To Be Fair
Greater fairness for those under-represented by race, ethnicity and/or gender cannot be achieved without creating greater unfairness
A sense of fairness is fundamental to human interactions regardless of context. Its definition, however, is simultaneously broad, ambiguous, variable and subject to opinion. The perception of the presence or absence of fairness is inexorably situational and relative. Despite these realities, we — as individuals and as a society — expect fairness in just about anything and everything. Pragmatically, this expectation is often complicated by competing self-interests and inherent conflicts.
A consistent theme in how we perceive fairness is which side of an issue or situation one is on. While it’s certainly possible to achieve what seems equal fairness to both sides, more often than not the ability to be fair to one side is likely to be perceived as unfair by the other. This is likely even when there seem to be compelling reasons. For example, there’s affirmative action — both formal and informal, which can be about getting into university, being hired and/or promoted, or the diversity of a board or team. It’s equal opportunity as fairness.
The criteria are typically gender, race and ethnicity, but these may be influenced by other indirect socio-cultural and -economic factors that can determine qualifications, experience and achievements. These, in turn, depend upon quality of education, availability of role models, existing community support and access to mentoring. To measure fairness (equality of opportunity), proportionality by race, ethnicity and gender in the general population is compared to data for proportionality in higher education, industries and companies and boards of directors to reveal what might be reasonable doubt regarding fairness.
So, the determination of degrees of unfairness (the lack of fairness) in this regard is relatively easy, but remediation and mitigation can be much more difficult, contentious and directly challenging to expectations of fairness. In terms of the last consideration, the common assumption and likely result is that increased fairness for those who were deprived of it means less fairness for those who otherwise would have had the advantage — at least until a target range of proportionality is achieved and maintained. In other words, more often than not, greater fairness for those under-represented by race, ethnicity and/or gender cannot be achieved without creating greater unfairness for those who are over-represented. The exception to this would be if available opportunities increase overall to accommodate those who have been excluded either on purpose or because of issues noted above.
An Asian-American friend recently related to me how she was unable to get into some schools when applying because her heritage, Chinese, was well-represented in terms of diversity, whereas those with other Asian heritages, such as Vietnamese, were poorly represented. Thus, despite having better qualifications, she was unable to attend the initial universities of choice. She viewed this as unfair, but understood why to others it might seem more fair. I noted that affirmative action actually works quite well, with certain caveats, and that there is no other mitigation that is as effective at rebalancing proportionality.
One caveat is that those who are less qualified might not do as well, and even drop out, because they did not have access to some of the advantages more qualified applicants had. Another is that proportionality depends on the general population being compared to, and precise matching of percentages is sometimes neither possible nor necessarily desirable without the socio-cultural and -economic infrastructure in place to help create greater success for those given greater consideration for purposes of improved diversity. How acceptable affirmative action is depends on a general societal agreement that such diversity is desirable and fair.
The primary focus in terms of higher education is race and ethnicity. Gender, not so much, because in the U.S., Europe and Asia, females are now a higher percentage of students, graduates and advanced-degree graduates compared to males. In business, however, things are quite different when it comes to gender, particularly in terms of senior management and boards of directors. Race and ethnicity are under-represented, but do not have as much disparity as women do at this level. The other area in which both race and gender are issues is high tech, with female participation at all levels well below general population proportionality.
There are two well-documented reasons for this lack of females as coders/engineers, managers/executives and venture capitalists. One is the mens’ club mentality that is pervasive. The other is the lack of interest by girls and young women, who perceive the industry as unattractive, the work as not meant for females and the working conditions as sexist. The industry openly admits it has failed but seems unable to rectify the issue, probably for the same reason some offer as to why female senior executives and board members are rare — insufficient qualified women. In terms of race and ethnicity, African-Americans and Hispanics, regardless of gender, are proportionally low in Silicon Valley and elsewhere.
In order to actually achieve proportional changes even with sufficient numbers of available diverse talent, preference would have to be given to non-white males and to females. This creates unfairness while also creating facilitating fairness. As with any transition, there has to be disruption and…well…collateral unfairness. The fundamental question is, which unfairness is worse: bringing true diversity into daily life or allowing the already privileged to continue to be so by limiting opportunities for diversity?
Before you answer, think about our highest aspirations as a society. Is it to be more inclusive, tolerant and diverse, or is it to avoid disruption that would achieve proportional fairness. I can tell you that economists have studied this, and the highest economic growth and greatest good come from diversity, both those born as citizens and those who immigrate. My friend tells me she’s grateful for all she’s achieved and the people who are in her life — a desirable result despite graduating from a university that wasn’t one of her first choices. Truly a pragmatic answer.
