A conversation about race, genes, bias, and fairness.

A conversation about race, genes, bias, and fairness.

Science, technology, and life.
May 8 2009 11:56 AM

Inequality Control

A conversation about race, genes, bias, and fairness.

Would you have predicted this? Click image to expand.
Would you have predicted this?


William Saletan William Saletan


The conversation started with the release of the latest data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, followed by a New York Times report that focused on the racial angle (" 'No Child' Law Is Not Closing a Racial Gap"). The discussion continued with:

1. McWhorter's thoughts on affirmative action, the NAEP report, and my reply to him;

2. My takes on the NAEP report, Sailer, and McWhorter;

3. Sailer's comments on the NAEP report, me, himself, McWhorter, himself again, and McWhorter again; and

4. Millman's take on the whole exchange.


A few points worth noting:


2. McWhorter has conceded that "it is utterly plausible, given indisputable differences between races of other kinds, that intelligence may prove to be one of them." It's important always to underscore that such differences are a matter of averages; nobody in this conversation is saying you can judge an individual by the color of his skin. McWhorter suspects that environmental factors, such as differences in peer groups, may account for racial gaps such as those highlighted by the NAEP report, even where income is ostensibly equal. But he's open to contrary evidence.

3. By the same token, McWhorter asks believers in genetic difference to remain open to complementary or alternative explanations. He writes:

The issue is poverty rather than race, and the cultural baggage it often means kids are bringing to school—which the schools poor black kids attend are less adept at compensating for than those attended by the poor white kids. Plus, poor white kids are more likely to have more fortunate students around them to imitate and learn from. We haven't seen yet whether addressing these things will close the gaps in question—or maybe narrow them to such an extent that whatever gap was left would be too small to interest anyone but obsessives of sinister motive. … I'd much rather see how far we can get with addressing what kind of schools poor kids go to. My money is on poor black kids looking better decade by decade if we do the right things—but that will mean assessing how the kids are doing by race, and publishing the data for all to see. …

That's a pretty compelling argument on every level. It accords each child the dignity of an open life. It also challenges the rest of us to keep paths of opportunity open. Theories of heredity tend to breed, if I may use that word, complacency. And that's a practical as well as moral problem, because each of us is a potential environmental factor in how a child turns out. So maintaining a sense of social responsibility about children "left behind" isn't just a feel-good delusion; it's part of a prescription for raising them to be healthy members of society.

  Slate Plus