Yeah all he's saying is that socioeconomic background correlates even more strongly with socioeconomic background. And keeping it in economic terms has the additional plus of keeping the correlation consistent as times change.
> Yeah all he's saying is that socioeconomic background correlates even more strongly with socioeconomic background.
This is a reasonable observation, but the ought that's implicit in it is not. Heart disease correlates more strongly with death than lung cancer; does that mean it's wrong in some sense to donate to lung cancer research over heart disease?
To make my opinion more material: individuals have the right to make independent decisions within a broad moral framework. It's not wrong for individuals to personalize the good they do (in this case, in the form of racial justice) so long as what they're doing really is good.
>> Heart disease kills more people than lung cancer, but there's nothing wrong with raising money to research lung cancer.
> The difference is that face of diversity initiatives are zero sum.
No, they are not. Hiring someone from a disadvantaged group does not mean that you have to fire someone from a privileged group. That is what a zero-sum scenario would require.
Diversity initiatives level the playing field by increasing opportunities for one group relative to another. That doesn't necessarily mean that the disadvantaged group has more opportunities than the privileged group -- it only means that they have more than they did before.
No it requires not hiring the privileged group.
If you are hiring 1000 employees, and 10000 applied, and you've ranked them in some way, adding "diversity" to the equation means the ranking comes out different. Ranked potential employee 1307 using the pre-diversity standard, becomes employee 904 under the post-diversity standard.
But to move up that ranking, by definition, other people had to be moved out of the way. Maybe potential employee 1000, who only barely squeaked by, is now potential employee 1012, and so doesn't make the cut.
This is exactly what happens at universities.
Universities for example only have so many spots they can offer. So if a university keeps 10% of the spots for diversity candidates, then only 90% of the capacity is for diversity candidates.
Compounded with non diversity candidates applying in a disproportionately high number to diversity. And the population of non diverse having a better education. You end up making it harder for non diverse candidates and raising their bar.
You're right but that's fine. The argument though is that society has already imposed a 'higher bar' on "diverse candidates" (let's just be honest and call them minorities and the poor.) Think of it like this. A poor black girl named Keycia lives at home with her single mother and three siblings. She's studious but attends a bad public school, she works after school to help out at home, she takes care of her little brothers and sisters. Now compare to Chad, a white boy from an upper middle class family. He's also studious and also attends a public school but a good one with AP/IB classes, dual credit and so on. He doesn't work but he does play on one of the best lacrosse teams in the state and also swims.
All of which is to say it's two kids both working hard. Now, even with diversity initiatives, who's got a better chance of getting into Stanford? Hell who's got a better chance of getting into Iowa State? Or even being able to attend? Diversity initiatives exist to put these two kids on even ground. That's what equality of opportunity means.
Now, with diversity initiatives that are geared against Chad and in Keycia's favour, who's got a better chance of getting into Stanford?
Most diversity initiatives aren't about equal opportunities but rather equal outcomes.
Between race and socio-economic status, the later has a stronger correlation to health and so it should be used as the main indicator directing where/how to spend those healthcare dollars.
When it comes to people's health, these dollars need to be blind, or we are needlessly throwing some number of lives away each year.
Race correlates strongly with socioeconomic background. Insofar as diversity initiatives are actually attempting to improve the lives of disadvantaged people in this country, arguments like yours amount to relative privation.
Heart disease kills more people than lung cancer, but there's nothing wrong with raising money to research lung cancer.