Equality of outcome leads to an abomination of Justice

"Jonathan David Haidt is a social psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University's Stern School of Business. His academic specialization is the psychology of morality and the moral emotions."

I recently watched his TedTalk about "the moral roots of liberals and conservatives" which i link to in my sig

this video is just over 13 minutes and the gist of it this: unequal distributions of demographics within particular context (such as men compared to women in STEM fields) does not mean inequality of opportunity between those groups aka it doesnt prove that the stem fields are sexist or discriminatory or oppressive towards women

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQNaT52QYYA

Loved the linked video btw...

You could expand this to the economy with the debate of Woman's pay compared to men, how many studies only examine the flat payment and salaries but fail to take into consideration of financial choices and specific jobs fields between men and women.

Cool topic!

I have often wondered if they looked at the number of applications vs the number hired for things like that. If there are more men in a certain field is it because more men apply for that field? As long as the numbers of people working in a specific field are roughly similar to those applying to work in that field then I don't think one can prove a hiring bias.

However, one could examine if a cultural bias pushes members of specific demographics towards and away from certain things. Are we, as a society, discouraging women from even becoming interested in working in STEM fields? That is a totally different question from "is there a hiring bias against women in STEM fields?" Both are questions worth asking.

I liked the video immensely; likely because it supports my existing beliefs and articulates them in a way I have not committed myself to doing.

Particularly with regard to disparity of hiring practices this is something I see in my own organisation (policing) as a potential barrier to my own advancement. Whilst it's not an insurmountable barrier it is one that nonetheless exists as we have committed to "increasing the number of females in leadership roles". I find that I can reconcile my disappointment with the idea of another candidate being selected based on ability or performance (which I can improve about myself) but the concept of being passed over because of my gender, irrespective of any loftier purpose, is to quote the video "abhorrent".

Though I agree a more balanced ratio of genders in leadership positions is likely to result in a more balanced and equitable organisation, what I am seeing is the beginnings of 'reverse discrimination' in order to achieve the 2:1 ratio required to reach equity. I am also seeing a failure to recognise the correlation between the ratio of advancements with the ratio of applicants or even the workforce as a whole. Many of us have raised concerns with the policy (admittedly the majority are male which seems to only further support the underpinning notion that there exists a systemic culture of sexism) by attempting to point out that equity and equality are not the same.

Thank you for the link. I will share it within my organisation in an effort to elicit more thought provoking conversation than the typical "it isn't fair to us men" diatribe as is typical.

Ranting aside, I think Goken raises an interesting topic for further study by those in the social science field in relation to cultural bias. Firstly, is/ has our culture discouraged genders from certain fields according to preconceived gender identities and secondly, is it right to actively attempt to reverse that bias for the sake of "equality" regardless of individual preference? Furthermore, where do those with non-traditional gender identity fit within our "systemic" cultural bias?

Goken wrote: However, one could examine if a cultural bias pushes members of specific demographics towards and away from certain things. Are we, as a society, discouraging women from even becoming interested in working in STEM fields? That is a totally different question from "is there a hiring bias against women in STEM fields?" Both are questions worth asking.

right, and this is where we start to hit the limits of proof and enter into hypothesis, because researchers cant eliminate cultural influences, and if ever they could it would be extremely unethical and thats a mild phrasing i think lol

i would guess that evolution would play many times greater a role in the inclination differences between sexes than culture alone, but also that culture is a powerful driver too

scandinavian nations have got what are recognized to be the most egalitarian societies of the modern world and prof peterson actually gets into that topic in several of his videos, heres one where he touches on it briefly with joe rogan, which was an awesome interview

(please note that the channel " joe rogan" is responsible for the title of the video)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=duKpxwzDBcM

When Hillary Clinton made a comment about the glass ceiling in her defeat speech was she saying a women still hadn't been President, or that discrimination had stopped her...

... as AFAIK glass ceilings are not about equity, rather they are about invisible barriers stopping progress of people who are a minority in the workplace. It was probably both but I raise it to make a point.

There are various factors restricting diversity in the workforce and lots of reasons why diversity is a positive thing - but forcing equal distribution seems discriminatory to me. The whole point of anti-discrimination law is to remove discrimination from the equation. So I cannot argue with the OP.

And discrimination can be any reason, sometimes not obvious, but since government has a function in ensuring lawful conduct the trick is detecting and reducing discrimination when it occurs where an imbalance exists - because under those circumstances the discrimination remains buried and outside of normal industrial relations processes.

If imbalance doesn't exist, then its less likely for discrimination to occur or be more easily detected and addressed by normal industrial relations processes... meaning the government might not need to be involved at all.

IMO that is why there has historically been a drive towards increasing numbers of minorities in employment areas - to ensure the workforce was fairly accessible.

But as stated its where its hardest to detect that it has the most damage and so there might be some good reason to still be exerting that type of influence. I guess like anything the problem is when it's abused by being taken too far or misplaced.

How topical. Just this morning, I covered HR policies in relation to current business practices with my students. We discussed exactly this phenomenon, which was of particular interest for my classes, which are predominantly African American women. They wanted to know at what point adverse impact in hiring could be actually claimed/ proven, why there were so few African am CEOs, things like that.

For my part, I agree with the video presenter that unequal outcome does not necessarily mean that discrimination occurred. However, USSC has ruled more than once that intent to discriminate does not necessarily need to be there for legally actionable discrimination to have occurred.

It's a fascinating topic. I try to spend some portion of all of my classes talking about the ethical aspects of business like this that are sometimes overlooked.

i'd like to make it clear that i am NOT saying women dont face discrimination in STEM (or any other) fields

im not likely to start bemoaning the patriarchy and i do believe that competence, discipline and long term commitment are the most relevant factors to success in most any field for all of us, regardless of our demographics, but im also not going to claim that stereotypes and prejudices have no bearing on peoples career paths or life circumstances

Desolous wrote: ....USSC has ruled more than once that intent to discriminate does not necessarily need to be there for legally actionable discrimination to have occurred....

that got my attention so i asked the internet what was going on

of course it had a lot to say

from http://legacycultures.com/discrimination-201-intent-discriminate-necessary/

"I recently delivered discrimination training to a group of (mostly male) executives. One asked a great question: his wife does not want him traveling with other women on business. Is it ok if he only brings male employees on business trips? I hope you can guess the answer (no!). Simply put, spousal preference is not a legitimate reason to discriminate. The fact that the executive bears no ill will towards female employees is of no consequence. By honoring his wife’s preference, he would be denying women advancement opportunities. And that would be just as illegal as refusing advancement opportunities to women based on his belief that they are inferior."

from https://www.recruitinglife.com/EduCert/downloads/isccourses/isc_17.pdf

The state of Connecticut administered a written examination to certain of its employees who
were candidates for promotion to a supervisory position. Only employees who passed the
test were considered for promotion, but not all employees who passed the test were
promoted. Of 48 black employees who took the test, 26, or approximately 54%, passed. On
the other hand, of the 259 white employees who took the test, 206, or approximately 80%,
passed. Since 64% of black employees would have had to pass the test in order for it to be
determined not to have adverse impact upon blacks as a group, Connecticut’s examination
failed the “Four-Fifths Rule” test, and the test was deemed to have an adverse impact upon
African Americans.
The state of Connecticut, however, did not discontinue reliance upon the test results once it
determined that the test had adverse impact. Rather, it decided to “compensate” for the
shortcomings of the testing process, by actually promoting a greater percentage of blacks
who passed the test than of whites who scored similarly. The end result was that, although
blacks had a lesser chance than whites of passing the exam, 23% of all blacks who took the
test wound up being promoted to a supervisory position, while only 14% of the whites who
took the exam were so promoted.
Connecticut urged the U.S. Supreme Court to adopt a “bottom line” theory in analyzing
these types of cases. In essence, said the state, if you look at our process as a whole, we have
achieved an appropriate racial balance in our supervisory workforce, and therefore, it should
not matter that one of our steps along the way had an adverse impact upon blacks.
The Supreme Court disagreed....

The Supreme Court was highlighting one of the differences in approaching the two major
types of theories upon which a discrimination lawsuit can be based. They are:

1. Disparate Impact – Under this theory, the employer’s liability is based upon the fact
that a seemingly neutral policy, test or standard, applied equally to all employees or
applicants for employment, nevertheless has the effect of excluding a disproportionately
high number of minorities or women.

2. Disparate Treatment – In this type of case, the plaintiff is complaining that he or she
received different treatment than other similarly situated persons because of a prohibited
factor, i.e., his or her race, age, sex, national origin, religion or non-job related disability"

there was more, even a little test/quiz at the end to see who was paying attention lol