Tag: Discrimination

DEI—a nuanced assessment

DEI — “diversity, equity and inclusion” programs or policies are efforts to promote fairness and full participation of people who have been historically underrepresented or subjected to discrimination. The normal standard of fairness when employing workers is that they are hired (or admitted to college) on the basis of merit—who best satisfied to the requirements for the job. This is what taxpayers who want the best results from their tax dollars, want as well.

Many universities set aside the admission of the best qualified students to reflect the fact that may blacks who might have greater potential than their past performance test score indicated because of racial discrimination should be given preferential treatment. But these “affirmative action” programs where struct down by the Supreme Courts 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and its companion case against the University of North Carolina, which effectively ended race-based affirmative action in college admissions.

To make room for more blacks, Harvard had raised the bar and thus discriminated against Asian applicants with higher scores. It is appropriate that the standards of equal treatment and merit should be observed for government jobs and public universities.

But private firms and colleges should be able to hire or admit whoever they want. Both firms and colleges may well want the social benefits from greater diversity. Not only can it make the workplace more interesting but the broadened understanding of different racial and religious groups generates greater social harmony as well.

I don’t know what DEI programs generally did or aimed for and am quite willing to believe that they wasted human resources. However, that is quite different from the desirability of properly educating our children about different races and cultures and the history of slavery and harms of racial discrimination. Along with civics, such instruction belongs in elementary school curriculums. Just as the enlightened treatment of gays, blacks, Muslims and other groups in movies and TV shows has led the way toward better understanding, exposure and education are important for building a better and more accepting society.

The government should not interfere in the choices of private firms and university about the composition of their work forces and student bodies.

Saving Liberalism

A society occupied by virtuous people, whose behavior is self-governed by the moral principles taught by the major religions, needs few laws from their governments.

If we are free—if we live in a free society—we can and will discriminate in our choices as we see fit. We will choose what is best for us and what we like most. We will choose our friends and clubs. In our economic dealings, if our choices are not based on the objective merits of a product or an employee (if we are an employer), we will suffer the consequences (pay more for an inferior good or service or less productive employee). Thus, our self-interest will drive us toward the right kind of discrimination/choices in the market. “Are Venture Capitalists Racists?”

Morally, making choices that treat others unfairly, dishonestly, or rudely, diminishes the harmony and quality of social life. The lack of such moral standards will diminish us in the eyes of others and ultimately in our own eyes. If every member of our society adopted and lived by such moral standards, we would be the freest, happiest, and most flourishing society possible.

In such a society, the government would only need to protect us from the few criminals (foreign and domestic) who attempted to violate our persons and our property, set the standards that allow markets to function efficiently, enforce our property and other rights, and adjudicate contract disputes. With regard to government employment and activities, the law should forbid discrimination on basis not relevant to the government’s purposes, e.g., when hiring workers, the government should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin.    

In the laudable objective of overcoming a history of slavery and morally inappropriate discrimination our laws have gone further. The 1964 Civil Rights Act extended the antidiscrimination provisions appropriate for the government to private sector businesses serving the public. Businesses renting rooms (hotels) or selling goods (grocery stores or restaurants) were forbidden to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation or national origin. See the wonderful movie “Green Book” if you haven’t already.

Rather quickly the courts were asked to sort out the law’s application when it violated other individual rights such as adhering to one’s religious beliefs. Should a Satan worshiper cook, who does not believe in marriage, have to bake a wedding cake for someone’s wedding? I don’t mean to suggest that such questions can be or will be easily resolved, though in a free society in which the vast majority of residents adhered to good moral values, no one would need to be forced to provide any service they didn’t want to, and no one would be deprived of their wedding cake either.

A further step was taken toward allowing a greater exercise of individual judgement about race when the Supreme Court effectively overruled Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), and validated some “affirmative action in college admissions provided that race had a limited role in decisions.” Otherwise giving “race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions processes violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” of the US Constitution. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard – Wikipedia

In my view, a college that bends admission criteria in order to increase the diversity of its student body is acting wisely and in the interest of the learning experience of its students. My view of a college having to satisfy a government given racial or some other quota is the opposite. “Affirmative action, based on the logic that disparities equal discrimination, entrenched the idea of equal results over equal treatment…. Later, in the mid-1980s, harassment law enshrined the idea that free speech must be suppressed to eliminate subjectively defined ‘hostile environments’ for protected groups….

“The steady devolution of lawmaking authority from Congress to administrators produces a paradoxical situation whereby organizations must violate the text of the law (non-discrimination) to satisfy activist interpretations of law. Colorblindness is now illegal.” “Two Roads to Woke”  “Affirmative Action”

Thus, two centuries of debate over how best to trade off and balance conflicting individual rights in order to maximize our overall freedom that helped produce the greatest human flourishing the world has ever experienced, is at risk of being shouted down and silenced. “Human Progress”  Shutting down that debate and related questions in order to spare one group or another the discomfort of hearing something they don’t want to hear would mean the end of the liberal/neoliberal world we have built.

To take but one example, I strongly disagree with much of the underlying premises of Critical Race Theory. But books explaining its views belong in the library and high school history class discussions. I will only convince my friends of its errors with my arguments, not by burning its books. We only conduct our lives on the basis of what we really believe. “Virginia Samuels library LGBTQ books”

So, what is to be done to preserve our classically liberal principles and personal freedom? The innovation and dynamism our freedom has enabled, which has so dramatically lifted our standards of living, has also forced adjustments on some that have not always been easy. Trade theory has always talked about the need to compensate the (few) losers. But the safety nets we have built have generally been inadequate and rarely received the attention they need. “Replacing Social Security with a Universal Basic Income” The other thing we must do is to use our freedom to speak to explain the powerful benefits of our neoliberal principles. Teach, teach, teach.  “Deirdre McCloskey – Why Liberalism Works–How True Liberal Values Produce a Freer More Equal Prosperous World for All”

Sabastian Edwards has written a wonderful book about the rise and potential fall of neoliberalism in Chile, which makes these points. Much misinformation surrounds the activities of the Chilean economists trained at the University of Chicago—the Chicago Boys–who transformed Chiles economy from the repressive import substitution, state dominated model prevalent in South America at the time to a neoliberal free market model of Milton Friedman and the Chicago school, during and following the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet following his 1973 overthrow of democratically elected President Salvador Allende. Edwards’ account is extraordinarily detailed and balanced. His advice at the end for saving neoliberalism, classical liberalism, freedom or whatever you want to call it deserves our most serious attention. “Chile-Project Chicago-The Downfall of Neoliberalism”

Affirmative Action

Like most Americans I believe that our laws should be color blind. That means that race should not be a factor in who to hire or who to admit to college. But put aside what is required by the law for a moment and ask: what is good admission policy for a university? What we consider “good policy” itself depends on the purpose or objective of the policy.

Let me focus on private universities and colleges that are not benefiting from taxpayer (our) money, if there are any, who are thus free to determine what they consider “good policy.” Such universities are likely to want to provide the best educational experience for their students possible.  Having smart, motivated students is an important component of an enriching intellectually stimulating environment.  Diversity of ideas, personalities, and ethnic backgrounds is also a good component of such an environment.

Basing student admissions solely on SAT scores or such metrics will, unfortunately, over-represent Asians and underrepresent blacks. The goal would not necessarily be exact proportionality of the share of these groups in the population (U.S. population or global population??), but it might well be sensible given the desire for diversity, to shade admissions a bit toward more blacks and fewer Asians. Enlightened university admissions officers might well operate this way. Catholic and Hebrew schools have a different purpose, but it is expressed more on the side of applicants than admissions officers. My point is that there can be a good and proper place for such judgements in a “good” society.

“In 2003, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing the majority opinion upholding affirmative action in Grutter v. Bollinger, expressed the hope that race-conscious admissions would be unnecessary 25 years hence.”  “Harvard UNC affirmative action admissions before Supreme Court”  Because of earlier discrimination against blacks, in part through inferior elementary and secondary education, it was accepted as OK to temporarily discriminate modestly in favor of blacks when admitting students to a college or university. Such “affirmative action” has increased black college enrollment considerably. “Affirmative action-supreme court cases”

But 40 years of affirmative action (the waving of equal treatment under the law) is stretching the notion of temporary and the SC is likely to end it. In many respects it is about time. However, it also illustrates that the rigidity of a legal remedy in place of more nuanced judgement can be second best. This is a dilemma.

While enjoying an intellectually stimulating time in college may help attract good students, the real test of a college’s success is the extent to which the experience promotes a richer (in all senses) life after graduation. This requires admitting students who will benefit most from what the college offers, whatever their starting point. It requires looking deeper than such indicators as SAT scores. Prof. Roland Fryer’s experience suggests possible approaches. “Affirmative action-Supreme Court and college admissions”

As he often does, George Will confronts us with the frequent contradictions in our thinking on such tricky issues: “College racial discrimination and affirmative action”

Are Venture Capitalists racists?

Shifting sovereignty from Kings to the people, was the beginning of human flourishing. In the United States, in its constitution the people returned only those powers to their government necessary to protect their wellbeing. The right to and protection of ones honestly acquired property is an essential aspect of this arrangement. This includes, of course, the right to invest our property anyway we choose.

Venture capitalists are those wealthy people who choose to take great risks in the prospect of large gains by investing in “startups” that have not yet established their profitability.  Put differently venture capitalists are prepared to finance an unproven idea/product/service that might gain public approval, i.e. might become profitable, though most of them fail.  As consumers we have benefited enormously from goods and services my parents never would have even imagined that a few wealthy investors took a chance on.

So the idea that the government might need to enact laws to insure that a venture capitalist’s investments do not reflect racial bias is shocking at several levels. “In the clubby world of venture capitalists, who spent $130 billion in the United States last year and helped anoint the world’s four most valuable companies and countless other successful start-ups, there is effectively no legal backstop that ensures people of color have an equal opportunity to share in its wealth creation.”   “Black-entrepreneurs-venture-capital”

First of all is the right of these investors to their property. They can give it all to their daughters if they want to.  Marxists and other egalitarians reject such a right but that would throw away the whole basis of the wealth our capitalist system has created that Marxists would like to redistribute.  But I want to focus on why capitalism minimizes the role of bias in our economic decisions.  This was explored long ago by Nobel Lauriat Gary Becker in his famous 1976 book on the Economics of Discrimination.

Becker’s basic point is that if your economic decision is influenced by racial or sexual or any other non-economic bias it will cost you money, i.e. you will make less than you otherwise would have.  If you hire a man when a woman was better qualified, he will contribute less to your company’s income than would have the woman, thus you pay a financial price for your bias. The same is true if you hire a white person when a black one was better qualified, etc.

The purpose of venture capitalist investments is to make a bundle by funding the next great idea. Most will fail but one or two turn into Facebook, or Amazon.  It may well be that a venture capitalist systematically under rates the potential of black entrepreneurs, i.e. that he suffers racial bias.  But in that case he will be less successful in his investments.  Capitalism will punish him for his prejudices and diminish his importance as a venture capitalist because it will diminish his wealth. None the less, an Irish venture capitalist may well bias her investments toward fellow Irishmen and a black venture capitalist may risk an extra break for a fellow black. But the profit motive of capitalism will discourage departures from objective evaluations of investment prospects.

The idea that a law should forbid or discourage racial or sexual bias when venture capitalists decide in what to invest is without merit.  Moreover, it is hard to imagine what such a law would look like and/or on what basis a government bureaucrat would overrule and direct the placement of a private investor’s chose of investments.

To peak briefly at the other–entrepreneurial–side of the equation, the unbiased opportunity provided by capitalism has attracted many foreigner entrepreneurs to our shores.  Steve Jobs (Apple, NeXT, Pixar), who was adopted at birth, was the son of Joanne Schieble who was Swiss-American and Abdulfattah “John” Jandali who was Syrian.  Steve Wozniak, Apple cofounder, was the son of Polish and Swiss-German parents.  Sergey Brin cofounder of Google/Alphabet escaped from the Soviet Union.  The famous architect, I.M. Pei, immigrated from China.  “How-12-immigrant-entrepreneurs-have-made-america-great”

Science, Discrimination, and Larry Summers

It is clear that Harvard President Larry Summers has hit a nerve, yet again. It is far less clear why reactions have been so strong and often so disappointing to those of us who believe in science. Let us know the truth, whatever it is. If women have less “intrinsic aptitude” for science than men, and no one—not even Larry Summers—is arguing that such a fact has been established, then we should know about it. Choices are better made on the basis of facts than ignorance or fiction. To my mind, the key overlooked point is that such a fact would have almost no relevance to the values most of us believe in.

Equal treatment under the law and in public policy has nothing to do with whether the average intelligence or other indicators of aptitude or virtue of women is the same as men, or whether the same is true for blacks, whites, Asians, Jews, Arabs, Christians, Moslems, etc, or for gays or straights. We are each individuals, not averages. Our public policy and the personal beliefs of most of us are based upon the morality and advantage of dealing with individuals rather than classes of one sort or another. Whatever the averages might turn out to be—and why should we be afraid to know?—currently available evidence clearly establishes a very large dispersion of traits within each group and a very large overlap with all other groups.

Such principles are expressed and upheld by governments only when they are broadly believed by the governed (in democracies), or by enlightened rulers, or, as in our case of a constitutional democracy, when enlightened leaders in the contemplative environment of a constitutional convention imbed such principles in a constitution that limits what majorities may do. Fortunately, in free market economies self-interest works in favor of such principles. Profit minded employers want the best employees for the least cost.

It is human nature to economize and conserve in various ways. It is part of being efficient. Economizing on the gathering of information is but one of the many ways we prioritize the use of our time. We often develop impressions of people or groups of people (say Southern Baptists) on the basis of partial information. We often rely on the views of others we trust. It would take more of our time than it is worth to gather ALL of the facts. Biases and prejudices are perpetrated for some time for these reasons even among the good hearted.

If women are being discriminated against in the market place, presumably because of incorrect perceptions of their productivity, they will tend to earn less for the same work. If this is the case, it is economically advantageous for an employer to hire them. Thus there is an economic incentive for firms to look beyond the stereotypes (or averages) for individuals whose talents may not be fully appreciated yet in the market place. Not all employers will bother to do so, but those who do so will profit at the expense of those who discriminate. Over time more profitable firms tend to grow more rapidly than less profitable ones. If employers are forced to pay women the same wages as men when they believe they are less productive, fewer women will be hired until such time as broadly held prejudices are over come.

Open and honest debate about such issues is another way of advancing the truth and overcoming prejudice. In my opinion Larry Summers has contributed to that goal and the sometimes hysterical reactions to his raising legitimate scientific questions have not.