Are colour and gender 'blindness' the best policies?

[ruby sparks]

Is a 'blind' (or neutral) approach to certain social and political issues (I have named two in the thread title as prominent examples) overall better or worse in terms of advancing progress towards beneficial change, compared to the opposite (not having a blind or neutral approach)?

As I understand it, there are pros and cons to both approaches, so I thought a discussion might be informative.

As ever, I think it would be great if the discussion could include as many facts and as much data as possible. It's not that I'm against statements of personal opinion such as 'I personally think X is better than Y' or 'if we did X instead of Y it would (hypothetically) be better' because those are subjective/abstract/philosophical statements which do not readily resolve the OP question in an empirical, objective or real world sense, and I am a big fan of those when it comes to answers to almost everything (while accepting that accurate answers are not as readily available in the so-called 'soft' sciences).

My instinct, as nearly always, would be to say that the answer to the question is going to be variegated, that 'blind' policies are better in some ways and worse in others and that the question doesn't have a binary set of answers, and that as such, the best approach is going to involve a mix of both blindness and recognition and that the important (and trickiest) part of any answer is going to be what the mix should be in this or that situation or sphere of activity.

 

[ruby sparks]

To kick things off, and offer a very famous example which I believe is useful at illustrating how the answer to the question is far from being binary or uncomplicated.....

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Most people will recognise that quote as being from a speech by Martin Luther King Jr. It is often cited in support of colour blindness and against things like affirmative action and identity politics.

So, time for the thread's first 'nuancing fact': Martin Luther King Jr was at the same time an advocate of affirmative action and identity politics.

Below are two articles which suggest that Martin Luther King's views have been deliberately or accidentally misrepresented and over-simplified (for example by opponents of affirmative action) and that while he may indeed have had a certain dream about a possible future society, this did not mean that he believed the best way to get there was through colour blindness, or indeed by avoiding expression of identities:

Misreading the Dream: Color-Blindness and the Distortion of Martin Luther King Jr.
http://www.timwise.org/2003/01/misr...-and-the-distortion-of-martin-luther-king-jr/

The Dangers of Misappropriation: Misusing Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Legacy to Prove the Colorblind Thesis
https://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/justice06.htm

Note that 'affirmative action' and 'colour (or gender) blind policies' are not opposites of each other, even though they are nowadays often treated in discussions as if they were.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Generally, discrimination on race or gender is not a good thing. The only exceptions I can think of is where being of a particular race or gender is accepted to actually make somebody better suited and more qualified for the job. That would include an actor playing a historical character that was a particular race, or a hostage negotiator or police officer in a racially sensitive and potentially violent area, or somebody conducting a strip search, etc.

 

[TSwizzle]

Generally, discrimination on race or gender is not a good thing. The only exceptions I can think of is where being of a particular race or gender is accepted to actually make somebody better suited and more qualified for the job. That would include an actor playing a historical character that was a particular race, or a hostage negotiator or police officer in a racially sensitive and potentially violent area, or somebody conducting a strip search, etc.

We have that in the NFL and NBA already.

 

[Tammuz]

Generally, discrimination on race or gender is not a good thing. The only exceptions I can think of is where being of a particular race or gender is accepted to actually make somebody better suited and more qualified for the job. That would include an actor playing a historical character that was a particular race, or a hostage negotiator or police officer in a racially sensitive and potentially violent area, or somebody conducting a strip search, etc.

I completely agree with this.

I do not at all find the thought appealing that there should be racial stratification in society. The classically liberal idea of an individual-based society is prefereable to all other societal conceptions.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As ever, I think it would be great if the discussion could include as many facts and as much data as possible.

This I don't understand. What facts or data is needed to support the view that race discrimination is generally wrong? Do we need to give facts and data to establish that racism is generally wrong as well?

 

[Derec]

We have that in the NFL and NBA already.

Obviously wee need race-conscious hiring policies in the NBA. Move over LeBron, we need diversity!

 

[Derec]

Misreading the Dream: Color-Blindness and the Distortion of Martin Luther King Jr.
http://www.timwise.org/2003/01/misr...-and-the-distortion-of-martin-luther-king-jr/

The Dangers of Misappropriation: Misusing Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Legacy to Prove the Colorblind Thesis
https://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/justice06.htm

I am going to go out on a limb and guess the authors are both strong proponents of racial preferences for black people.

Note that 'affirmative action' and 'colour (or gender) blind policies' are not opposites of each other, even though they are nowadays often treated in discussions as if they were.

Maybe when the term was invented, things were different, but these days "affirmative action" means racial preferences (things like accepting black medical students with significantly lower grades and MCAT scores than white or Asian ones), and is therefore not reconcilable with race/gender blind policies.

 

[laughing dog]

Maybe when the term was invented, things were different, but these days "affirmative action" means racial preferences (things like accepting black medical students with significantly lower grades and MCAT scores than white or Asian ones), and is therefore not reconcilable with race/gender blind policies.
View attachment 19192

You have no clue what AA means or not. I have worked for 3 employers in my adult working life. All 3 practiced AA which meant in every case to make extra efforts to recruit qualified minority applicants for job openings. It did not mean diluting standards in that effort.

 

[Derec]

You have no clue what AA means or not. I have worked for 3 employers in my adult working life. All 3 practiced AA which meant in every case to make extra efforts to recruit qualified minority applicants for job openings. It did not mean diluting standards in that effort.

How do you know that there was no dilution? The chart above shows what AA has led to in medical school admissions - far lower standard for admission of black and hispanic applicants. Do you think that's a good thing?

 

[Jarhyn]

Alright, I guess I get to repeat this in another thread: the proper stance of the law would be to completely remove all categories from any mention under that law, and replace them with a list of explicit categories that DO authorize discrimination, and a general principle on which categories unnamed but still germane to the context in which they happen may be used to discriminate. Things such as "previously committed a theft on premises", "making overtures to exclusion or fundamental superiority of an arbitrary class on premises", "disruptive behavior on premises", or the like spring to mind for 'classes authorizing discrimination against service'.

And then everything else is named as an invalid basis for discrimination.

To service neutrality in certain spheres (employment interviews, housing, loans, etc.) All applicants can easily have PII sanitized to "hashed" or "proxy" values, and reviewed in that manner. It would take some infrastructural change and that WOULD be rather expensive initially, but it wouldn't take more than a decade, and after that, maybe some blessed sanity.

 

[laughing dog]

You have no clue what AA means or not. I have worked for 3 employers in my adult working life. All 3 practiced AA which meant in every case to make extra efforts to recruit qualified minority applicants for job openings. It did not mean diluting standards in that effort.

How do you know that there was no dilution?

Because I was there and witnessed how AA was and is practiced at those institutions. AA does not necessarily mean racial preferences.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Generally, discrimination on race or gender is not a good thing. The only exceptions I can think of is where being of a particular race or gender is accepted to actually make somebody better suited and more qualified for the job. That would include an actor playing a historical character that was a particular race, or a hostage negotiator or police officer in a racially sensitive and potentially violent area, or somebody conducting a strip search, etc.

Agreed, although I'll accept a much broader definition of "actor"--jobs where playing a role is simply part of a job. For example, I have no problem with ethnic restaurants limiting their front staff to the ethnicity of the restaurant.

I had never thought of hostage negotiator, I doubt it's much of an issue because how often does the bad guy actually see the negotiator? I do see your point, though. I think more of a factor would be the language(s) the negotiator speaks--better to have one that speaks the bad guy's primary language at a native level.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To service neutrality in certain spheres (employment interviews, housing, loans, etc.) All applicants can easily have PII sanitized to "hashed" or "proxy" values, and reviewed in that manner. It would take some infrastructural change and that WOULD be rather expensive initially, but it wouldn't take more than a decade, and after that, maybe some blessed sanity.

Yup, this is the approach I would like to see--whenever possible deny the decision makers access to the information that is typically used to discriminate. I don't see that it has to be all that expensive, though. Most stuff is done via e-mail these days--provide a government remailer that gives you an arbitrary but consistent name and address. (You set up an account, it picks a random name from it's database and replaces all instances of your name with that name, reversing the process when dealing with replies.) Make any communication by either side that seeks or provides prohibited information subject to a fine.

It will get more complex with in-person interviews with small businesses, though. I suspect most of them could be handled by providing government offices for interviews that allow talking without sight but hands-on jobs are going to be problematic. I think the best answer is to permit breaking the sanitizing when it's needed to determine performance.

(Note that at least locally this sanitizing would have done nothing about the "redlining" in home loans--from looking at the data it's obvious the banks didn't care what race the borrower was, but rather didn't like writing low-down mortgages in areas that were not expected to appreciate much.)

- - - Updated - - -

You have no clue what AA means or not. I have worked for 3 employers in my adult working life. All 3 practiced AA which meant in every case to make extra efforts to recruit qualified minority applicants for job openings. It did not mean diluting standards in that effort.

How do you know that there was no dilution?

Because I was there and witnessed how AA was and is practiced at those institutions. AA does not necessarily mean racial preferences.

Doesn't mean there weren't more subtle means of preferences.

 

[laughing dog]

Doesn't mean there weren't more subtle means of preferences.

I know I didn't witness them. I know what the processes were and what was expected. I guess we will never know for 100% certainty.

On the other hand, you have no clue what this institutions were, or the ethos and s in them or the integrity and scruples of the people involved.

 

[ruby sparks]

As ever, I think it would be great if the discussion could include as many facts and as much data as possible.

This I don't understand. What facts or data is needed to support the view that race discrimination is generally wrong? Do we need to give facts and data to establish that racism is generally wrong as well?

We have talked about that many times in other threads, so partly for that reason I am not all that interested in repeating my answers to that particular question again here. Also, this particular thread is asking a slightly different question, whether colourblind policies are or are not better than non-colourblind ones. Evidence, facts or data for that are, imo, more useful than subjective opinions, anecdotes or even indeed abstract or well-intended principles, which may or may not play out as overall benign in the real world.

Or, rather than leave myself open to avoiding answering, no, you don't need to provide evidence that racism is generally wrong, though you would be encouraged to provide evidence that non-colourblind approaches (which include but are not limited to certain types of AA countermeasures) are overall less positively-effective than colourblind ones, for the issue at hand (race-related problems, mostly in the USA today) if that is the case you wish to make.

 

[ruby sparks]

I have worked for 3 employers in my adult working life. All 3 practiced AA which meant in every case to make extra efforts to recruit qualified minority applicants for job openings. It did not mean diluting standards in that effort.

Indeed. There are all sorts and degrees of AA. Many do not involve lowering the bar, or quotas for that matter. As you say, many of them only involve making a special effort to encourage participation. This of course, if done on racial grounds, is still, strictly speaking, race-preferential action.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Also, this particular thread is asking a slightly different question, whether colourblind policies are or are not better than non-colourblind ones. Evidence, facts or data for that are, imo, more useful than subjective opinions

Not if you don't define "not better". That is entirely subjective.

 

[ruby sparks]

Also, this particular thread is asking a slightly different question, whether colourblind policies are or are not better than non-colourblind ones. Evidence, facts or data for that are, imo, more useful than subjective opinions

Not if you don't define "not better". That is entirely subjective.

Not really. Unless you are saying that the effectiveness of social or political policies are incapable of being measured. It may not be entirely easy to do that, and certainly not easy to do it conclusively in many cases, but it is nonetheless possible, and preferable to personal opinions only.

I added to my previous post, as usual. Sorry. I'm not sure if you saw it all.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

]
Not if you don't define "not better". That is entirely subjective.

Not really. Unless you are saying that the effectiveness of social or political policies are incapable of being measured.

You need to know what you are measuring before you measure it. "Effectiveness" at what? And measured how? You need an operational definition before your question becomes one about data.