates the 14th amendment to the constitution, it is also unfair to those employees and puts citizens at risk. Any imbalance should be addressed at the education level, not by discriminating against qualified people of any race. Judges who approve discrimination should never be promoted and could do the country a favor by resigning.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Imagine yourself in the following situation:
Your favorite sports team just won a hard-fought and important game. Their months of practice and hard physical training practice paid off. The win puts your team in good position to win the championship so the players and fans are about to start celebrating. But wait what is this? The referee is signaling for attention. He asks for a microphone and announces, “The score shows that the team with the green jerseys won. However we believe that there should be more winning teams with white jerseys so we are nullifying the results and officially this game was never played. It will not count toward the championship.”
Or if you’re not a sports fan, imagine you’ve just completed a degree that qualifies you for the career of your dreams. Maybe it’s nursing, engineering, teaching or whatever you think would be an enjoyable and rewarding career. You got high grades and have been offered several positions. You take one of those jobs and go to the human resources department to do the paperwork for new employees. The HR manager takes one look at you and says, “Oh dear! We can’t have this! You have blonde hair and we’ve just decided that at least half of our new employees must have brown, black or red hair. We are canceling your employment contract. You call the other companies who offered you employment and find that they have similarly changed their requirements.
In either case I’m sure you would be incensed that people would change the rules after the game is over. In fact in some countries any referee who made such an announcement after a soccer game would put his life in danger. Yet many of our judges make equivalent announcements in employment situations. Sonia Sotomayor, nominated for the Supreme Court is one of those judges. In the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, she and other judges allowed the rules to be changed after the game was over. This had the sole objective of disallowing a win by a group they did not want to win.
New Haven, Conn. had arranged for a test to determine which firefighters would be promoted to captain or lieutenant. That test was carefully designed to be job-related, exactly what we would want is it not? All firefighters eligible for promotion had the opportunity to study and learn the needed material, then take the test and compete for one of eight lieutenant or seven captain positions. After months of study, the pressure of the test, and the anxiety of waiting, the results were finally announced – and promptly nullified. The rules had been changed after the game was over.
Why were the results nullified? There was no question of fairness, all test takers had the same opportunity to study (including one dyslexic who had to work extra hard but qualified for promotion in spite of his difficulty). Nor was there any question of applicability, nobody questioned if the test was in fact job-related. No, the nullification was because some people did not like the outcome. Not enough minorities qualified for promotion so all the hard studying of all test takers was for naught. After it was over the city decided that the game was never played because they didn’t like the results. That was racial discrimination, pure and simple.
I find it unconscionable that a city would do such a thing and that any judge would allow it to stand. Yet Judge Sotomayor and other judges did allow it, in spite of a clear constitutional provision that equal protection under the law shall not be denied. How can they claim that it is equal protection when people of one skin color are protected from failure while those of a different color are forced into failure?
In my mind, this type of decision should prevent any judge from being promoted, especially to the Supreme Court. One of the most important functions of that court is protection of the constitution. When a judge allows such a flagrant constitutional violation, that judge should never even be considered for promotion.
The constitutional provision should be enough for the courts to overturn New Haven’s discriminatory ruling. However there are good reasons why the city should never have made such a decision, even had it been constitutional.
First is the issue of fairness to employees and the resulting adverse effects on performance. Firefighters, like most employees, perform better and have higher morale if they believe they are being treated fairly. If that is not the case, they will have low morale and little motivation to improve their skills and to go out of the way to do an outstanding job. Why spend all that time in hard, boring study if your employer is just going to ignore your improved skills? Why risk your life to save someone in a house or car fire if your employer is going to promote someone on the basis of an irrelevant characteristic such as skin color?
Second, from the point of view of a citizen, what kind of firefighters and fire department officers do we want? Suppose you are having a heart attack, or trapped in a house fire or a wrecked car with gasoline leaking. A fire truck approaches. Do you care about the skin color of the firefighters aboard? I wouldn’t. I don’t care if they are black, brown, white or green with purple polka dots. Nor would it matter to me how many are male and how many are female. It would matter a great deal that they be competent and dedicated to their job. Any employment or promotion considerations beyond that are discrimination and risk my life.
Allowing racial discrimination in public employment not only violates the 14th amendment to the constitution, it is also unfair to those employees and puts citizens at risk. Any imbalance should be addressed at the education level, not by discriminating against qualified people of any race. Judges who approve discrimination should never be promoted and could do the country a favor by resigning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
