-
Features
Are colour and gender 'blindness' the best policies?
- Thread starter ruby sparks
- Start date
Yes. This is the way forward. And make outright racism offences well and put the emphasis on the othering itself and how that hurts us all and how we are all prone to do it, moreso than the "group" being othered. Emphasize our common humanity. That will bring us together rather than push us apart.
ruby sparks
Contributor
I am sure there is a variety of ways that these sorts of things can be and are routinely measured, not just one way. But for example, in the area of gender, there are several measures, including such things as gender equality indexes, which are for example used to compare one country with another, and since they are produced regularly, they also give an indication of progress or regress within each country, in terms of gender equality, for example. I am not suggesting that that is necessarily the only or best relevant yardstick, even for gender, but at least it's a yardstick.
I am not telling anyone what data, evidence or facts they should use. Just use any, if possible, rather than merely anecdote, personal philosophical approach or personal opinion, is what I'm suggesting, because the former provides more real world information than the latter.
ruby sparks
Contributor
By the way, anyone who wants to can obviously post opinions, anecdotes, principles or hypotheticals if they want to. I am not the thread policeman, and I might even join in with that. But I personally might aim to focus more on evidence, data and fact, if possible.
ronburgundy
Contributor
It is possible to acknowledge the racism (both historical and recent) that has lead to particular racial groups being over-represented among those with negative outcomes (such as low SES, under-prepared for college, engaging in crime), while not treating those outcomes or efforts to remedy as though race is a valid indicator. IOW, we can and should acknowledge that racism has lead to higher crime rates among blacks, without having the police use a person's race to decide who to investigate, arrest, or shoot. Likewise, can and should acknowledge that racism has lead to a higher % of blacks graduating high school without having either the skills or demonstrated qualifications to compete for college enrollment slots, without having race be a variable that factors into who is admitted.
By focusing on the actual variables more directly related to these negative outcomes (e.g., SES), our efforts will be more effective at directing help to those who need it and would most benefit, which as a byproduct would provide a proportion of the help to people in groups that is equal to their over-representation among those who suffer such negative outcomes. IOW, it would serve to help remedy effects of racism without actually engaging in counter-racism, which only fuels and empowers more of the original type of racism
In addition, efforts that focus on factors like SES rather than race would garner more political support which is essential to their implementation. There are some who oppose government assistance to the poor and who, against all fact and reason, view poverty and its correlates as entirely self-inflicted. However, there are more people who support such assistance and preventing some of those correlates than their are people who support assistance directed on the basis of race.
This is because racism is just a subset of the factors that lead to misfortune and negative outcomes, and the majority of people who suffer misfortune are NOT members of groups that are targets of racism. More Americans born into poverty and it's correlates are white than black, and the fact that they represent a smaller % of a mental category of "white people" has little bearing on how that situation harms them and their need for assistance. Not only do efforts that focus on poverty rather than race have more self-interest appeal to 3 times as many people, but have more empathy-appeal to the other people who personally know those in need, who are also more likely to be white (No, this doesn't mean people only do or should have empathy for their race, but the do and will always have more empathy for people they personally know).
In addition to being inefficient, using race as a indicator of those in need inherently causes more injustice. Injustices are done to individual people not groups. Groups are a mental category and mental categories cannot be victims of injustice. Even when racism is the motive for the injustices, the acts are committed against a subset of individuals. The under-representation of blacks in college or a workplace is not itself an injustice, but a statistical byproduct of various injustices (some centuries old) against individuals who were black.
Thus, injustice is NOT remedied by equalizing group outcomes and increasing representation. In fact when this is accomplished by using race to decide who gets a benefit, it only increases the number of injustices. And that degree of that injustice and harm to its victim is no lesser because they happen to qualify as a member of a mental category that is "privileged" or more powerful at the aggregate level, or lessened by the more noble intentions of those who enacted the injustice.
Again, this doesn't mean ignoring racism as a cause of some injustices or not punishing acts of racism. It just means not conflating every injustice with racism, which only undermines our ability to remedy injustice even when it is due to racism. That also means not assuming that a group-level disparity in outcome is due to a proximal racist motive, since that only ignores the pervasive and highly indirect effects that racism can have long/generations afterward.
By focusing on the actual variables more directly related to these negative outcomes (e.g., SES), our efforts will be more effective at directing help to those who need it and would most benefit, which as a byproduct would provide a proportion of the help to people in groups that is equal to their over-representation among those who suffer such negative outcomes. IOW, it would serve to help remedy effects of racism without actually engaging in counter-racism, which only fuels and empowers more of the original type of racism
In addition, efforts that focus on factors like SES rather than race would garner more political support which is essential to their implementation. There are some who oppose government assistance to the poor and who, against all fact and reason, view poverty and its correlates as entirely self-inflicted. However, there are more people who support such assistance and preventing some of those correlates than their are people who support assistance directed on the basis of race.
This is because racism is just a subset of the factors that lead to misfortune and negative outcomes, and the majority of people who suffer misfortune are NOT members of groups that are targets of racism. More Americans born into poverty and it's correlates are white than black, and the fact that they represent a smaller % of a mental category of "white people" has little bearing on how that situation harms them and their need for assistance. Not only do efforts that focus on poverty rather than race have more self-interest appeal to 3 times as many people, but have more empathy-appeal to the other people who personally know those in need, who are also more likely to be white (No, this doesn't mean people only do or should have empathy for their race, but the do and will always have more empathy for people they personally know).
In addition to being inefficient, using race as a indicator of those in need inherently causes more injustice. Injustices are done to individual people not groups. Groups are a mental category and mental categories cannot be victims of injustice. Even when racism is the motive for the injustices, the acts are committed against a subset of individuals. The under-representation of blacks in college or a workplace is not itself an injustice, but a statistical byproduct of various injustices (some centuries old) against individuals who were black.
Thus, injustice is NOT remedied by equalizing group outcomes and increasing representation. In fact when this is accomplished by using race to decide who gets a benefit, it only increases the number of injustices. And that degree of that injustice and harm to its victim is no lesser because they happen to qualify as a member of a mental category that is "privileged" or more powerful at the aggregate level, or lessened by the more noble intentions of those who enacted the injustice.
Again, this doesn't mean ignoring racism as a cause of some injustices or not punishing acts of racism. It just means not conflating every injustice with racism, which only undermines our ability to remedy injustice even when it is due to racism. That also means not assuming that a group-level disparity in outcome is due to a proximal racist motive, since that only ignores the pervasive and highly indirect effects that racism can have long/generations afterward.
ruby sparks
Contributor
I pretty much agree with that, and applaud your balanced, nuanced (and to my eyes admirably non-partisan, non-dogmatic) approach.
The paradox of colorblindness, as an ideology (using the word in a non-pejorative sense) or worldview, is that because there is racism (and furthermore that it is persistent, endemic and structural/institutional, that it is woven into society, often in ways that are not immediately visible, and as you say has historical antecedents that can partly explain present-day inequalities) 'going colourblind' risks (to many, conveniently) ignoring it, 'writing it out of the equation', or perhaps I should better say not taking it sufficiently into account. In other words, I think we can go too far with colourblindness just as we can go too far with non-colourblindness (examples of the latter might be identity politics and affirmative action). The trick, as ever, is to find a balance.
In principle, I think I am broadly in favour of 'giving a leg up' to minorities (as groups) who are disadvantaged because of, well, quite simply, whatever it is they are disadvantaged because of as groups, and if that includes group racism (which I think it does and did) then so be it, in principle I would say that it is valid to give a leg up for that reason.
In practice however, it seems that if that leg up involves going much beyond what I might call aggressive/proactive anti-discrimination (ie going back to the 'original' meaning of affirmative action and its intent to eradicate racist discrimination) can be and is problematic and quite possibly counter-productive, especially when it reaches the level of interventions to increase representation (be it in colleges, jobs or governments) that are in many respects not based on individual merit. I think it's problematic and counter-productive for a variety of reasons, some more honourable than others, but in the end it arguably really doesn't matter what the reasons are if the outcomes are overall not positive (or not positive enough).
For that reason, my position is currently shifting away from affirmative action on race grounds (which I was never a fan of anyway when it comes to things like quotas) and towards affirmative action on socio-economic grounds, for all the reasons you articulate. And I do not necessarily refer to quotas and the like and would include 'milder' forms of AA. As I said before, it remains to be seen whether America would have the appetite for enacting policies on those grounds to any significant degree, or whether we will find that the anti-affirmative action refrain, 'that's racism' merely switches to 'that's socialism'. That said, my guess is (and reading around what's been happening in Californian university policies since the 1996 ban on AA would seem to bear this out) that there would at least be less resistance and some more support for the latter ("socioeconomic AA"). Win-wins are fairly rare, and maybe this is one that should be embraced. As much as I hate to say it, Trump might be right on this one, possibly by accident.
I might also suggest that there are two somewhat distinct aspects of this issue. One has to do with diagnosis and analysis, and the other has to do with treatments and remedies. I don't think I am in favour of going colourblind for the former, even if I may be at least largely in favour of going mostly colourblind for the latter.
So I broadly agree with you, especially when it comes to the issue of inefficiency, which seems to be a very appropriate word to use.
One place I might respectfully query something is here:
I would not go as far as to say that groups cannot be victims of injustice. That said, I don't think you mean it literally or absolutely.
As regards whether something like affirmative action increases the number of injustices, again I am not sure. I think it depends. Partly because we don't, here in my country, have a pronounced division along black/white lines, but along religio-cultural lines instead, I keep referring to the affirmative action that was (temporarily, between 2001 and 2011) implemented to increase the number of catholics in the police, and it is my opinion that this did more good than harm, overall. In my opinion, it was the making of a societal omelette which justified the breaking of some individual eggs.
It's no secret that mainstream USA promotes and prefers an individualist worldview and is averse to socialism, by and large, and in many ways this is a great approach. Does this worldview perhaps mean that actual and/or potential societal benefits are under-appreciated at times?
Finally, I am not sure if what I am saying regarding race applies similarly to related issues such as for example gender, or indeed whether it applies equally across all domains (there arguably being differences between, on the one hand, applications for college places and for jobs in private business, and on the other representation in, say, public bodies such as the police or government) but I am setting that aside for the moment.
Last edited:
DrZoidberg
Contributor
I don't think there's any alternative. Identity politics emphasises differences. People think in dichotomies. So as soon as one identity is set up as opposed to any other we're screwed if equality is our goal. Identity politics will guarantee that nothing ever gets any better. The best option is just to pretend like we ignore the differences, even if we understand that they're there. Any special rules or special considerations will backfire.
Bill Hicks said it best on the question why there's so few female comedians. "If you believe women can be as funny as men they don't need any help. Just go out and kill consistently. Be undeniable."
ruby sparks
Contributor
Here is a very thorough critique of the (apparently famous) pro-affirmative action book, 'The Shape of the River'. The critique is pretty damning, and not having read the book I have no idea how fair or alternatively how biased the criticisms are. But, I did like how detailed the analysis was and in terms of my stated preferences for facts, data and evidence, it hit the mark quite well, and added to my inclinations towards thinking that AA on race grounds may not be such a good thing in practice despite its good intentions:
The Changing Shape of the River
Affirmative Action and Recent Social Science Research
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/report_the_changing_shape_of_the_river.pdf
Well worth reading, imo.
The Changing Shape of the River
Affirmative Action and Recent Social Science Research
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/report_the_changing_shape_of_the_river.pdf
Well worth reading, imo.
ruby sparks
Contributor
That sentence illustrates the delicate mental balance that I think ronburgundy implied and I tried to pick up on, although I might not word it like that. I might say something like, 'unpack the invisible knapsack but don't take out things that aren't actually in it'. Which is not really what I mean either. Lol. I mean, acknowledge and be understanding of (not blind to) the problem but don't overstate it and be careful how you go about addressing it, both in terms of your own behaviour and which wider remedies you advocate for.
Thinking in group terms has its advantages and disadvantages, as does thinking in terms of individuals. A disadvantage of the former is that like a heavy snowfall, it can throw too plain a blanket over a very detailed landscape. One disadvantage of the latter is that it can lead to not seeing the forest for the trees.
Last edited:
laughing dog
Contributor
In my opinion, if one has no idea what someone else is critiquing, it is pretty hard to take a recommondation about a critique seriously.
oh how times have changed!
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a81KQGsp3tk[/YOUTUBE]
There's one very simple problem to "colorblind" and "genderblind" policy - they're necessarily fictional. An example is the disparity in maternal deaths - here's an article that begins with a story of Serena Williams(!) having to repeatedly demand proper treatment from her own doctor after giving birth, and then goes on to discuss the issue in depth, including links from ProPublica and the CDC. Devah Pager found that employers prefer white job applicants to black ones, even when the white applicant just served a year in prison on a felony, and the black applicant has a clean record, when controlling for height, build, dress, and behavior.
Ever wonder why you'd hear Rush Limbaugh, D'Souza, and the like howling about how Obama was here to take revenge for how black people had been treated? You really think the same governments that can't even train cops to not beat and shoot black people for ordinary behaviors is going to be able to pull off "colorblind" road repair, toxin cleanup, or fire department coverage? Do you think that a city like Ferguson would even *try*? The current president damn sure won't bother.
On another note, here's a guardian article on attempting *actual* blind hiring, based on how symphonies use screen to hide applicants from evaluators. I'll freely admit to knowing less about gender bias than racial bias (*much* less), but if you need the musician to be physically hidden to reduce gender bias, you're already saying that yeah, you're not "genderblind".
(and this isn't even going into LGBT people, where the US president, being an all-around bigot, has repeatedly and actively attempted to discriminate. You think other people aren't?)
Ever wonder why you'd hear Rush Limbaugh, D'Souza, and the like howling about how Obama was here to take revenge for how black people had been treated? You really think the same governments that can't even train cops to not beat and shoot black people for ordinary behaviors is going to be able to pull off "colorblind" road repair, toxin cleanup, or fire department coverage? Do you think that a city like Ferguson would even *try*? The current president damn sure won't bother.
On another note, here's a guardian article on attempting *actual* blind hiring, based on how symphonies use screen to hide applicants from evaluators. I'll freely admit to knowing less about gender bias than racial bias (*much* less), but if you need the musician to be physically hidden to reduce gender bias, you're already saying that yeah, you're not "genderblind".
(and this isn't even going into LGBT people, where the US president, being an all-around bigot, has repeatedly and actively attempted to discriminate. You think other people aren't?)
Ya, that's the issue with these blind policies. They are fine in theory just so long as everyone else is playing fair and doing the same thing. If the finger is on the scale in one direction, however, and you don't have a viable path for removing that finger from the scale, then having a finger on the scale in the other direction is the only way to avoid promoting and sanctioning bigotry.
But if you put a finger on the scale in either direction, even if you think you are correcting for other fingers on the scale, you are participating in the bigotry. If you see some white guy treat a black guy unfairly, that isn't justification to treat the next white guy you see unfairly. And if you do so, that then isn't justification for the original guy treating the black guy unfairly, but he'll echo your own words back at you, and he will have some additional ground to stand on that he wouldn't otherwise.
A problem with "Z is to make up for X happening to Y" is that it is an explicit justification for X to happen to Y. Take X happening to Y away, and there is no justification for Z and it becomes the new problem. Its a new problem in any event if Z is done to anyone but who did X to Y, which is usually the case. Thats the problem with group level punishment and compensation. The logic of blood feud doesn't work.
A problem with "Z is to make up for X happening to Y" is that it is an explicit justification for X to happen to Y. Take X happening to Y away, and there is no justification for Z and it becomes the new problem. Its a new problem in any event if Z is done to anyone but who did X to Y, which is usually the case. Thats the problem with group level punishment and compensation. The logic of blood feud doesn't work.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 17,345
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I don't think that is really true. All it does is further the narrative of the right that there is a "them" for "us" to be different from. Instead of targeting along racial lines, we should be targeting actual disparity: educational opportunity disparity, wealth disparity, and disparity in application for qualification to service. The first step is to require licensed rental property owners, employers, etc keep records not according to race, but for every applicant period, and require all applicants receive notification of application status so that someone can establish a provenance of being declined and then bring the real evidence of systematic denial for credit/loan/housing/employment to seek benefits or redress rather than assuming such a history merely from their race, again, with racial or personally identifying data removed.
It's not impossible to address in a colorblind way, it's not even all that difficult to actually address the population disparities created by racism. The easiest way to start is to make those who decline people unable to leverage race (or other prejudice) at all (as they don't know it), and then also allow those who have a hard time getting through "the system" to have alternate options for things the system denies to them.
Jarhyn has it exactly right.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 17,345
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
And the painful thing is that I've been saying this for YEARS: that the best way to combat the racist right is to deny their racial narrative entirely, and not rise to the bait, instead attacking them directly over their "othering", their weaponization of classification. Because the one thing, the only thing that ever justifies othering, is when someone denies another person's fundamental humanity.
I recall on these very forums arguing about the Minnesota Gay Marriage debates and how we should have taken the Night's gaffe and run with it, to genericize marriage as Civil Unions for all, and that we need to sanitize race, gender, age, etc from forms, and consummate that sanitization by likewise removing names and addresses, replacing them with identifiers that anonymize people
ruby sparks
Contributor
A study which suggests one possible downside of 'going colourblind' (in terms of acknowledgement of race as a factor, particularly in the sphere of educating young people):
"Despite receiving little empirical assessment, the color-blind approach to managing diversity has become a leading institutional
strategy for promoting racial equality, across domains and scales of practice. We gauged the utility of color blindness as a means
to eliminating future racial inequity—its central objective—by assessing its impact on a sample of elementary-school students.
Results demonstrated that students exposed to a color-blind mind-set, as opposed to a value-diversity mind-set, were actually
less likely both to detect overt instances of racial discrimination and to describe such events in a manner that would prompt
intervention by certified teachers. Institutional messages of color blindness may therefore artificially depress formal reporting
of racial injustice. Color-blind messages may thus appear to function effectively on the surface even as they allow explicit forms
of bias to persist."
In Blind Pursuit of Racial Equality?
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6fb6/3f1603bbf7dabee27cab425c2eedb2718114.pdf
In other words, it may be the case that psychologically, trying to be blind to race can mean becoming blind to racism as well.
"Despite receiving little empirical assessment, the color-blind approach to managing diversity has become a leading institutional
strategy for promoting racial equality, across domains and scales of practice. We gauged the utility of color blindness as a means
to eliminating future racial inequity—its central objective—by assessing its impact on a sample of elementary-school students.
Results demonstrated that students exposed to a color-blind mind-set, as opposed to a value-diversity mind-set, were actually
less likely both to detect overt instances of racial discrimination and to describe such events in a manner that would prompt
intervention by certified teachers. Institutional messages of color blindness may therefore artificially depress formal reporting
of racial injustice. Color-blind messages may thus appear to function effectively on the surface even as they allow explicit forms
of bias to persist."
In Blind Pursuit of Racial Equality?
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6fb6/3f1603bbf7dabee27cab425c2eedb2718114.pdf
In other words, it may be the case that psychologically, trying to be blind to race can mean becoming blind to racism as well.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 17,345
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
That is stupid and doesn't speak to real strategic neutrality with regards to race. Instead, it just would teach them to be ignorant of their own internal bias rather than teaching them to actively mitigate it.
Color blind policy isn't to be blind to cultural messaging and implied racism. It is to make those who make decisions *literally* blind to the race of the evaluee
I've long endorsed splitting "marriage" (cultural and religious aspect) from "civil union" (legal aspect). I made that same argument during the gay marriage debates. Split these two aspects, and then one church can "recognize" a gay marriage and another doesn't have to, because marriage has no legal significance and only spiritual/cultural.