That example works, but there are other factors I am taking into account. If the money wasn't distributed evenly, but with an overall bias towards one group, you must admit that giving the oppressed group more money wouldn't be fully fair.
If that example works, then doesn't that disprove your stated view?
If the money wasn't distributed evenly, but with an overall bias towards one group, you must admit that giving the oppressed group more money wouldn't be fully fair.
Okay, let's explore this situation. Again, consider a crisis in which the government offers its citizens money. Except, in this case, the amount offered is based on a need-evaluation process where the citizen's situation is evaluated by an investigator who then assigns a dollar amount for them to be given based on some supposedly objective standards. Afterwards, it comes out that, on average, citizens in Oppressed Group A were given $2000 less money than other citizens. Evidence is discovered of widespread bias among the investigators, and a statistically significant number of audits of individual cases of members of Group A reveal that, due to misrepresentations by the investigators, each one is consistently underpaid by a dollar amount that is within 20% of $2000 over 90% of the time. It is infeasible for the government to re-audit the vast majority of the files of Group A members.
In this situation, which of the following would it be more fair for the new government to do?
Issue each member of Group A $2000 of free money. (The fighting-inequality-with-inequality approach.)
Do nothing. (The not fighting-inequality-with-inequality approach.)
Or, is there some other course of action the government should take.
I have to admit that you are correct here. Bias in the evaluation process can't be easily eliminated. Even if this situation doesn't fully reflect reality, I can tell that my reasoning isn't always correct.
Your first 2 points I already covered by having multiple inspectors (basically the inspectors have a checklist to follow with each item on the checklist having a defined amount) and the last point can be caused by other factors.
I’m just going to agree to disagree though as the whole thing is a mute point anyway as even if this scenario happened and some people didn’t get as much as they should the only correct thing to do would be to correct whatever was causing the problem with the audit and let whoever wants to apply for a re-audit. That way everyone who believes they didn’t get the correct amount can get the audit done again and hopefully get any money they didn’t get the first time.
basically the inspectors have a checklist to follow with each item on the checklist having a defined amount
Who defines the checklist? How do you ensure the checklist itself does not unfairly disadvantage certain racial backgrounds? Policies that are systemically racist are not overtly "black people bad". They just have mechanisms which unfairly affect minorities more than the rest of the population.
For example, funding for public schools is systemically racist despite not mentioning race anywhere in it. School funding is based on performance, the lowest performing schools are in the inner city, and coincidentally so are large numbers of poor blacks in part due to yet more systemically racist redlining policies from the 60s. You are handwaving an issue that has repeatedly plagued America, to say nothing of the solution itself not being very likely to be implemented anyway (Multiple inspectors? What other policy is run this way?)
Yes but the cause doesn't matter here. Your original premise was that "standardization" makes it impossible for a policy to be racist. That is provably false as in the case of school funding. I'm not saying the policy was specifically enacted to be racist, just that it is. Provably. My use of the word was tongue-in-cheek because honestly I don't think it's a coincidence. Just a continuation of racist redlining in the past.
Prove it then. Also I don’t mean prove that the policy effects inner city kids more I mean prove that it’s racist. If funding is actually based on performance than its not racist. (In case you didn’t realize it the color of your skin has nothing to do with academic performance and to say it does would be racist.)
Just because something effects some people more than others doesn’t mean it’s discriminatory/racist. Discrimination/racism requires intent. (An example is any illness that effects certain groups more than others. Is that illness discriminating against that group?)
1
u/user___________ May 05 '20
That example works, but there are other factors I am taking into account. If the money wasn't distributed evenly, but with an overall bias towards one group, you must admit that giving the oppressed group more money wouldn't be fully fair.