The concepts of diversity, equity and inclusion have gained in popularity in recent years among the political left, including university administrations and corporate HR departments. To those who believe no individual is intrinsically more valuable than any other, this trend is troubling. While inclusion is a good thing, valuing diversity and equity with regard to immutable characteristics is unethical. Naturally occurring diversity and equity are indications—though not proof—of a tolerant and inclusive society. A lack of diversity and equity may indicate bias. However, active pursuit of these ideals requires disregarding the basic, universalist ethics that civil rights leaders fought and died to achieve for everyone.
Diversity
The pursuit of diversity—on a university or corporate campus, for example—involves crafting selection criteria that yield the desired assortment of immutable or quasi-immutable characteristics among the body of people in question, at the expense of relevant neutral selection criteria, such as merit or competence. This selection is usually designed to mimic the distribution of immutable traits among the local or national population. The rationale behind the push for diversity is that our intrinsic differences make us valuable. The more difference one brings to a given body, the more value. This is troubling in itself—but, to make matters worse, in practice, immutable characteristics are often used as a proxy for more substantial and meaningful differences, such as diversity of perspective or experience.
Imagine one hundred white male conservatives. Which person would add more diversity to that group: Bernie Sanders or a black woman? Bernie Sanders is radically different from most conservatives, but someone advocating diversity would probably pick the black woman. However, can one say with confidence that the inclusion of the black woman will increase diversity of perspective or experience within this group? What if the black woman were the conservative Candace Owens? Perhaps one might argue that she would contribute a black or female perspective—but what does that mean? Since they are both rappers with disadvantaged backgrounds, the black Tupac Shakur’s experiences are probably more comparable with the white Eminem’s than with those of the son of an affluent black man, like Denzel Washington. A similar question can be asked for the female experience.
Another argument for preferring Candace Owens over Bernie Sanders might be that our groups ought to represent the people they serve. The problem with the statement is what is meant by represent. If your immutable characteristics are a core part of your identity, then to be represented means to have those characteristics represented. This means, for example, that Kay Ivey, the female governor of Alabama who has recently enacted the US’s toughest abortion law, somehow represents the interests of feminist Alabama women more than a pro-choice male governor would. There is no reason to believe that we cannot be represented by those who do not look like us. The intense identification of people with their immutable traits often leads to those who buck the ideological trends of their groups being branded as race, gender or sexual traitors, sometimes with tragic consequences. This identitarianism also, ironically, fuels the white supremacy movement.
Aside from their general ideological uniformity, we know almost nothing about the experiences of the one hundred white male conservatives in our example. All we know is that they supposedly all benefit from white male privilege, but as this example shows, we ought to question if we can even make that claim. In practice, the pursuit of diversity requires making generalizations based on immutable characteristics: such as the assumptions that minority individuals are all underprivileged and have similar perspectives, and all members of majority groups are privileged and have similar perspectives. The theory driving diversity pursuits encourages us to value certain immutable characteristics over others. This is troubling for the following reasons:
- Benefiting an individual at the non-consensual expense of another individual is inherently immoral.
- Valuing one individual over another on the basis of race, gender or other immutable characteristics is inherently immoral.
- Valuing diversity of immutable characteristics means valuing some individuals over others on that basis.
- Crafting selection criteria that ensure diversity of immutable characteristics necessitates harming one group of individuals at the expense of another group on that basis.
Points one and two are basic moral principles. Points three and four are the logical conclusions of pursuing diversity as a value in itself.
Equity
In theory, the term equity, used in a Social Justice context, means fairness of treatment for women and men according to their respective needs. It also applies to characteristics like race and ethnicity. In practice, equity means equal outcomes among groups.
Equity of outcome and equity of opportunity are usually mutually exclusive. Groups differ for a variety of reasons, including natural, cultural and environmental factors. These differences produce disparate results. This is generally acknowledged when discussing disparities that favor women, such as the higher rates of male vs. female incarceration, but is extremely controversial when discussing disparities that favor men, such as the higher numbers of men in STEM, as James Damore discovered.
To combat sex disparities in political representation, some countries and institutions have instituted strict equity quotas. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has selected a cabinet of 50% women and 50% men; Australia has committed to a parliament of at least 40% women and to ensuring that 50% of government board positions are allocated to women. In the US, the DNC has declared that all committees and similar bodies will be split equally between (self-identified) men and women, with a variance no greater than one. Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg has recently announced his plan to appoint a cabinet comprising of at least 50% women, if elected. In total, 80 countries have instituted gender quotas of some kind.
It would be disastrous to apply such equity principles to the prison population or to workplace fatalities. Jonathan Haidt further demonstrates the problem with equity principals in this analogy between a fictitious Bush administration policy that punishes schools that suspend more boys than girls and a real Obama administration policy that punishes schools that suspend more black than whites.
The rationale behind equity policies is that the demographics of certain bodies would mirror the demographics of the population, in the absence of any systemic cultural or institutional injustices. In other words, without external factors to impede the success of historically marginalized groups, outcomes would be equally distributed. This neglects to take into account both natural and environmental/cultural differences between groups. The logic is also applied selectively. Statistics demonstrating a disparity between blacks and whites are hence taken as evidence of systemic racism, but the same disparity between whites and Asians is not (and usually goes unmentioned). Coleman Hughes calls this the disparity fallacy. Black intellectuals like Hughes, Thomas Sowell, Glenn Loury and John McWhorter have discussed this fallacy at length.
If selection criteria are designed to promote equity, some individuals must benefit at the expense of others, on the basis of their immutable characteristics. Given a finite number of positions, this is a mathematically necessary and indefensible consequence.
The Path Forward
Historically, some groups have enjoyed systemic cultural and institutional privileges over other groups, privileges that have had lasting impacts on both. The problem with diversity and equity is that, rather than correct for the injustices, they only reverse their flow. They also replace a superior set of values—all people are equal; means do not justify ends; individualism—with an inferior set—immutable characteristics give people value; ends justify means; collectivism.
Society ought not to value the trivial differences that divide us, such as sexuality, gender and race, but focus on those differences that can bring about greater social and scientific enlightenment, such as differences in perspective and experience. We also ought to value the qualifications and competencies an individual brings to a given task, while recognizing our biases and reevaluating our definitions of merit accordingly. This will help us achieve an inclusive and just society.
To do this, we must accurately describe the universal ideals that unite all people and continue to advocate for those who are included in theory, but left out in practice. In other words, we must live up to the spirit of our founding documents. We must defeat competing values in the marketplace of ideas and articulate why supposedly western values, such as freedom, due process, primacy of the individual and respect for personal autonomy are in fact universal values. This means that we must evaluate economic and social policies in accordance with how they forward these universal ideals.
The recently announced and subsequently cancelled SAT adversity score was a good example of the direction in which our society should move. Not because condensing adversity into a single statistic is an optimal evaluation criterion (it probably isn’t), but because the measure was an attempt to reward merit, while addressing the systematic undervaluation of some, usually minority students, without making race a proxy for adversity. Unfortunately, the policy was cancelled rather than reconsidered.
If we can agree on our ideals, value meaningful differences, reward merit, root out our biases and tackle cultural and institutional practices that value some over others, then we can create a more just and inclusive world. This is a tall order—but it’s worth a try.
79 comments
Thank you for this article. I liked it.
One reply from the social-justice left would be that freedom, due process, primacy of the individual and respect for personal autonomy are *not*, in fact, universal values. Robin DiAngelo’s work, for instance, attempts to debunk individualism as a coherent moral framework.
Another author that writes for Areo, maybe Matt McManus, wrote an article that attempted to redefine “freedom”. He contrasted the “freedom from” something (government intervention, say), with the “freedom to do” something (buy an affordable house in a decent neighborhood). “Freedom to do” something is not part of the concept “freedom” as it was formulated by individualist ethicists. (By the way, I like Matt McManus. I often disagree with him, but I think he argues honestly and respectfully. He’s not part of the social-justice left either.)
Ben Burgis argues (if I remember right) that socialism aligns with human nature more than individualism does. I also suspect he’d deny that universal values are even possible.
All of this is to say that, while I think the arguments in this article need to be repeated loudly, the social-justice left is playing a different game. They’re approaching these issues from a meta-ethical perspective, and they’re using some of the tools of the social sciences and modern philosophy to attack the underpinnings of Western culture.
I would say “freedom from” and “freedom to do” are often mutually exclusive. To use your example, one may argue that someone should have the freedom to buy an “affordable” house in a decent neighborhood, but what if the people already owning those houses don’t want to sell for a price you consider affordable? This “freedom to do” as you’ve described, which underlies collectivism, directly conflicts with the “freedom from” as espoused in individualism. Its essentially the difference between positive and negative rights. It seems self evident to me that negative rights are the more fundamental of those two rights. If one does not respect an individuals negative rights, why should we respect their so called positive rights? The crucial question to me is, under what set of rules or principals do we draw a line when it comes to positive rights? For instance, if a man believes he has the positive right to lay with a particular woman, how would we argue against this man without appealing to the woman’s negative rights?
As for Robin DiAngelo, I’m not familiar with this person’s work, but this sounds like she means one of two things. Either she’s saying these rights are not, or have never been, granted universally, or she’s saying there is no rationality to consider personal autonomy and due process, among other rights, as rights that should be granted universally in an ideal world. The former is an obvious truth that is irrelevant to the point. The latter is moral relativism which just as much undercuts any moral system she would put forth.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I agree with you. I hope I represented the authors I mentioned accurately. I would reply to you, but I don’t think I’m knowledgeable enough to go much further. I don’t really know how you Areo, Quillette, and Arc Digital authors have the time to research all this stuff. I wish I did so I could contribute more. I find these topics fascinating.
I agree that diversity and equality of outcome are no values as such. But the more interesting question is why do some groups use these topics as tools to change society? They deeply feel the change in this direction is progress, but they do not articulate how this progress looks like and how it benefits society. They are sailing without navigation in the hope (faith) of leaving the cost of “life is unfair”, but will land at the coast of universal mediocracy. While the really privileged stay behind enjoying the new neo-feudalism and forcing the equalized masses into servitude.
This is one of the better pieces against diversity and equity I’ve read. I do agree with other pieces, but I often feel they fall short of properly articulating their arguments in a convincing way. However, this piece conveys its message extremely well.
Thank you!
This is the worst kind of blasphemy: unanswerable.
I honestly cannot tell if you are for or against what I wrote.
Yes. This is the worst kind of comment: ….. 😉
The left always says “Diversity is our strength”. No. Is there any empirical evidence that diversity increases our strength. None that I’m aware of. E pluribus unum is our strength. And there is plenty of empirical evidence of that. Out of many, one. That is the opposite of “Diversity is our strength”. The left seeks to turn the founding ideals of this country on its head.
To be fair, *some* degree of cross-pollination of people and ideas is advantageous: this is why sexual reproduction gives rise to faster adaptation than asexual reproduction. Then again, cross a horse and a donkey and you get a mule: not advantageous. So it is a matter of degree, Still, your main point holds: The first task of any living thing is to separate self from non-self. Hence the cell membrane. Break the cell membrane and the cell dies. Reproduction requires maintenance of essential genetic integrity. Too many random mutations, too many extraneous nucleotides thrown in, and the cell will die. “Diverse”, literally and etymologically, means “two ways”, and who can literally follow two paths at once going in different directions? Try, and you won’t get anywhere …
Wow. Out of many, one. So having a diverse group of people (or many points of view) make for one powerful community. Sounds like diversity is strength and E Pluribus Unum doesn’t disqualify that. Kinda reified it, actually.
“…inclusion is a good thing…”
No, “inclusion” is the worst. It means no one is allowed to criticize anyone else, or at least not favored groups. It is the death of free speech, already dominant in academia.
Diversity (racial preferences) and inclusion are BOTH anti-values. Equity too of course, as defined by the left, but has that really achieved the status of diversity and inclusion?
Interesting exchanges in the comments. Not sure whether the article is “ten a penny” or whether the responses are valued similarly, but this quality of conversation crops up a lot.
The article stakes out a position that is unremarkable and unassailable from a positivist, Enlightenment perspective. From these foundations it is almost algebraic in its deductions. Any positivist would find it eloquent, methodical, clear. It begins with defined terms and builds brick by Aristotelean brick to deductive conclusions.
Along comes the postmodernist. The postmodernist has been taught to dislike these positivist conclusions. He has been taught to mistrust anything suggested by old straight white men, especially anything suggesting a defence of any status quo. The postmodernist’s creed is that any reasoning chain professed by an old white man of any authority is an artifice of megalomania.
Note the role of “reasons”. The positivist begins with axioms then builds logical steps of some exactitude, “reasons”, wherever those steps lead. The conclusion is a discovery that follows from the logic of the reasons.
The postmodernist process is the reverse. A conclusion is invented. At its core is self-interest, but it is cloaked in loftier terms. “Reasons” are then whatever items of rhetoric can be gathered to cobble together to create a cloak of plausibility to the conclusion. There is no need for syllogistic exactitude, indeed exactitude is avoided. Precise definition of terms is avoided as well, in order to allow for maximum flexibility in the event of challenge. The process is Machiavellian, in that process doesn’t matter so long as the predetermined conclusion “wins”.
At some subconscious level the postmodernist senses cognitive dissonance: this is relieved somewhat by Freudian projection, accusing everyone else of the falsehoods he himself commits.
But because the postmodernist is not actually interested in logic, seeing logic as nothing more than a rhetorical device, the postmodernist is quite bad at it. Granted, he is capable of elementary logic on occasion, but never if the chain might lead somewhere undesired. Consequently, the postmodernist stomps and stamps indignantly over short simple syllogisms, but has not the wit to imagine reasoning chains exist of which he may not be familiar.
When faced with unfamiliar chains of reasoning threatening to lead in unwelcome directions, the postmodernist resorts to his favourite fadjective. He thinks it gives emfucis to his position. He then turns to personal abuse, changing subjects, and ultimately censorship.
What is the positivist to do?
Trusting reason, the positivist tries to patiently and deliberatively explain the reasoning sequence in smaller steps. The positivist thinks this demonstrates forbearance and rigour. But the postmodernist sees no forbearance. The postmodernist *thinks* the positivist is trying to trick him, or greedily maintain a megalomaniac position.
Ultimately the conversation breaks down. The positivist becomes frustrated that the postmodernist refuses to play along with deductive logic. The postmodernist becomes frustrated that the positivist remains so determinedly evil. The game ends.
What can be done?
Positivists cannot convince postmodernists by using positivism. Logic doesn’t work with people who think immunisations prove doctors are out to get them.
Like children, postmodernists believe in heroes and villains.
And they have their heroes.
First among these is Michel Foucault.
A serious re-examination of the life and writings of Foucault is required.
If the Pythons were young enough, we’d need a “Life of Foucault”.
For he, too, was not the Messiah, and was a very naughty boy, a P T Barnum of humanities, tickling the ears of his rapturous audiences, seductively whispering into their jealous-of-science ears that, really, scientists know nothing at all, because there’s nothing to know, because there’s no Truth … except, of course, every word ever written by himself.
Outstanding comment, Jimothy.
Thanks
My two cents are that in the past, historically marginal groups have proven their worth in a different way. They worked hard and succeeded. Irish, Jews, Asians. People tend to respect those who work hard, with the exception of SJW, who simply consider successful groups as new oppressors. I do not think that a pity for the oppressed is the best way. The best way is to support them in their struggle for success in accordance with general criteria in the society in which they live. This is a longer way, but the only right way that I know. SJW and affirmative action produce new losers only.
There is definitely a prejudice, but the desire to be fair prevails. People are not that bad as progressives think but progressives definitely capable make them bad.
Personaly, I’ve always seen the idea of “X-person’s qualities over Race/Sex/Nationality/Class/Looks” as a very important idea to keep close to my heart.
Saying that, I really dislike the new “30% females or minor social groups at the top quota for big businesses” that my government wants to implement.
The police did it around 5 years ago, where they wanted to be “a mirror of our society.”
Well, now they find out that around 1/5th of the applicants is failing horribly at being police officers or left the force…
Funnily enough, they also found out that the quota worked not as well as they’d liked. People have a worse view of police officers because they aren’t doing their job correctly. And… Well, people don’t really care if they are being arrested or given a ticket by a person of their sex, race or nationality. It just doesn’t make recieving a ticket or getting arrested any better. I am not recieving that ticket with a smile because “I got that ticket by a straight white male today”
I think that the same will happen to all the companies that are going to be forced to take in massive amounts of female top positions, the overal quality of the workforce will diminish instead of improve.
But don’t get me wrong: I am totally in favor of getting more females into executive postions, I just don’t think that forcing companies to take on 30% females into the top is going to help the companies or the females being put into those positions.
Identity should never matter in my honest opinion, skill and qualities are far more important.
There will always be people who make bad decisions, who don’t want to work hard, who are drunks, etc. Should they have the same outcomes as someone who works 2 jobs and is thoughtful and careful? I might have gotten in med school but I didn’t want to work that hard–is that someone else’s fault? Why does no one lament that asians in the US make more than whites (on average)–note the high emphasis among asians on schooling and seriousness.
In a more practical vein, some countries like Malaysia have quotas for certain ethnic groups and it has fostered resentment and group hatred. Not a good outcome.
This article assumes that focusing on equity or diversity would necessarily be based entirely and solely upon identity, with no attention to the objective skills required for a job. But hiring an unqualified person would be self-defeating. If the resume doesn’t reflect the candidate’s fitness, no amount of identity-appropriateness can rectify that. A good example relates to the historical lack of representation of women in symphony orchestras, despite the large number of women who graduate from music conservatories. This problem has been somewhat successfully addressed by introducing blind auditions, where the candidate performs behind a screen so that their sex is hidden from the hirer. But in order to implement this new policy, there had to be an acknowledgment that there was indeed inequity in hiring based on unconscious bias. The solution was not simply to fling the doors open and let in every amateur female musician in town. The standards of the orchestra still needed to be met, and they are very high. The statistics are clear: once blind auditions were introduced, the hiring of women increased dramatically. (There are still quantitative and qualitative disparities in hiring based on which instruments are deemed culturally “appropriate” for each sex, so that girls are still often encouraged to play softer, smaller instruments like flute and violin, as opposed to louder, bigger instruments like the trombone or tuba. But even that is beginning to change. It’s a fascinating topic, for another day.)
Equity in hiring has to be achieved through making conscious, extra efforts to seek out qualified candidates from underrepresented groups, not by lowering the standards of the institution. This may not always be possible or easy, but it’s worth it to make the effort.
I agree with much of what you say here. I am very much in favor of “blind auditions”, in a more generalized sense, and is what I advocate in this piece. I also mention its important to tackle our biases and monitor our notions of merit to make sure they are not inadvertently favored towards one group. I think your blind auditions example is fairly analogous to my SAT adversity score example.
With regards to culturally appropriate instruments, you can draw an analogy to STEM fields. There are cultural forces that push men towards STEM and women towards more nurturing careers. This will result in disparities, as you’ve noted in your example. I think it is reasonable to suggest we ought to examine these cultural forces and make certain efforts to address those forces. Reasonable people can disagree on what specific efforts ought to be made. I think the banning of stereotypical gender roles in commercials in the UK is an affront to liberty, but encouraging girls to play with connector sets seems fine to me. When discussing gender, its also very important to acknowledge the natural differences between men and women that shape the cultural forces and also play a role in disparate outcomes. These differences are a separate but related topic.
I disagree with this “Equity in hiring has to be achieved through making conscious, extra efforts to seek out qualified candidates from underrepresented groups, not by lowering the standards of the institution.” I think pursuing equity, as in equality of outcome, is an immoral practice. I think we ought to make conscious, extra efforts to root out our biases while maintaining our standards and then letting the chips fall where they may. There is no need to have 50% women orchestra members and doggedly pursuing that 50% target will almost assuredly lead to discrimination. I care that the barriers in an individual woman’s way are removed. Once removed, its wholly up to the individual to make their own way using the same standards to judge them as anyone else.
I agree that once we’ve reached some degree of parity, we don’t need to strive for precisely 50% women orchestra members. I also agree with your analogy between culturally acceptable instruments and STEM. Powerful constricting forces are at work here, and they act as pressures on women from the culture-at-large and from within women ourselves. These take a long time to unravel.
However, I consider blind auditions to be an example of “making conscious, extra efforts to seek out qualified candidates from underrepresented groups.” A problem was perceived and acknowledged, i.e. inequity in the hiring of women. Then a conscious, extra effort was made to seek out these qualified candidates through devising a system of blind auditions.
We’ll have to agree to disagree that seeking a larger pool of qualified talent from which to choose, in order to give a fairer shot to traditionally marginalized groups, is immoral, especially considering how often “who you know” serves as the basis for hiring in any professional field.
“However, I consider blind auditions to be an example of “making conscious, extra efforts to seek out qualified candidates from underrepresented groups.” A problem was perceived and acknowledged, i.e. inequity in the hiring of women. Then a conscious, extra effort was made to seek out these qualified candidates through devising a system of blind auditions.”
This doesn’t conflict with what I’ve put forward in this piece. I wouldn’t call blind auditions “seeking out” minorities though. That is a race/gender blind approach (quite literally in this case). My problem is with valuing certain traits over another and giving preference to those traits in meritorious selection processes.
“We’ll have to agree to disagree that seeking a larger pool of qualified talent from which to choose, in order to give a fairer shot to traditionally marginalized groups, is immoral, especially considering how often “who you know” serves as the basis for hiring in any professional field.”
I don’t think we disagree very much, but what you’ve described here as giving a fairer shot to traditionally marginalized groups, is not an accurate description of the little bit of disagreement we have. I am for giving a fairer shot to traditionally marginalized groups. I am against giving preference based on their immutable traits.
Nepotism is a related but separate discussion. But you can be opposed to both nepotism and enforced diversity/equity at the same time, they’re not mutually exclusive.
The blind audition study did not show that it increased women in orchestras. That study has been highly exaggerated in the press. See https://reason.com/2019/10/22/orchestra-study-blind-auditions-gelman/
Follow the links, how this study is represented in the main stream press should be a scandal.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” – Lewis Carroll
The probelm with equity which means fair and impartial is if there is a problem redefining it’s meaning, the solution to which would be to stick to its true meaning. In fact I think the problem is not ‘equity’ at all even as an incorrect label. The problem is equality and it is a campaign for equality, which is the label most commonly used, that should be the target.
Pedantic I know but equity is what we should be aiming for, and it is equality, paticularily of outcome which we need to recognise as a destructuve utopian fantasy.
How can you defend these axioms ?
1 Benefiting an individual at the expense of another individual is inherently immoral.
2 Valuing one individual over another on the basis of race, gender or other immutable characteristics is inherently immoral.
For the first, any competition benefits one individual at the expense of another. Not every one can get the promotion, or win the gold medal.
As for the second. Race is a tricky concept and is used in different ways. If it is being used in a sense of kinship or genetic relation I can certainly see how discriminating on that basis is moral. If I favor my mother over all other women in terms of access to my resources, protection etc. Am I being immoral ? A similar case can be made for discriminating on the basis of gender. I chose to have sexual relations with and marry a woman, not a man. I think it will be of great benefit to us both. Am I committing the crime of gender discrimination ?
The case for “other immutable characteristic” as a basis for discrimination, both positive and negative is also very strong. Sight or blindness, high or low IQ are immutable characteristics. I am willing to give positions of power and prestige to the clever or sighted that I will not give to the blind or mentally impaired.
Or am I missing something ?
Jake, good questions. First thing I’d like to mention is the first moral axiom originally read, “Benefiting an individual at the non-consensual expense of another individual is inherently immoral.” but this got changed during editing and I missed this correction on my subsequent read through. I am trying to see if I can get this changed now that its been posted.
Both examples you gave are consensual activities. If I apply for a job, I know I am competing with others for the same job and will be judged on the qualifications I bring to the job. One cannot be in competition with another without consenting to the competition (baring coercion).
The first axiom is essentially a restatement of the non-aggression principal. It could also be restated as “I can swing my fist as much as I want so long as I don’t hit your face”. I don’t consider consensual competition as harmful to the participants.
In the examples I give, such as admission to a university, the participants agree to be judged on their merits, not their immutable characteristics. Perhaps one could argue if they did agree on being judged by their traits that this would then not be immoral. But I think this would raise the obvious question as to why someone would agree to be judged on a trait they have no control over. I imagine the answer would be some form of coercion or external (such as cultural or peer) pressure.
Your objection to my second axiom leads us to a question of what forms of human groupings are acceptable, or what forms of tribalism are acceptable. This is a difficult question and I’ve considered writing a piece on this as well. Sam Harris talks frequently about how tribalism is the cause of a lot of our social ills, and if we could transcend tribalism, we could transcend those ills. I tend to agree, but there are some forms of human groupings that are positive rather than negative, which I’ve never seen him mention.
I think if the immutable traits are specifically relevant to the “task” at hand, then those traits become merits relative to the task. I use “task” in a very broad sense for lack of a better word. For instance, is it immoral to audition only black men to play a role for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr? In this narrow example, the trait is relevant to the task. Same principal applies to the examples you gave, such as relationships.
If you disagree with what I’ve said, I’d like to know why specifically, and what moral principals you propose in their place. On what grounds would you call Jim Crow laws or sexist hiring practices against women in the workplace immoral?
Well reasoned, Mr. Butterhof. Particularly “If selection criteria are designed to promote equity, some individuals must benefit at the expense of others, on the basis of their immutable characteristics. Given a finite number of positions, this is a mathematically necessary and indefensible consequence.”
My only quibble, if it could even be considered such, is that you may be a trifle too optimistic. I value and appreciate that optimism, but it may have influenced you in your decision to refrain from observing that the self-interest of incompetent selectors incentivizes them strongly to promote homogeneity. In that context, mediocrity becomes its own reward. Nevertheless, it’s always refreshing to read an intelligently reasoned article that’s written with charitable intent.
For those of you who wanna create “public”opinion – by opening your browser in private mode you can put for the author as many “dislikes”as you want 🙂
And likes too, though I don’t condone it
Yeah, it’s typical of the intolerant Left to use dishonest techniques to manufacture the appearance of a false consensus.
It’s why banning and deplatforming are so popular and widespread. You can’t win on the merits, so by banishing all dissent, your ideas must win by default, as they are the only ones allowed to be presented. Pretty weak, and it relies on suppressing change.
True, but of course so does the Right, you merely choose to “generously” overlook it. For example, imageboards are typically far-right, filled with routine lies and trolling, to the point where you can get banned if you oppose actual nazism. Also the White House has become a place of routine deception, with loud applause from the Right. It’s the age-old trick to champion “fairness” by calling out unfair, but common tactics – only when “your” team is on the receiving end.
None of you actually believe in fairness. You keep mouthing the words, but I’ve never seen it on areo. The very fact that they intentionally built their website in a way that encourages downvote spamming while championing “free expression” says it all.
Ah yes; the old Right v Left accusation competition. Each sees a certain homogeneity in the other. So one might refer to “The Left”, or indeed “The Right”, as if each is some sort of corporation in which each member has responsibility for all, or a partnership carrying liability jointly and severally. The tribalism is perpetuated by those who enjoy engaging in it. Once again I love Jonathan Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind”, which is a paperback length expounding of Solzhenitsyn’s “The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every man”.
Agree. With people who think in cliches, there’s nothing to talk about
This is a great analysis with very well-reasoned points. Thank you.
Please disregard any trolls. They are not worth your attention.
Thank you! I’m just always amazed at people’s reactions to what I consider to be a reasoned take.
Articles like this are appearing all over the place – usually from conservative and classical liberal publications. Yours is a bit run of the mill. It adds nothing to new to the debate. Especially the weak conclusion, what have you got to offer as an alternative to combat “actual” inequality?
What exactly do you mean by inequality?
Mainly social class and everything that comes with it.
It’s hard to offer an alternative to combat “actual” inequality that wasn’t already addressed in my piece in the “Path Forward” section when you give such a vague answer.
And you think class based inequality is vague and not real? Huh!
So what did you offer:
“We also ought to value the qualifications and competencies an individual brings to a given task, while recognizing our biases and reevaluating our definitions of merit accordingly. This will help us achieve an inclusive and just society.”
So nothing much at all. The irony of calling me vague…
Like I said, such articles are ten a penny. Anyone can write them, Yet, oddly, none of them venture out to tackle any real world examples. For examples:
How would you sort out the lack of educational achievement of African Americans?
Okay. I am off the ledge, and I think this should largely be considered a class based inequality rather than a racial one. It mirroring the lack of educational achievement among the White working class kids (esp boys) from North West and North East of England?
Or how about the life exapectancy gap with two separate boroughs of London? Which is outright a class inequality.
Well for starters, why is the lack of educational achievement among African Americans a problem, but not a lack of educational achievement among whites a problem? If lack of educational achievement is a problem, it is a problem regardless of the skin color of the individuals who are lacking achievement.
I make a similar argument in more detail in another article, here: https://areomagazine.com/2019/03/27/racializing-environmentalism/
“Does the skin color of the person emitting the pollution she is breathing really matter to a poor person, white or black? If I’m a poor white person living in downtown Chicago, why does it matter if people who look like me are the ones polluting my air? And, if I’m black, why does it matter that people who don’t look like me are predominately emitting the pollution? Isn’t the problem the pollution itself? The source of the pollution is important—but the author relegates the source (consumption of goods, correlated with wealth) to a footnote and chooses to mislead people into thinking this is some type of racial warfare, inadvertent or not.”
If lack of educational achievement is a problem, then the question becomes how to solve that problem. At no point does the justification for solving such a problem become dependent on race. If it were dependent on race, then if we imagine a hypothetical scenario where some other race were at the bottom of some disparity, we would no longer have a justification to help those people given our original justification relied on race. There is a fundamental disconnect in the way you view the world, and the way the left in general views the world, and the way the world ought to be viewed.
Oddly, you choose education to give as an example when in my piece I specifically picked a real world policy as a guide for how we ought to tackle the systemic undervaluation of merit of disadvantaged (and often minority) students in education.
“The recently announced and subsequently cancelled SAT adversity score was a good example of the direction in which our society should move. Not because condensing adversity into a single statistic is an optimal evaluation criterion (it probably isn’t), but because the measure was an attempt to reward merit, while addressing the systematic undervaluation of some, usually minority students, without making race a proxy for adversity. Unfortunately, the policy was cancelled rather than reconsidered.”
You are unbelievable!!!
“Well for starters, why is the lack of educational achievement among African Americans a problem, but not a lack of educational achievement among whites a problem?”
EXACTLY MY POINT! Can you not read? That is what I said. It is mainly a class based problem.
– –
“If lack of educational achievement is a problem, then the question becomes how to solve that problem.”
It is not just an educational problem. It is a wider class problem. You know… one example among other. Another was Health.
– – –
“Oddly, you choose education to give as an example”
Not oddly. I read. Unlike you.
I also gave example of health.
– – –
Like I said. This is just a ten a penny article appearing everywhere. In fact, several books have been written on it just this year. And you sort of have got no clue as to how to solve actual problems.
– – –
“At no point does the justification for solving such a problem become dependent on race.”
Actually you are wrong there. The education gap is visibly greater among Blacks. And then there is the very real question of Blacks and the IQ gap.
Even if most problems with the African-American education gap are solved by general solutions as I think they are. At least partly they have to be specifically tailored to that paritcular group.
Just like solution for White working class kids in NW NE England will have to be tailored to some degree. So race to some degree does matter.
– –
Why don’t you read what I’ve said this time eh?
“How would you sort out the lack of educational achievement of African Americans?”
It seems it is you, Rayadh, who is having reading comprehension problems. You claim to be making a class-based argument yet you explicitly refer to blacks in that question. Kevin was responding to the question you asked.
Don’t be an arse licking tit.
Look what I said:
“and I think this should largely be considered a class based inequality rather than a racial one”
I was ASKED for a specific example for being too vague.
– –
“Kevin was responding to the question you asked.”
By misreading either delibrately or he was a bit drunk. I said the EXACT opposite of what he thought I’d said. And he carped out a long spiel of nothingness.
“How would you sort out the lack of educational achievement of African Americans?”
This was your question specifically, and I said if lack of educational achievement is a problem then there is no need to throw in the last three words of the question. I read your response just fine, thank you.
Yes, you did give an example of health disparities in London, but I don’t know very much about London or the health disparity statistics in general. Given that, what I can say, (and this speaks to one of my larger points) is that a disparity in and of itself is not an injustice. For instance, if the health disparities that you cite are primarily due to differences in personal decisions, this does not strike me as an injustice. This portion of my article addresses this point: “Naturally occurring diversity and equity are indications—though not proof—of a tolerant and inclusive society. A lack of diversity and equity may indicate bias.” A disparity is simply an indication to look closer and see if there is some injustice occurring, much like a lack of diversity and equity. Who defines what is an injustice is a good question, and I list two moral axioms to address the question and how the topic at hand, the pursuit of diversity and equity, violate these axioms.
“Even if most problems with the African-American education gap are solved by general solutions as I think they are. At least partly they have to be specifically tailored to that particular group.”
I’d have to see some data to show that solutions must be tailored specifically around African Americans to accept this point. Either way, my point was that the moral justification for seeking a solution cannot be dependent on race, which is what often happens in the real world, such as affirmative action. To contrast affirmative action, I presented the College Boards attempted solution on the SAT adversity score. I would have to know the specifics of a proposed solution to say this for sure, but tailoring a solution to a group does not strike me as the same as justifying the solution based on the traits of the group.
I agree that it makes much more sense to focus on class or wealth based inequalities than inequalities between groups defined by their immutable characteristics. That being said, I think focusing on inequality in general is a mistake. We should be more interested in absolute outcomes rather than outcomes relative to some other group. There is a huge disparity in wealth between say, Jordan Peterson and Bill Gates, but Jordan Peterson is doing just fine for himself. There is a huge gap between men and women in prestigious positions, but so long as individual women are not experiencing road blocks due to their gender, this does not strike me as a problem. Perhaps you think women are experiencing road blocks, but then I’d have to know what road blocks specifically you claim they are facing and what your evidence is in order to evaluate the claim.
“Like I said. This is just a ten a penny article appearing everywhere. In fact, several books have been written on it just this year.”
This is simply irrelevant. Articles discussing inequality in minority communities or the rich and poor could just as easily be described as “ten penny article(s) appearing everywhere”. Just because something has been discussed at length means its not worth discussing?
As for what I’ve “added” to the debate, I put forth axioms which can be debated, modified, and accepted or rejected. I put forth the rationale behind diversity and equity and why these rationals are lacking from a moral and logical perspective based on those axioms. Finally, I put forth an appropriate generalized solution backed up by a specific example that details how we ought to craft selection criteria for meritorious positions and where our definitions of merit may lack. And if you look at the comments on FB, Twitter, and Reddit, the comments have been mostly positive or have sparked further discussions, which I think is an indication that I have in fact added something to the conversation.
And per your own advice, please read my response carefully and address what is actually said, not what you think it says.
No you didn’t. You are a liar. Look at what I said:
“and I think this should largely be considered a class based inequality rather than a racial one”
Look what you accused me of:
“At no point does the justification for solving such a problem become dependent on race. If it were dependent on race, then if we imagine a hypothetical scenario where some other race were at the bottom of some disparity, we would no longer have a justification to help those people given our original justification relied on race. [[There is a fundamental disconnect in the way you view the world]]”
– –
“Yes, you did give an example of health disparities in London, but I don’t know very much about London or the health disparity statistics in general.”
You didn’t need to know about the example. You were asked to provide a general solution to class based inequality.
– –
“I’d have to see some data to show that solutions must be tailored specifically around African Americans to accept this point.”
No you don’t. What the hell are you on about? There are specific culture/race related problems that one at least has to keep in mind when sorting out a specific problem. And it is a specific problem where race is at least prominent. Compare this with achievements of Asian/Indian American immigrants to US for difference.
The point was just about visibility of a minority based on race. It was not about offering specific solutions.
– –
Like I said. It is run of the mill article one could knock out in half an hour. Beyond that you haven’t got much of clue. And I think you are sort of suprised it hasn’t gone down too well…
I think I’ve already responded to many of the points you raised, but you haven’t responded to mine. You ask what’s my solution for solving class disparities and I asked why should we focus on solving disparities to begin with? A disparity should merely be seen as an indication an injustice may be occuring, as I wrote in the piece. If a disparity is caused by an injustice, then we should focus on solving the injustice and not the disparity. If a disparity is not caused by an injustice, then I don’t see why it should be solved. That is my generalized answer to “solving inequality”. To get more specific than that, I’d need a more specific injustice to address. You’ve given me two, race disparities in education and life expectancy disparities. Both of which I did answer.
What counts as an injustice is of course essential to actually implementing my generalized solution, which this article addresses. I state a lack of diversity and a lack of equity among immutable characteristics in a population is not an injustice. I explain why in the article. I also state treating diversity and equity as values that ought to be pursued IS an injustice and I explain why in the article. I also offer an alternative solution that better solves the problems that diversity and equity initiatives are supposed to solve in the article.
You’ve not answered my question on inequalities and you’ve not addressed the basic points I’ve put forward in my piece. If this really is a “ten penny” article, then surely you have thought through these issues quite extensively and can enlighten everyone that is unfortunate enough to have read this far down in our conversation. Perhaps you can start by addressing the 4 points bulleted in the article? This should be very easy for you.
Not how it works:
“and I think this should largely be considered a class based inequality rather than a racial one”
Look what you accused me of:
“At no point does the justification for solving such a problem become dependent on race. If it were dependent on race, then if we imagine a hypothetical scenario where some other race were at the bottom of some disparity, we would no longer have a justification to help those people given our original justification relied on race. [[There is a fundamental disconnect in the way you view the world]]”
Either explain this. Or jog on.
– –
Let me repeat:
Such articles are ten a penny and are appearing everywhere on conservative and classical liberal sites. Yours doesn’t add anything new. Fact!
Conjecture: You probably opened ten tabs and whacked it out.
You’ve repeatedly shown your intellectual dishonest. Fight your windmills elsewhere.
Lol! I like how ONLY now I am dishonest. Especially when I am waving that “thing” at you. Else you would’ve continued this conversation.
What a nasty fucker you are…
You’re being disingenuous here. The author has been nothing but courteous in his responses to you, yet you continue to display boorish behavior. Please make it a policy to act online as you would in a face-to-face situation.
You are probably him! Lol! Do you know meaning of the word “disingenuous”? It is being dishonest. Not being polite to this fucker [likely you] does not equal to being dishonest.
And if the fucker [you] was in the least bit “courteous” then he would not have lied the way he did.
“Please make it a policy to act online as you would in a face-to-face situation.”
Lol! You do realize I can do and act as I wish. And it is not my fault I cannot reach over punch him [you] in the face. Or what I prefer… kick right up the goolies!
Lol!
My sympathies over your recent declaration of intellectual bankruptcy. It appears that you would benefit from a loan of a few functioning brain cells, but their lack seems to have led to a refusal of Mr. Butterhof’s offer. You would be well-advised to reconsider.
Lol!
interesting exchange. Just to add an observation – I think he meant disingenuous not as ‘dishonest’, but as in “there’s no possible way this can be a genuine attempt at a conversation,” because of how extreme your responses are worded (“fucker,” “liar,” etc.), combined with how you have several times misrepresented and oversimplified what he is saying. I don’t necessarily agree with the author – I think it is problematic to not recognize if a disparity is overwhelmingly associated with a certain race or community because I do think we’ve arrived at our current situation through history of genuinely racist and awful beliefs and policies. But I think he did a fair job of trying to engage with the points you bring up, even if you were not willing to.
I love how these responses are now popping up and they “conveniently” circle around the issue. Kev, you are a bit butthurt I get it. But either man the fuck up and answer what I objected to, or just fuck off.
Calling out a lie straightforward isn’t extreme.
“because of how extreme your responses are worded”
My wording noticeably went extreme AFTER I think the motherfucker likely misread what I said. He had and out, but chose to double down on it. Not my problem.
Now if another tit is going to respond, then don’t bother to answer to this. What would be the point?
As for you… fuck off you disingenuous fuck!
I made a point of saying I don’t think African American gap in education is racial thing rather a class based inequality. I don’t see how the fucker could comeback and claim otherwise!
Rather he said I was vague, so on his asking I provided examples of African American education AND of Whites in UK [and also health].
It went sour for me from there.
– – –
Now you fucking “disingenuous ” cunt don’t comment on this if you are going ignore it.
And try not to create so many usernames…
I may be a fucker, but you lack integrity.
I did not “accuse” you of anything. The comment of mine you keep bringing up was in response to your your question of achievement gaps in the black community and the fact that the article in question was related to race and gender, not class. I was making basic, and relevant philosophical points.
I then admitted to you that it DID make more sense to view these things from a class perspective rather than a racial one, but this is still a flawed perspective. I wrote:
“I agree that it makes much more sense to focus on class or wealth based inequalities than inequalities between groups defined by their immutable characteristics. That being said, I think focusing on inequality in general is a mistake. We should be more interested in absolute outcomes rather than outcomes relative to some other group.”
Rather than engage with the arguments I’ve put forward and the multiple questions I posed, you engaged dishonestly, immaturely, and I’ll repeat, with a serious lack of integrity. Perhaps you should read through this conversation again without the assumption that I’m some sort of conniving snake in the grass and maybe this will shed some light on your own personal faults.
It’s a shame you’ve chosen to throw a public temper tantrum rather than engage honestly because you clearly posses some nuggets of wisdom, but your behavior makes this conversation not worth my time. Good day.
I did mean ‘disingenuous’. You are choosing to take offense where none was given, avoiding debate, and typing insults. It sounds like you have an addiction to negativity.
I wish there was a downvote button for viscous propaganda pieces from hypocrites like Kevin.
What exactly makes this “viscous” or “propaganda”? And how exactly am I a “hypocrite”. Please be specific.
You’re joking, right?
No, please elaborate. I am particularly curious as to how this makes me a hypocrite.
The only possible thing I can think of is the common place, but intellectually vacuous argument that any white man object to‘indemnity politics’ can only be doing so to protect their own power and privilege. You’re a ‘hypocrite’ by your failure to acknowledge your position is society is due to the benefits you receive from systemic injustice. Therefore defending that system is a inherently bad faith argument. Allusions to any form of universalism is also a bad faith argument, as it’s simply an appeal to white western values masquerading as universal (Don’t start me on every that’s total bs in what I just wrote).
Otherwise, it’s just a troll with no thought behind it at all.
I think you nailed it.
Universalism is the fairest system we have. Without it, we end up conferring special statuses to different groups based on historical injustices or perceived inequities. When you confer unfair privilege to one group, you enter into the politics of jealousy and resentment (like the Nazis had with the Jews). The fact that Universalism originated in the West doesn’t make it a bad thing. Ultimately, it’s also what stopped European powers colonizing more of the world.
The fact that people are being indoctrinated to believe Universalism is unfair is a worrying trend.
“Universalism is the fairest system we have.”
Exactly what is universalism? I thought communism was universalism or are you just rebranding?
Universalism is rooted on laws and policies that treat people the same. I said ‘fair’, but I should probably have said ‘just’ instead.
One of my professors said that black people shouldn’t be punished for petty crimes because they aren’t able to own their behavior due to a legacy of slavery. I disagree with her because this is not universal justice, but social justice. She calls it ‘equity’. Also, by doing this she inadvertently places black people on the same level as children or imbeciles i.e, they lack personal responsibility and unaware of how their actions might hurt others.
The problem with social justice is that it needs a social elite to dispense it. It is also able to circumnavigate due process and courts of law because it draws heavily on cancel culture to achieve its ends. The current target is old white men, one of the few demographics of which it is currently socially acceptable to ridicule and vilify publicly.
Some might think that this is a happy state of affairs and that old white men have it coming, but this is naive thinking. Those who champion social justice do so at their peril. Its targets change often and those who benefit from it today are just as likely to be its villains tomorrow.
“One of my professors said that black people shouldn’t be punished for petty crimes because they aren’t able to own their behavior due to a legacy of slavery.”
I find this a disgustingly racist position to take, not so much because it discriminates against everyone except black people but because it assumes that black people are incapable of controlling their own behaviour and acting as morally as everyone else. This is a very racist position to take.
Whatever the morality of such a position, in practical terms it is a catastrophic policy with forseeable results of a massively increased incarceration rate amongst black people once they graduate from minor to more significant crimes as it seems inevitable some proportion will.
It’s a pure example of the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Is there a Universalist manifesto?
Please elaborate on your position
How is this “viscous (or “vicious?”) propaganda,” and what exactly makes this author a hypocrite?
I think “badspeak” is the term they were searching for.