Hoops:
I’ve always appreciated Dr. Sowell’s perspectives on race. I would be interested to hear what your perspective is on his views with regard to race, discrimination, and prejudice.
I appreciate your views on many of the topics you have discussed in your posts.
UH, here you are. Not very polished, but I'm tired from driving from AZ and depressed from having to leave the pool.
I don’t know much about Sowell, but have read some of his articles as well as articles written about him (especially after his last book.) I know that I often don’t agree with what he says. This is based mostly on my experience and observation and on some studying I have done in the area over the years.
I don’t agree with his argument that disparities in outcomes for people (income, education, etc.) are mostly the result of merit, knowledge, skills, education, and choices, as opposed to any external discrimination or disadvantages from discrimination or lower economic upbringing. While I agree with part of the first part of what he argues, I believe that knowledge, skill and education are often impacted by where someone came from and what advantages they did or didn’t have. For example, environment, neighborhood and one’s parental situation and support, as well as historical things like redlining and certain exclusions from the past, cause and result in disadvantages and biased results.
Sowell points to the success of certain groups like Asians and “dot” Indian immigrants to show that bias and so-called oppression aren’t barriers to success. (I don’t really believe in the oppression thing, by the way). I don’t believe it is right for him to compare the trajectory of voluntary immigrants, who often arrive with specific skills or resources, to groups that have faced long domestic structural disadvantages. Some DEI-type programs are designed to address these disadvantages and barriers that often or at least sometimes aren’t going to get overcome or fixed on their own. I believe the process has to be adjusted, but only to some extent, to ensure that historical and systemic biases and disadvantages don't pre-determine the results.And, I am completely fine with DEI-type things that involve women or people of color going on a retreat or doing things like that.
Sowell thinks policies affecting one group more than another are discriminatory. I agree to some extent, but if people who are disadvantaged aren’t given a hand and some breaks, many of them are not going to catch up to where their underlying ability and brainpower could and should take them.
Sowell says DEI is social engineering that compromises meritocracy and competence. Again, I can see his point to some extent, but I believe, as I just said, that disadvantaged people need and deserve a hand and a break. I don’t believe in lowering standards in a big way. I believe these hands/breaks should be for disadvantaged who have shown that they have good potential succeed, and succeed on their own, after getting the break/hand. I believe this should be for all disadvantaged people, and not based on race or color.
I also believe that diversity has benefits and is an asset in and of itself. Problems are sometime solved better with diverse people, and this isn’t just racial diversity. I mean different kinds of people who have had different kinds of experiences.
I also read that Sowell seems to ignore actual data that indicates that unconscious bias exists and plays a role in many things. He shouldn’t be ignoring valid data.
I believe merit is more than just grades, boards, and awards. Merit is broader than that. Merit has or should have non-objective factors and criteria to it. I have witnessed this many times in life. I have experienced it. Defining merit in a narrow way is not the proper definition of merit, in my view.
I like to use the example of an athletic coach in recruiting. A coach recruits based on what an athlete has done, and what talent and athletic ability the athlete has, shown but also on potential to a significant extent. Some kids haven’t fully grown or developed yet in high school. Some haven’t been in a good training/lifting program. Some haven’t had good coaching. Some haven’t had good competition. A college coach isn’t just looking at size, strength, speed, and stats. The coach is looking for kids who will develop and achieve much more as they get older, develop, train and get better coaching and competition. A coach is also looking for heart and desire. That isn’t a stat that can be measured with specific and objective stats. Can you imagine if coaches were limited to a narrow view of athletic “merit”?
A coach isn’t going to bring in a kid that doesn’t have a good chance of success, and I don’t think any significant help or DEI-like things should be provided to people who don’t show promise and who look like they aren’t going to succeed. However, in my life, I have seen many many kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, and of course from reservations, succeed when given a chance. In fact, some of them have outperformed many people that they were once behind.
Another thing I find very odd is that some people who were born on first or second base, oppose DEI. In some respects, DEI-type things help offset the advantages of things like White Privilege. While every white person doesn’t have privilege, many do and I certainly believe there is a significant level of white privilege in the US. If you want to ban all DEI, then turn in your white privilege. Ha. How many of you wish you had grown up on a remote Indian reservation with bad schools? Or in a bad part of LA or Detroit?
What about helping veterans or the handicapped? Do they deserve a hand or a break? Does helping them upset merit?
Transparency is just a word without a definition anymore.
