Proxy Identity Politics

[Jolly_Penguin]

I just listened to a debate in which one side was trying to put forward the idea that we should give special support to first nations people because first nations people are often poor and victims of substance abuse. Not once did they make any argument regarding culture or racism against first nations people. It was exclusively about these proxies.

I have noticed this elsewhere lately in many different contexts, including my grocery checkout lady. She was denied a bursary for school because she is Asian and not black or latino or first nations, and apparently everybody knows Asians are rich... except of course for my grocery checkout lady who is denied simply by proxy.

Is there any ethical or rational grounds for such judgment by proxy? Does it itself qualify as bigotry/racism/etc? If the concern is poverty, for example, why not help the actual poor instead of a grouping we associate with the poor?

 

[LordKiran]

I just listened to a debate in which one side was trying to put forward the idea that we should give special support to first nations people because first nations people are often poor and victims of substance abuse. Not once did they make any argument regarding culture or racism against first nations people. It was exclusively about these proxies.

I have noticed this elsewhere lately in many different contexts, including my grocery checkout lady. She was denied a bursary for school because she is Asian and not black or latino or first nations, and apparently everybody knows Asians are rich... except of course for my grocery checkout lady who is denied simply by proxy.

Is there any ethical or rational grounds for such judgment by proxy? Does it itself qualify as bigotry/racism/etc? If the concern is poverty, for example, why not help the actual poor instead of a grouping we associate with the poor?

The problem is that people will (Consciously or subconsciously) let race enter into their decision making when deciding who should get accepted into this school or that job but will never admit it so as a result we have systems in place to try and correct for this bias.

Unfortunately this is one of those problems where you're stuck picking one of many bad options since there isn't really a good solution near as anyone can tell.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The problem is that people will (Consciously or subconsciously) let race enter into their decision making when deciding who should get accepted into this school or that job but will never admit it so as a result we have systems in place to try and correct for this bias.

I oppose "correcting for" implicit or hidden discrimination against one group with explicit or legally mandated discrimination against another, but at least that has a certain warped logic to it.

That isn't what I am talking about though. No mention was made of bigotry or discrimination against first Nations people by these speakers. They only spoke of helping them because they lack funds and resources, which is obviously neither universally true of them nor exclusive to them. Yet these folks insist on using race as a proxy instead of directly addressing poverty and lack of resources. Maybe something is going unsaid by them, but explicitly they are calling for a category error.

I want to know if there is any justification for this, or is it a disingenuous substitute argument as they actually think as you do above but are for whatever reason hesitant to say it? Why be hesitant to say it?

Trying to play devil's advocate and assuming their rhetoric to be genuine, I can only think of the following justification... Maybe it is about efficiency and allocation of resources. It simplifies the rules and application process and attention to detail if we substitute a standard more resource consuming to quantify (income and opportunity) with a readily identifiable proxy (race). Perhaps this could lead to a greater number of people helped?

Problem with the above of course is that it could also be argued in the opposite direction against Muslims or blacks (more statistically likely to be violent/terrorists/etc). Racial proxy is another word for prejudice, yes?

Another good example is when Oprah (who wasn't recognized) was ignored by a saleswoman in an expensive boutique because she assumed she couldnt afford anything there because of her race.

 

[iolo]

The First Nations own what is now the United States, obviously. Give it 'em back and piss off back where you came from, if anyone will have you!

 

[Derec]

The First Nations own what is now the United States, obviously. Give it 'em back and piss off back where you came from, if anyone will have you!

Should we reverse all the World' borders to 1492 or do you think US should be the only one? And what's so special about 1492?


As to Joly Penguin's OP, this policy is obviously ridiculous and yes, racist.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The First Nations own what is now the United States, obviously. Give it 'em back and piss off back where you came from, if anyone will have you!

To nitpick your nitpick, nobody was talking about the USA and I don't live there. To nitpick my nitpick of your nitpick, Canada was once also occupied exclusively by first nations people. To nitpick the nitpick of my nitpick of your nitpick, how far should we go back (as Derec asked)? Maybe to pre-historic times and we should return the land to the species from whom we took it?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Another example that occurs to me is black people being denied bank loans. Athena had a thread about this about a year ago. If black is used a proxy for poor, and if that isn't "racism", then bankers could assume these black applicants don't qualify financially for the loans they applied for and do so without being "racist".

 

[laughing dog]

Another example that occurs to me is black people being denied bank loans. Athena had a thread about this about a year ago. If black is used a proxy for poor, and if that isn't "racism", then bankers could assume these black applicants don't qualify financially for the loans they applied for and do so without being "racist".

It would be racist to assume that black means poor. Duh.

 

[ronburgundy]

Another example that occurs to me is black people being denied bank loans. Athena had a thread about this about a year ago. If black is used a proxy for poor, and if that isn't "racism", then bankers could assume these black applicants don't qualify financially for the loans they applied for and do so without being "racist".

It would be racist to assume that black means poor. Duh.

Correct, as it is racist for any policy to use race as an indicator of anything but skin color, such as being disadvantaged in any way.
Which means that all AA policies that in any way use racial categories in decisions are engaged is racism and racial discrimination for the no legitimate ends other than to directly determine the racial make-up of the people who benefit or not from the decisions.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Another example that occurs to me is black people being denied bank loans. Athena had a thread about this about a year ago. If black is used a proxy for poor, and if that isn't "racism", then bankers could assume these black applicants don't qualify financially for the loans they applied for and do so without being "racist".

I agree with LD. You're looking at the proxy backwards. Black isn't a proxy for poor - that's racism. Is poor a proxy for black? That's the more challenging situation. If I give support to poor people, am I disproportionately helping first nations people? (probably). If I use credit score in an insurance rating plan and charge higher rates to those with lower credit scores, does that disproportionately affect first nations people (probably). Is that a discriminatory practice? Is the credit score a proxy for a protected class of people? Tough to answer.

aa

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I agree with LD. You're looking at the proxy backwards. Black isn't a proxy for poor - that's racism. Is poor a proxy for black? That's the more challenging situation. If I give support to poor people, am I disproportionately helping first nations people? (probably). If I use credit score in an insurance rating plan and charge higher rates to those with lower credit scores, does that disproportionately affect first nations people (probably).

If you give support to poor people because you want to support the poor, and it disproportionately helps first nations people because more of them are poor, that is simple effect and math, not proxy. Same with using credit score in an insurance rating plan and charging higher rates to those with lower credit scores. If that disproportionately affects first nations people, that is NOT actually an attack on first nations people, especially if the use of credit score is good business practice (though that would be discrimination against people with low credit scores) and unless the insurance company (or more often a lending institution) actually does this with the intent to harm first nations people. And note that helping the poor rather than the first nations people as a proxy for the poor is actually going to alleviate this problem, as helping the poor would mean being more lenient on the credit rating etc.

 

[Derec]

I agree with LD. You're looking at the proxy backwards. Black isn't a proxy for poor - that's racism. Is poor a proxy for black? That's the more challenging situation. If I give support to poor people, am I disproportionately helping first nations people? (probably).

It's the same kind of looking at proxy, and equally racist. The only difference is whether it helps or harms certain preferred ethnic/racial groups.
The issue was colleges assumed somebody who is Indian was also poor and thus giving them special aid (whether they actually were or not) and also assuming somebody Asian could not possibly be poor and thus denying them this aid. Do you agree with such policies or should an individual's financial situation be used instead?

 

[skepticalbip]

Another example that occurs to me is black people being denied bank loans. Athena had a thread about this about a year ago. If black is used a proxy for poor, and if that isn't "racism", then bankers could assume these black applicants don't qualify financially for the loans they applied for and do so without being "racist".

I agree with LD. You're looking at the proxy backwards. Black isn't a proxy for poor - that's racism. Is poor a proxy for black? That's the more challenging situation. If I give support to poor people, am I disproportionately helping first nations people? (probably). If I use credit score in an insurance rating plan and charge higher rates to those with lower credit scores, does that disproportionately affect first nations people (probably). Is that a discriminatory practice? Is the credit score a proxy for a protected class of people? Tough to answer.

aa

All true but the problem lies in the way the argument discussed in to OP was phrased. It was stated as, "we should give special support to first nations people because first nations people are often poor and victims of substance abuse." This is soft racism. Had it been stated as, "we should give special support to people who are poor and victims of substance abuse" it would still apply to many in the first nations (but not solely) but not single them out as "different".

 

[ronburgundy]

Another example that occurs to me is black people being denied bank loans. Athena had a thread about this about a year ago. If black is used a proxy for poor, and if that isn't "racism", then bankers could assume these black applicants don't qualify financially for the loans they applied for and do so without being "racist".

I agree with LD. You're looking at the proxy backwards. Black isn't a proxy for poor - that's racism. Is poor a proxy for black? That's the more challenging situation. If I give support to poor people, am I disproportionately helping first nations people? (probably). If I use credit score in an insurance rating plan and charge higher rates to those with lower credit scores, does that disproportionately affect first nations people (probably). Is that a discriminatory practice? Is the credit score a proxy for a protected class of people? Tough to answer.

aa

The OP is referring to policies, such as virtually all Affirmative Action policies, that do use race as a proxy for being poor, experiencing hardships, increasing "diversity", etc.. Such rationalizations to justify those policies are racist, and even worse, they are dishonest rationalizations for policies that actually harm all those claimed other goals and only serve to advance the real goal, which is altering the ratio skin color and the ethnicity boxes checked on official records.

 

[laughing dog]

Which means that all AA policies that in any way use racial categories in decisions are engaged is racism and racial discrimination for the no legitimate ends other than to directly determine the racial make-up of the people who benefit or not from the decisions.

Once you include the term "all", you are simply wrong. AA policies that promote recruitment of qualified candidates have legitimate ends.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I agree with LD. You're looking at the proxy backwards. Black isn't a proxy for poor - that's racism. Is poor a proxy for black? That's the more challenging situation. If I give support to poor people, am I disproportionately helping first nations people? (probably). If I use credit score in an insurance rating plan and charge higher rates to those with lower credit scores, does that disproportionately affect first nations people (probably). Is that a discriminatory practice? Is the credit score a proxy for a protected class of people? Tough to answer.

aa

All true but the problem lies in the way the argument discussed in to OP was phrased. It was stated as, "we should give special support to first nations people because first nations people are often poor and victims of substance abuse." This is soft racism. Had it been stated as, "we should give special support to people who are poor and victims of substance abuse" it would still apply to many in the first nations (but not solely) but not single them out as "different".

Exactly my point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Another example that occurs to me is black people being denied bank loans. Athena had a thread about this about a year ago. If black is used a proxy for poor, and if that isn't "racism", then bankers could assume these black applicants don't qualify financially for the loans they applied for and do so without being "racist".

Actually, that's something else at work.

The banks are "discriminating" against risky loans on property that is not expected to appreciate. To me that's simply being sensible.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Here's another related question that may help us get to the bottom of this:

Does it matter to you why somebody is born into poverty? Should we help some more than others based on how that came to be? If person A's father or grandfather was the victim of horrible racism, slavery, holocaust, etc and as a result of that he grew up penniless... and Person B's parents blew a sizeable family fortune on self-destructive behaviour and gambling, and as a result she grew up penniless... should person A get preferential treatment over person B? What if the people themselves were victim or cause of their situations rather than it being their parents/grandparents? Does one then deserve to be brought out of poverty more than the other, or is poverty alone the reason to help them?

- - - Updated - - -

Another example that occurs to me is black people being denied bank loans. Athena had a thread about this about a year ago. If black is used a proxy for poor, and if that isn't "racism", then bankers could assume these black applicants don't qualify financially for the loans they applied for and do so without being "racist".

Actually, that's something else at work.

The banks are "discriminating" against risky loans on property that is not expected to appreciate. To me that's simply being sensible.

Yes, if they are actually taking the time and effort to examine the individual situations of the claimants. But what if, as Athena claimed in that thread, they were simply assumed to not qualify because they were black? That'd be racism, right? So why is that same principle not applied across the board? And should it be? Is there any benefit I am not seeing from using these proxies?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

All true but the problem lies in the way the argument discussed in to OP was phrased. It was stated as, "we should give special support to first nations people because first nations people are often poor and victims of substance abuse." This is soft racism. Had it been stated as, "we should give special support to people who are poor and victims of substance abuse" it would still apply to many in the first nations (but not solely) but not single them out as "different".

Exactly my point.

I agree that's what the OP says and agree with the point.

I guess my only point is that the OP is describing racism and not a proxy for it. If you start with the race of the person and then make the assumptions - it's racism (good, bad, or indifferent). Or to say it another way, race can't really be a 'proxy' for anything without also being racist.

aa

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think I see what you are saying. A racist bank manager could set requirements unnecessarily high knowing that it will disproportionately effect their disliked group, many of whom happen to fail to meet those requirements. Certainly could happen. It would be using income as a proxy for race, the reverse of what I was speaking of in the OP (race being used as a proxy for income).

Bans on head/face coverings when there was none before and where there has been a recent influx of Muslims comes to mind.

Or are you merely referring to particular groups inadvertently being disproportionately harmed by particular policies? If the latter, that is just reality and math really.