Similar aspects appear in many automation scenarios in many industries. In general, if you want a system to be adopted, it needs to provide at least some benefit also to those who are in power; if the current status quo is better for them, then the planned changes can be (and usually are) sabotaged. There are many cases when you can get a win-win where the changes benefit everyone; but if they put the privileged groups at a disadvantage (e.g. hospital systems that significantly reduce work for nurses but add some inconvenience to administrators or top doctors) then it's an understatement to say that you'll have an uphill battle. It's unrealistic to consider the possibility of some proposed changes purely on technical or ethical merit - you can ignore politics but politics won't ignore you.
A key step in implementing any changes is to identify all stakeholders (especially if they may have conflicting interests) and identify which of these stakeholders have critical influence and (possibly) a de facto veto vote. If you can't sell the proposal to these stakeholders, then it doesn't matter how good your proposal is and what the others think (unless they can influence the opposition), it's not worth the effort to proceed further because you won't succeed without having them on board.
Perhaps it's worth looking at it as a Chesterton's fence situation. If you come from outside, unaware of the local situation, and find that the system is biased to provide a nontrivial advantage to group X, then before action you should ask, how come? Why is the system set up this way? It may be that this is accidental, but more likely than not it's an indicator that actually (no matter what the official, documented, publicly disseminated policies might say) group X has the ability to decide, or at least influence, what the policies are going to be. And that's valuable information, especially if you want to change that. Let's not put the cart ahead of the horse - you won't reduce the influence of group X by changing that policy, rather you'll need to reduce the influence of group X before you'll be able to change that policy.
To those with privilege, this will feel like bias against them (which is how I read the scare quotes above - feels like but is not actual bias.) They are losing an advantage they once held.
Being white is highly correlated with being privileged due to historical circumstances, but it is only a racist reading of the word that thinks that being privileged is being white.
When pro-white racists exist and are more common than anti-white racists in positions of influence, being white is, on its own, an advantage other people don't have.
It may also correlate with wealth, parental education, and other sources of privilege, but it is a source of privilege itself.
> but it is only a racist reading of the word that thinks that being privileged is being white.
Being white is, ceteris paribus, being privileged, not the other way around.
And, sure, that's a product of the existence of racism, but it's not racist thinking to recognize the effects of racism.
>One of the first things they showed us was a photo of the parents who had protested against the schedules devised by the algorithm. Nearly all of them were white. The majority of families in the Boston school system are not white. White families represent only about 15 percent the public school population in the city.
followed by:
>Optimizing the algorithm for greater “equity" also meant many of the planned changes were "biased" against families with privilege.
Since the author didn't clarify what they meant, or differentiate between them I am assuming they used the two terms interchangeably.
One funny thing I noticed. You could argue that since white families only constitute 15% of the public school population these changes disproportionately negatively affect a minority group.
When we speak of wanting to assist minorities this is when they are disadvantaged minorities. i.e. they are the opposite of privileged.
Please don't just play word games.
Don't disproportionate negative consequences constitute a disadvantage? Especially when faced with the existing issues of being a minority in a school system? Who really is disadvantaged here?
You can compound that with the new racism definition and I'm starting to wonder where all this supposed privilege is.
I'm not sure what this means, and I wish the article had gone into more detail. If it means "the preferences of families in higher-income neighborhoods were weighed the same as those of those in lower-income housing", that seems great, and uncontroversial. Those families probably had an outsized voice in the old scheduling process and so will do relatively worse in the new one, but oh well, that's life.
If instead it means "the preferences of families in high-income neighborhoods were intentionally given less weight than those of low-income families [to discount their privilege]," that's rather more ethically questionable.