The primary issue underlying the support for race/gender-based preferences is a legal concept called “disparate impact”.
The concept of “disparate impact” is rooted in the fallacy that differing results/passing rates is proof of discrimination and it unwittingly or not, incentivizes/encourages poor performance against any given standard by presupposing that any and all group differences must be rooted in or caused by discrimination.
The result of using “disparate impact” in both higher education and job admissions criteria cements in place poor performance. One example of this is the New York City public school system, where while drop out rates have decreased, the 20% disparity between whites and Asians versus blacks and Hispanics has remained constant.
Claiming that any negative “disparate impact” for any “protected group” must result from racial/ethnic discrimination is as inane as claiming that “any death of any “protected group” must be the result of murder.” BOTH suppositions are clearly unsupported by the facts.
Race and gender preferences undermine two fundamental American principles; (1) equality before the law and (2) equality of opportunity. Such ethno-centric policies put an arbitrary value on race/gender/ethnicity and inculcate, perpetuate and exacerbate the kinds of petty bigotries they were ostensibly designed to eliminate.
Moreover, these policies incentivize poor performance by rewarding poorer group performance, thus cementing in place the “disparities” they’re designed to correct.
These policies are rooted in three erroneous presumptions; (1) that “equality of opportunity” should result in something very close to the proportional representation of every group within that community, (2) that any and all “disparate impacts” must be due to some form of discrimination and (3) that past injustices carry forward.
The fact is that both individuals AND groups differ in regards to interests, motivations and virtually the entire array of human traits. True “equality of opportunity” would NOT be expected to result in anything close to proportional representation and proponents of preferences know this as they DO NOT support outright proportionalism as public policy.
There are indeed a host of reasons, other than discrimination that would result in “disparate impacts” between various ethnic/racial groups.
Traditional lending criteria were ruled “discriminatory” based on their having a “disparate impact” on “low income,” especially black and Hispanic Americans. These rulings, of course, ignored the “disparate impact” between whites and Asians - Asian-Americans got home mortgages at a higher rate than whites on those same traditional lending criteria.
The fact is that individuals rarely, if ever conform equally across any parameters, certainly there should be no expectation of anything close to “proportionalism” across any such parameters, and that is especially the case on open competitive standards, but group differences vary over time and are subject to change at any time.
That’s why racial/ethnic preferences are so problematic – they exacerbate the very problem (competitive disparities) they’re intended to address. An example is the SAT exams. Since Colleges and Universities have begun using race as a criteria for admissions, the test score gap between blacks and whites on the SATs has only increased.
Wouldn’t the resources spent on defending and instituting such divisive and harmful preferences be better spent on remedial help to give those who are having a difficult time competing on basic standardized criteria a better chance at success?
JMK
Posts
