Quote:
Originally Posted by Molten
As long this is the opinion of the majority, those that believe in equality will have failed. To truly support equality you must try to remove the differences that are already there, not instigate new ones to balance the problem. Yes, you can allow for about the same opportunity by doing this but in the end everyone is just going to be prejudiced against in different ways. I firmly believe in equality in its purest form. If you want to make things "fair" eliminate the cultural advantages given to the white males. Teach your little girl to use a power drill and other tools. The only way we'll ever have a truly equal situation is if we start giving our girls lego's and our boys dolls. Treat them the same, and in their eyes they will be. Anything less isn't true equality at all and to some extent abandonment of the original goal.
...
In short, treat the problem not the symptoms. Otherwise the problem will never be solved.
|
While I'll withhold judgment as to the best course of action with respect to teams and gender constraints, I note that there's both a short-term and a long-term component to this sort of question.
For example, is it always objectively preferable to immediately banish discrimination at every turn? Or are there legitimate reasons for using those classifications as a proxy for hardships that are systematically related to disadvantaged groups?
When the same classifications that were once used to discriminate against a group are instead used to improve the relative standing of that group (in other words, to discriminate in their favour), there is presumably a tangible benefit to the disadvantaged demographic in the short term. Contrast that with a strict equality regime, suddenly imposed—will we actually see that same degree of improvement with any immediacy? Over the long term, so long as some sort of social mobility is possible, it's plausible that the social situations will average out—but should we as a society wait that long? Is that actually the right thing to do, given that the affected people may not personally reap the benefits of this enlightenment within their lifetimes?
I note that this isn't really about "righting historical wrongs" (as such endeavours are often misconstrued). It is fundamentally more about using an approach that is feasible in the context of society, and which results in a modest but tangible short-term improvement rather than an idealized, hypothetical long-term benefit.
Practically speaking, isn't it easier to segregate a few all-girl teams than it is to remove the relevant cultural obstacles? While this is somewhat lacking in elegance, once the "friction" in the system is accounted for, it may prove to be the only reasonable course of action. (After all, given the political and social climate in the United States, would it actually be possible today to impose a perfect equality between women and men?)
In short, if there are practically unassailable barriers to treating the root cause, is it appropriate to treat some symptoms instead? Possibly.
What if the treatment exacerbates some symptoms (employs discrimination) while alleviates others (disadvantages of being female)? Isn't this situation-dependent? I don't think that the assumption that all discrimination is equally odious is appropriate here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molten
The real world has made it work, why can't we? In the business world, a person who makes sexist/racist comments is fired. Why shouldn't we be similar?
|
Ideally, yes, in civilized society, such consequences exist. The reality is a lot less clear-cut—to the point where I must strenuously object to the notion that these are solved problems in the real world. Sexism and racism (in the negative sense—discrimination against those groups) are hardly artifacts of the past. In the same jobs, with the same responsibilities (i.e. controlling for a number of explainable differences), women in the United States earn substantially less than men on an annual basis (ranging from around 10% to 30%, depending on the study). Members of racial and ethnic minorities are similarly observed to be systematically less successful than might be inferred from their qualifications. One potential explanation for those disparities is that racism and sexism have not been banished, but merely driven deeper, into places beyond the reach of simple occupational regulations.
Another problem I have with this comparison is that business dealings are driven to a much greater extent by a model of economic costs and benefits. The difficulties of describing social justice in terms of economic value are a constant thorn in the side of economic theory. At present, if we were to take a cynical view of the situation, we might say that a person is fired if the costs of defending them against the allegations of impropriety outweigh the benefits of retaining them. It's easy to let a middle manager go—they're a dime a dozen, but if the successful
CEO is the subject of the alleged wrongdoing, a simple firing isn't the usual course of action.
Now, although I disagree with your comparison to the business world, I do see value in disincentivizing insensitive behaviour. But a year's worth of penance? It won't work, except in the rarest of cases. This is a voluntary activity, and high school students are not to be trifled with—if they sense you're just punishing them to prove a point, or if they decide that their new assignment doesn't interest them anymore, most will just quit. And if they leave, either out of dissatisfaction or because you actually kicked them off, there are plenty of other things to occupy (and perhaps even inspire) them. These sorts of drastic measures are last resorts—the actions you take when you're not sorry to see them go, because their continued presence and behaviour is so intolerable that you've exhausted all other options.
Their ignorance needs to be alleviated with education, not crushed with discipline.