To be honest, I think the conversation between equality of "opportunity" and equality of outcome is a false binary that I think this article gets sucked into. Equality of outcome is a bit of a strawman definition of equity as no one, even on the further fringes on the Marxist left actually believes in equality of outcome across the board for everyone. This is a pretty common trope I hear Americans parrot over and over again when anyone is critical of economic and social disparities.
To be more clear, most left ideology isn't opposed to inequality. They are critical of the ways in which that inequality is generated, perpetuated and reinforced through systems of discrimination. You evaluate the ways inequality is generated by measuring outcomes and explaining why those outcomes are the way they are. Conservatives (this includes Neoliberals as well) do this too, however, they tend to see the outcomes as deserved (because of various actions taken in the individuals lives), even if those outcomes result in say, college educated black people having less wealth than white high school dropouts. This is because, unlike liberals and leftists, conservatives don't really believe people are born equal as an axiom to base their political ideas.
The equality of outcome is not a popular position, but it is untrue to paint it as a straw man that no one believes in. A recent poll I linked in the piece shows that 9% of Americans favor equality of outcomes. Again, very unpopular, but 9% ain't nothing, especially given how large the US population is. And if public discourse is any indicator, that cohort is disproportionately affluent, educated, and institutionally well-connected.
I do not think public discourse is any indicator about the nature of that 9%, but when I say it is a strawman, I’m not talking at all about how many people “believe it”. I think that the idea of full “equality of outcome” is not a belief of the left for reasons I laid out. We know that there will be hierarchies, but that it shouldn’t be based on one’s identity or religious category.
I also don't think equality of opportunity vs outcome is a false binary.
You note "no one, even on the further fringes on the Marxist left actually believes in equality of outcome across the board for everyone." And this may be true when discussing an individual -- Marx would never claim that anyone could (or should be able) to become a surgeon, for example. The way the argument for equality of outcome is most often discussed is in the assumption that in a just society we should see roughly proportional representation across a spectrum of outcomes. When we don't see this, it is prima facie evidence of discrimination that needs to be corrected. Thing like disproportionate representation in higher level high school math courses of Asians, men in engineering careers, or disproportionate attendance of rich students in elite colleges -- these become rallying cries for corrective action. And I think the notion that some of these facts are problematic would poll much better (for the equity camp) than just asking whether people prefer equality of opportunity or of outcome without context.
This closely parallels the affirmative action debate in which the way the subject is framed makes a huge difference in how the public polls on it. In any case, AA is much less popular among main stream society than the more vocal elite, especially in academia, which nearly universally trashed the recent SCOTUS decision.
I see where you are coming from but I disagree on the grounds that we don't really need disparate outcomes to prove discrimination. We have plenty of experimental, empirical, anecdotal, personal, and historical evidence of discrimination, even among black and white immigrants from the same part of the world and between women and men (any other marginalized groups). Feel free to become familiar with the research on the various subject if you would like, but I don't think it's correct to act as if there is an equality of opportunity given the widespread evidence to the contrary.
I'd also like to point out that pointing out that "controlling for cofounding characteristics" and getting similar outcomes after those controls do not mean that there isn't discrimination, especially when those confounding characteristics can be an outcome of discrimination themselves (see "bad controls").
Where I disagree with much of the liberal left is that I think that corrective actions need to happen at colleges, employment, or even at the communal level. I think they primarily need to happen at the family, pre-natal level and most importantly financial wealth. I support baby bonds or giving every poor child $1,000-3,000 (or more) a year or more until they are 18 (depending on family income) to start out in life, not as free money, but to help pay for down-payments on houses or purchasing land or anything else that can provide for essential personal wealth building (any type of equity).
Discriminatory practices can really only refer to disparate treatment or disparate outcomes. Disparate treatment, among protected classes, is already illegal. The legal system has moved on to disparate impact as a lesser standard as proof of discrimination. This is literally inequality of outcome.
I mean, sure, discrimination can “exist” without producing disparate outcomes, but as a practical matter, as far as public policy is concerned, it really doesn’t make sense to expend a lot of effort/time/money on a problem that can’t be quantified, toward progresses that can’t be concretely measured.
I see what you're saying but the problem is that disparate outcomes are often EVIDENCE of disparate treatment. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean the law is applied equally. Case and point, stop and frisk was ruled illegal because of how it is applied specifically to black and brown people in New York.
Another thing that a lot of people forget that many of the laws during Jim Crow were facially neutral. Vagrancy laws, for example, were generally neutral as written, but they were used as a justification to kidnap black people who weren't actively working. The black people were fined and then sent off to plantation owner farms to literally pick cotton and farm sugarcane. If they tried to leave, they were beaten, whipped and/or shot. They were supposed to do this until their debt was paid, but in reality, the court would simply not respect the debt payment and the plantation owner kept the defendant enslaved.
This is textbook "debt peonage" which continued until 1944 (officially -- mass incarceration is another loophole -- the New Jim Crow), which had been illegal as early as 1867 yet this vagrancy law system in the south was a loophole around the ban.
Technically, yes, white people were subject to vagrancy laws, in reality, it was only applied to black people. This is how disparate outcome can very clearly indicate disparate treatment and how just because something is illegal, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
To be honest, I think the conversation between equality of "opportunity" and equality of outcome is a false binary that I think this article gets sucked into. Equality of outcome is a bit of a strawman definition of equity as no one, even on the further fringes on the Marxist left actually believes in equality of outcome across the board for everyone. This is a pretty common trope I hear Americans parrot over and over again when anyone is critical of economic and social disparities.
To be more clear, most left ideology isn't opposed to inequality. They are critical of the ways in which that inequality is generated, perpetuated and reinforced through systems of discrimination. You evaluate the ways inequality is generated by measuring outcomes and explaining why those outcomes are the way they are. Conservatives (this includes Neoliberals as well) do this too, however, they tend to see the outcomes as deserved (because of various actions taken in the individuals lives), even if those outcomes result in say, college educated black people having less wealth than white high school dropouts. This is because, unlike liberals and leftists, conservatives don't really believe people are born equal as an axiom to base their political ideas.
The equality of outcome is not a popular position, but it is untrue to paint it as a straw man that no one believes in. A recent poll I linked in the piece shows that 9% of Americans favor equality of outcomes. Again, very unpopular, but 9% ain't nothing, especially given how large the US population is. And if public discourse is any indicator, that cohort is disproportionately affluent, educated, and institutionally well-connected.
I do not think public discourse is any indicator about the nature of that 9%, but when I say it is a strawman, I’m not talking at all about how many people “believe it”. I think that the idea of full “equality of outcome” is not a belief of the left for reasons I laid out. We know that there will be hierarchies, but that it shouldn’t be based on one’s identity or religious category.
I also don't think equality of opportunity vs outcome is a false binary.
You note "no one, even on the further fringes on the Marxist left actually believes in equality of outcome across the board for everyone." And this may be true when discussing an individual -- Marx would never claim that anyone could (or should be able) to become a surgeon, for example. The way the argument for equality of outcome is most often discussed is in the assumption that in a just society we should see roughly proportional representation across a spectrum of outcomes. When we don't see this, it is prima facie evidence of discrimination that needs to be corrected. Thing like disproportionate representation in higher level high school math courses of Asians, men in engineering careers, or disproportionate attendance of rich students in elite colleges -- these become rallying cries for corrective action. And I think the notion that some of these facts are problematic would poll much better (for the equity camp) than just asking whether people prefer equality of opportunity or of outcome without context.
This closely parallels the affirmative action debate in which the way the subject is framed makes a huge difference in how the public polls on it. In any case, AA is much less popular among main stream society than the more vocal elite, especially in academia, which nearly universally trashed the recent SCOTUS decision.
I see where you are coming from but I disagree on the grounds that we don't really need disparate outcomes to prove discrimination. We have plenty of experimental, empirical, anecdotal, personal, and historical evidence of discrimination, even among black and white immigrants from the same part of the world and between women and men (any other marginalized groups). Feel free to become familiar with the research on the various subject if you would like, but I don't think it's correct to act as if there is an equality of opportunity given the widespread evidence to the contrary.
I'd also like to point out that pointing out that "controlling for cofounding characteristics" and getting similar outcomes after those controls do not mean that there isn't discrimination, especially when those confounding characteristics can be an outcome of discrimination themselves (see "bad controls").
Where I disagree with much of the liberal left is that I think that corrective actions need to happen at colleges, employment, or even at the communal level. I think they primarily need to happen at the family, pre-natal level and most importantly financial wealth. I support baby bonds or giving every poor child $1,000-3,000 (or more) a year or more until they are 18 (depending on family income) to start out in life, not as free money, but to help pay for down-payments on houses or purchasing land or anything else that can provide for essential personal wealth building (any type of equity).
Discriminatory practices can really only refer to disparate treatment or disparate outcomes. Disparate treatment, among protected classes, is already illegal. The legal system has moved on to disparate impact as a lesser standard as proof of discrimination. This is literally inequality of outcome.
I mean, sure, discrimination can “exist” without producing disparate outcomes, but as a practical matter, as far as public policy is concerned, it really doesn’t make sense to expend a lot of effort/time/money on a problem that can’t be quantified, toward progresses that can’t be concretely measured.
Just because something is illegal does not mean it doesn’t happen.
I see what you're saying but the problem is that disparate outcomes are often EVIDENCE of disparate treatment. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean the law is applied equally. Case and point, stop and frisk was ruled illegal because of how it is applied specifically to black and brown people in New York.
Another thing that a lot of people forget that many of the laws during Jim Crow were facially neutral. Vagrancy laws, for example, were generally neutral as written, but they were used as a justification to kidnap black people who weren't actively working. The black people were fined and then sent off to plantation owner farms to literally pick cotton and farm sugarcane. If they tried to leave, they were beaten, whipped and/or shot. They were supposed to do this until their debt was paid, but in reality, the court would simply not respect the debt payment and the plantation owner kept the defendant enslaved.
This is textbook "debt peonage" which continued until 1944 (officially -- mass incarceration is another loophole -- the New Jim Crow), which had been illegal as early as 1867 yet this vagrancy law system in the south was a loophole around the ban.
Technically, yes, white people were subject to vagrancy laws, in reality, it was only applied to black people. This is how disparate outcome can very clearly indicate disparate treatment and how just because something is illegal, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.