The key observation that drives modern affirmative action policy is that you can have systemic bias even in a system where there is no hiring bias at all, if past bias has resulted in under-representation for minorities. If young people in the minority population rarely encounter role models to follow in a specific career, they will be less likely to pursue that career, resulting in under-representation of that minority in the career population, which perpetuates the dearth of minority role models, leading to a vicious cycle. Adding in the economic consequences of historic bias makes the situation even worse. To ignore this systemic bias would be to endorse it, which is in effect the same as endorsing institutionalized bias against the minorities affected.
>To ignore this systemic bias would be to endorse it, which is in effect the same as endorsing institutionalized bias against the minorities affected.
Which is an attempt to imply that you must take race into account when hiring or you're a racist, without actually saying that, because it would be roundly rejected by most people if made plain.
Sure, no one wants to admit they're endorsing racism. But it doesn't change the fact that they are. There is no easy solution to this problem, it means facing some hard truths.
It also relies on blank slate theory - ie that all groups should perform equally, and if they don't, that's evidence enough that there is a conspiracy against them.
Perhaps a way to test the "different groups have different abilities" vs "past bias" theory, would be to find people with high IQ / historical record of accomplishment who suffered great historical discrimination and deprivation (eg Ashkenazi Jews from the holocaust, Chinese families purged in the great leap forward) and then compare their descendants test scores and job outcomes in the USA.
You could look at outcomes a generation or two afterwards and tell whether their performance was high/low ie was "reversion to high group accomplishment" or "underperformed due to present or previous oppression"
There is really no basis for any sort of theory that says underperformance of Black Americans is purely due to genetics.
Primarily because genetic diversity among Black people is too broad. In other words, if you randomly compare the genetics between two randomly selected Black people, the difference, on average, will be far greater than comparing any two randomly selected white people.
This is simply because all of humanity stems from Africa, so that is where the most diversity lies.
There are hundreds of genetic markers involved in something as comparatively simple as skin color. The genetic markers involved in something as complex as intelligence are likely orders of magnitude more complex.
You might be able to extrapolate something from certain sub-groups that branch from very narrow branches of the human diaspora, but you certainly could never, ever come up with something that made any sense to apply to the extremely broad strokes that we use to "group" people here in this melting pot we call the USA.
From a policy perspective, it makes more sense to assume that past and present bias---which we know exists---is a more likely explanation than genetic inferiority (for which there is no evidence). The burden of proof is on the racial supremicists to provide support for their position, not on the government.
Title is "Battle Against Bias Waged on Shifting Legal Ground : Civil rights: Discrimination was banned in a 1964 law. But the prevailing view of the measure changed greatly."
Readit News
Which is an attempt to imply that you must take race into account when hiring or you're a racist, without actually saying that, because it would be roundly rejected by most people if made plain.
Perhaps a way to test the "different groups have different abilities" vs "past bias" theory, would be to find people with high IQ / historical record of accomplishment who suffered great historical discrimination and deprivation (eg Ashkenazi Jews from the holocaust, Chinese families purged in the great leap forward) and then compare their descendants test scores and job outcomes in the USA.
You could look at outcomes a generation or two afterwards and tell whether their performance was high/low ie was "reversion to high group accomplishment" or "underperformed due to present or previous oppression"
Primarily because genetic diversity among Black people is too broad. In other words, if you randomly compare the genetics between two randomly selected Black people, the difference, on average, will be far greater than comparing any two randomly selected white people.
This is simply because all of humanity stems from Africa, so that is where the most diversity lies.
There are hundreds of genetic markers involved in something as comparatively simple as skin color. The genetic markers involved in something as complex as intelligence are likely orders of magnitude more complex.
You might be able to extrapolate something from certain sub-groups that branch from very narrow branches of the human diaspora, but you certainly could never, ever come up with something that made any sense to apply to the extremely broad strokes that we use to "group" people here in this melting pot we call the USA.
Dead Comment
Article is from 1995.