The Washington Post has a long article today, on page two, on bias. The gist, quoting favorably experimental psychologists, is that everyone is biased and that our biases are “implicit,” “unthinking,” “unconsicous,” “deeply ingrained,” etc. Thus debate about bias, as between Virginia Senate candidates Allen and Webb, “misses the point.”
“It would be no surprise that these two gentlemen have implicit biases — they are human like the rest of us,” [University of Virginia experimental psychologist Brian] Nosek said. “What I would love to see in politicians is an acknowledgment that says, ‘Of course I have implicit biases, and this is what I am going to do about them.’”
Aside from the unanswered question of what anyone can “do” about biases that are below the level of thought, consciousness, will, or intent, the article never defines “bias.”
I think it is altogether fitting and proper for psychologists, and even philosophers, to concern themselves with bias, whatever it is and however deep its buried. I think the rest of us, however, would do better if we concentrated on discrimination instead.
For starters, I would define discrimination as treating a person, or people, better or worse than others because of race, religion, sex, or ethnicity. In order to qualify as discrimination, an action generally must be accompanied by an intent to treat people differently, but that intent need not be fueled by “bias” or “prejudice.”
everyone is biased… I wonder if “everyone” includes the Washington Post.
I recently saw a sign at a check-out counter that noted, “we practice age discrimination,” indicating that they would require ID of anyone purchasing alcohol or tobacco.
I rather like this more fundamental definition of “discrimination”, because it forces one to consider when and why we consider discrimination to be unfair. Discrimination just means treating different people differently.
Bad discrimination, in my mind, is discrimination based on something that has no connection to the manner in which they’re being treated differently, and it’s especially bad if it’s something the discriminatee can’t control. For example, it is reasonable for a university’s admissions office to discriminate based on intelligence and to past performance, since these qualities indicate an applicant’s potential to succeed at the university. Men and women have certain differences, none of which seem particularly relevant to an admissions decision. Almost all differences between black people and white people in the aggregate are dwarved by the differences within each race.
On the other hand, I could see accepting discrimination based on race for a spot on the police force, if a black police officer is more or less likely than a white police officer to be accepted by the people in a particular neighborhood. In this case, race (or apparent race) would have an actual impact on one’s ability to perform a job, so it’s not unreasonable to consider it.
Of course, then we get into the history of racial discrimination. Barring the Boston police from discriminating based on whether an applicant is black, Irish, or Italian, seems a safer bet than permitting racial discrimination; even if we could conceivably get a slightly more effective police force by hiring black cops to patrol black neighborhoods and white cops to patrol white neighborhoods, I think irrational racial discrimination would be more likely to occur.
And, of course, I’ve left out the 14th amendment. Also, a black roommate of mine once told me that, if anything, a black police officer was more likely to be seen as a sell-out, and therefore be less effective in a black neighborhood.
Steven – Well said! I think on balance I would resist hiring a black cop because he or she might be more effective in a black neighborhood because it would impossible to untangle that rationale from not hiring a black cop because he or she might not be as effective in a Korean neighborhood, etc. Once you get beyond such apparently obvious cases as considering only blacks as candidates to work undercover in a black gang, the slope gets very slippery. In fact, it gets slippery earlier, since some black federal agents once sued (don’t recall the result) for always being selected for such dangerous undercover work, limiting their chances for the varied work necessary for promotion….
In the Wash Post article, two studies are mentioned which purportedly show that many people are afflicted with racial bias. These experiments appear to have been conducted so as to trigger an immediate response to skin color, not a rational consideration of facts and circumstances. However, it is these kind of sub-conscious or closely held biases that inform, for example, the assertion by the NAS committee that women are denied tenure track faculty positions in science and engineering due in part to sexism. If the academic hiring process consisted primarily of showing flashcards of the candidates’ faces to members of the hiring committee, they might be onto something. Like the nature of bias, reality tends to be more complicated than the human subjects experimental psychology lab.