Re: When Discrimination Makes Sense
Anonymous_Net_Surfer's source wrote:But the explanation for the actions of the nonwhite cabdriver can far more simply and plausibly be attributed to two key facts. First, black males are six to ten times more likely to be convicted of violent crimes than white males.
Six times or ten times more likely, which is it? The source provides no substantiation for this allegation, nor explain the discrepancy implicit in the stated range of probability.
Quote:Second, more than 25 percent of black males between the ages of fifteen and thirty-five are, at any given time, in prison, on probation, or on parole. (For whites, the comparable figure is about 5 percent.)
Just off hand, i'd say those among that 25% who are actually incarcerated can reasonably be said to represent no threat of violence to cab drivers. This "statistic" ignores that if the police traditionally focus their attentions on young, black males, the probability of the apprehension of young, black males for crimes is higher that is that for young, white males. It also ignores the economic demographic--are young, white males in the same economic demographic as young, black males as likely to commit crimes, and to act violently? Once again, this source is throwing out "statistics" for which no substantiation is provided, and the demographic foundations for which strongly appear to be dubious.
Quote:Far from being a myth, the reality is that young black males are, by far, the most violent group in U.S. society.
The reader is left to take this statement from authority for truth, without plausible evidence having been presented, and in despite of the high probability that police officers are more likely to attempt to apprehend young, black males from a low economic demographic that they are to attempt to apprehend young, while males from the same economic demographic. It futher ignores the impact of economic deprivation--far more young, black men come from the low income demographic proportionately than do young, white males.
In short, no substantiation is provide for these claims, and if the author claims a statistical basis, it can reasonably be objected that his method of demographic analysis is likely flawed.
As everyone knows, statistics are the leading cause of cancer.
Quote:These are uncomfortable social facts, but they are facts.
No, they are allegations.
Quote:Consequently, the treatment accorded young African American males by police officers, cabdrivers, storekeepers, and others cannot be attributed to irrational prejudice. It is more likely the product of rational discrimination. In a situation in which we have limited information about individuals (cabdrivers, for instance, are not in a position to know their clients personally), we must make group judgments based on probability.
Anyone familiar with the residential demographics of Washington, D.C., or other major cities in the United States, but especially Washington, will know that in the low-income demographic, young,
black males are overwhelming the young, male members of that income group that one would encounter. To put it bluntly, most poor residents of cities are black, and most poor whites live in rural areas.
Quote:The concept of rational discrimination is easier to grasp if we look outside the racial context. Insurance companies, for example, charge teenage boys higher car insurance rates than teenage girls (or older drivers, for that matter). The reason isn't sexism or antimale prejudice; the statistical reality is that, on average, teenage boys are far more likely than teenage girls to bash their cars. So the insurance company is treating groups differently because they behave differently.
Whereas that may be so, as regards an act of considered discrimination against teenaged boys, it is not based on an artificial (even imaginary) distinction, which is to say, race. There is only one race among us--the human race. All other references to race are false. One can reasonably refer to ethnicity and concommitant culture, but that is not being done here.
Another major distinction overlooked by the author is that insurance companies use actuarial tables to arrive at such decisions. In short, they have some of the most reliable demographic statistics available to anyone, anywhere. Insurance companies know in greater detail than anyone else what the risks are because they have the most complete records of automotive losses due to driver error or criminality. I can see why the author overlooks this, though, since it would be such a major objection to the feeble thesis being advanced here.
Quote:Although rational discrimination against African Americans is a social problem, its magnitude should not be exaggerated. Strictly speaking, it makes no sense for a bank manager to refuse to hire a black teller because blacks as a group have a high crime rate; the manager can easily investigate whether this particular African American job seeker has a criminal record. So also mortgage lenders cannot rationally refuse loans to blacks on the grounds that blacks pose a higher repayment risk; again, the lender can look at each applicant's income and credit history.
Nevertheless, the practice of "redlining" remains common in the banking and insurance industries.
Quote:Still, rational discrimination is a fact of everyday life, and what to do about it poses a genuine public policy problem. Just because discrimination can be rational does not mean it is always moral. Indeed, the rational discrimination of cops, cabdrivers, and storekeepers is very unfair to the law-abiding African American who has done nothing wrong but is treated as a potential criminal.
It is also anecdotal, and ignores an equivalent threat from poor, young, white males. A section of Columbus, Ohio in which i once worked--known as The Bottoms--was described by a friend as "West Virginia West." (He was a native of West Virginia, and was actually quite accurate about the proportion of the population of that neighborhood which were native to that state, or whose parents were native to that state.) In that neighborhood, the 13- and 14-year-old crack whores were white; in that neighborhood, the street-corner drug dealers were white; in that neighborhood, the muggers were white. I rather susupect that experienced and intelligent police officers, cab drivers and shopkeepers make these judgments based on the apparently economic demographic of those with whom they deal, as opposed to being so stupid as to simply trust a white boy just because he's white.
Quote:Yet before we approve harsh punishments against those who practice rational discrimination, we should recall that their only offense is using common sense. Shouldn't African Americans who are legitimately outraged at being victimized by discrimination direct their anger not at cabdrivers or police officers but at the black thieves, muggers, and crack dealers who are giving the entire group a bad name?
In that the author does not seem to have deployed much common sense, i cannot accept these rhetorical questions as being based on anything more than the notions the author wishes to plant in the mind of the reader, as opposed to "facts," as the author alleges.
Quote:Dealing with Discrimination
My solution is that all forms of racial discrimination, including rational discrimination, should be illegal in the public sector. This means that police officers, who are agents of the state, should not be permitted to use race in deciding whether to question potential muggers or stop suspected drug dealers. The reason: We have a constitutional right to be treated equally under the law, meaning the government has no right to discriminate on the basis of race or color.
This point of principle will seem naive to those who ask about its cost in terms of police efficiency. The prudent answer is that there are other (in my view, more important) costs to be weighed. Government-sponsored rational discrimination has the cataclysmic social effect of polarizing African Americans who play by the rules and still cannot avoid being discriminated against. Even law-abiding blacks become enemies of the system because they find themselves treated that way.
In the private sector, we should be more flexible in dealing with rational discrimination. I think the campaign to go after cabdrivers for alleged bigotry is especially foolish. Of course, as a "person of color" myself, I'd be annoyed and indignant if I could not get a taxi. Yet my right to get a cab, which is the right not to be inconvenienced, seems less important than the cabdriver's right to protect his life and property. In cases such as this, it is better for the government to do nothing.
The author asserts, without establishing, that a racial demographic is more likely to be criminal in their behavior. The author ignores the important influence of economic opportunity, and cultural background. Those who grow up in hopeless neighborhoods, the children of hopeless teenage parents, are likely to be hopeless, and to display a "dont' give a damn" attitude toward crime and violence. Those who have nothing have nothing to lose.
The author would acheive more credibility by having done his homework more carefully, and by having shown a due regard for detailed demographics. If one were able to show that young, black me within a specific demographic group, in a specific locale (i.e., comparing urban residents to urban residents, and rural residents to rural residents) were more prone to violence, and be able to give more reliable evidence for the case with comparisons of equivalent groups of different races--he might have a point. As it stands, this is an exercise in paltry persuasion and innuendo which relies upon the gullibility of the reader, and the reader's propensity to wish to hear the message, rather than an appeal to well-founded fact.
, 3rd year law students.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace