Sick of talking about this yet? Me either, let's go for it. I want to focus this thread on two weaknesses that I see coming from the racism debates across the web.
The first is "Equality of Opportunity" vs "Equality of Outcome".
Equality of Opportunity is ensuring that all demographics are able to actively participate in some event, with no bias restricting participation. For example, a job posting cannot discourage applicants from applying to a position based on race, sex, etc. This is something I agree with. I believe that regardless of the event, participating should not be restricted to a certain demographic unless that demographic makes sense. A political league of individuals of color makes sense. A committee of women representing women in a political context makes sense.
Equality of Outcome is forcing the results of said event to mold to a certain measurable statistic based on race, sex, etc. For example, if a corporation creates a mandate that a certain percentage or sum of employees must be of a certain race, that is equality of outcome. This is something that I do not agree with. Geographic demographics, personal interest, and social upbringing all impact a persons decision to participate in a profession. For example, women are under-represented in tech organizations because the number of female applicants is lower than males. The number of tenured professors in a university skews towards Europeans and white Americans because the number of white applicants to a university is higher than black applicants to a higher education position. When you have a greater number of people representing one demographic over another, it is reasonable to conclude that, generally speaking, the probability of finding a qualified candidate in that demographic is higher, too. By mandating that the outcome of a position be driven towards a certain race over another is, by definition, racist. The reason is this: favor is given to one person over another solely because of their ethnic background.
The second weakness I see in a lot of discussions is what I call the "Punching Up Fallacy". The Punching Up Fallacy is creating a double standard based on race, sex, etc; because the demographic in question feels justified due to past events, suffering, or prejudice. For this example, I have a picture:
The first paragraph is nicely written. It is concise, it provides a clear message and it aligns with the progress we are trying to make. The second paragraph, however, quickly turns it into a racist argument. It gets even worse when you look to his comment on the right hand side: "no, it's not racism if POC exclude white people from their sex lives (this is often done to protect from racism)".
Again, by the very definition, that is racist. What this author has effectively done is create a standard and then exempt his own demographic from said standard. It doesn't get much more clear than that. If his message had simply stopped after the first paragraph, he would have a slam dunk. A TED talk that would probably pack all of the seats. Instead, he took a clear message and immediately muddied the water by drawing a racial line in the sand. A poor decision, in my opinion.
The first is "Equality of Opportunity" vs "Equality of Outcome".
Equality of Opportunity is ensuring that all demographics are able to actively participate in some event, with no bias restricting participation. For example, a job posting cannot discourage applicants from applying to a position based on race, sex, etc. This is something I agree with. I believe that regardless of the event, participating should not be restricted to a certain demographic unless that demographic makes sense. A political league of individuals of color makes sense. A committee of women representing women in a political context makes sense.
Equality of Outcome is forcing the results of said event to mold to a certain measurable statistic based on race, sex, etc. For example, if a corporation creates a mandate that a certain percentage or sum of employees must be of a certain race, that is equality of outcome. This is something that I do not agree with. Geographic demographics, personal interest, and social upbringing all impact a persons decision to participate in a profession. For example, women are under-represented in tech organizations because the number of female applicants is lower than males. The number of tenured professors in a university skews towards Europeans and white Americans because the number of white applicants to a university is higher than black applicants to a higher education position. When you have a greater number of people representing one demographic over another, it is reasonable to conclude that, generally speaking, the probability of finding a qualified candidate in that demographic is higher, too. By mandating that the outcome of a position be driven towards a certain race over another is, by definition, racist. The reason is this: favor is given to one person over another solely because of their ethnic background.
The second weakness I see in a lot of discussions is what I call the "Punching Up Fallacy". The Punching Up Fallacy is creating a double standard based on race, sex, etc; because the demographic in question feels justified due to past events, suffering, or prejudice. For this example, I have a picture:
The first paragraph is nicely written. It is concise, it provides a clear message and it aligns with the progress we are trying to make. The second paragraph, however, quickly turns it into a racist argument. It gets even worse when you look to his comment on the right hand side: "no, it's not racism if POC exclude white people from their sex lives (this is often done to protect from racism)".
Again, by the very definition, that is racist. What this author has effectively done is create a standard and then exempt his own demographic from said standard. It doesn't get much more clear than that. If his message had simply stopped after the first paragraph, he would have a slam dunk. A TED talk that would probably pack all of the seats. Instead, he took a clear message and immediately muddied the water by drawing a racial line in the sand. A poor decision, in my opinion.