| | Dale, I looked up the verb "to discriminate" from the same dictionary. Here are the definitions:
1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.
2. to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things. –verb (used with object)
3. to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate: a mark that discriminates the original from the copy.
4. to note or distinguish as different: He can discriminate minute variations in tone. –adjective
5. marked by discrimination; making or evidencing nice distinctions: discriminate people; discriminate judgments.
I was using the term not in the first sense, but in senses 2 through 5. It is unfortunate that, like the word "selfishness," the word "discrimination" has gotten corrupted by bad philosophy, so that its original meaning, which referred to discriminating judgment has now been replaced in the popular mind by indiscriminate judgment -- its polar opposite. As a result, the very act of exercising discriminating judgment is now branded as immoral.
So if, out of fear for his life and safety, a black person exercises discriminating judgment in avoiding neighborhoods inhabited by white racists, then according to the conventional wisdom, he is guilty of immoral "discrimination" even though his very life depends on it. The same is true of the pizza parlors who refuse to deliver to dangerous black neighborhoods. The lives and safety of their deliverers depend on it. Ditto for cabbies, many of whom are themselves black, who refuse to pick up young black men who are far more likely than other passengers to rob and assault them.
What would those who oppose this kind of discrimination have them do? Risk their very lives to deliver a pizza or pick up a passenger? The answer is: yes. As we have seen, lawmakers have prevented pizza parlours from discriminating against certain neighborhoods by forcing them to serve all parts of the city equally, even at the risk of their lives and safety. They have also made it illegal for cabbies to refuse to pick up young black men as passengers. In other words, these lawmakers would have Pizza Parlours and cabbies pretend that there are no differences in the crime rate or the character of people living in different neighborhoods or belonging to different subsections of the population. Such is the mindless assault on the rationality of discrimination. In fact, of course, this kind of discrimination is absolutely necessary, if one values one's life and safety, as it would be immoral and irrational not to practice it.
Or consider housing discrimination. George Sternlieb, one of the country's leading housing experts, found that rental discrimination was practiced by black landlords as well as by white. The reason for the discrimination was not irrational bigotry, but simply that white tenants were judged on the average to be more reliable in paying the rent and less likely to damage apartments. Landlords sometimes charged whites as much as 25% less for identical apartments in the hope of retaining them as tenants. Yet this kind of discrimination has also been made illegal, even though it is done to protect the landlord's property and his rental income and is, therefore, entirely appropriate.
A similar kind of group discrimination is practiced by life-insurance companies, who charge women lower premiums than men. The reason is not that insurance executives are sexist, or that they hate men, but simply that women as a group have longer life expectancies than men do. Nor are insurance executives so blinded by stereotypical thinking that they believe that every woman will outlive every man. They recognize that there are many exceptions to the longer female life-expectancy. They are simply going by the law of averages, which is the best they can do.
It is true that better information can sometimes reduce or eliminate the advantages of discriminating on the basis of group membership. For example, if a black applicant has better references and a better rental history than a white applicant, then it would be foolish for a landlord to discriminate in favor of the white applicant simply because whites on the average are better tenants than blacks. Arbitrary discrimination is not in a landlord's economic self-interest. It is this kind of arbitrary discrimination that is characteristic of racism and makes it irrational. But the kind of discrimination that these landlords, both black and white, were engaged in is neither arbitrary nor irrational, nor is it bigoted or racist.
In fact, if black tenants were as likely as whites to respect the landlord's property rights, there would be virtually no rental discrimination at all. The reason is not that no landlords are bigots -- some undoubtedly are -- but that such discrimination could not be successfully maintained, because competition from other landlords would make it unprofitable. Consider, for example, the price discrimination reported by Sternlieb. If such discrimination were to exist without any rational basis for it, then competition among landlords would eliminate it by bidding down the rents of blacks to equality with those of whites. As economist George Reisman explains:
"[A]ssume that blacks had to pay monthly rents just five percent higher than those of whites, while the landlord's costs were the same in both cases. [Emphasis added. Obviously, if blacks were less reliable in paying the rent and more likely to damage apartments, then the landlord's costs would not be the same.] This five percent premium would constitute a major addition to a landlord's profits. If a landlord's profit margin -- his profit as a percentage of his rents -- were normally ten percent, a five percent addition to his rents would constitute a fifty percent addition to his profits. Even if his profit margin were initially as high as twenty-five percent, a five percent addition to his rents would constitute a twenty percent addition to his profits. In response to such premium rates of profit, housing construction for blacks would be stepped up, and a larger proportion of existing housing would be rented to them. The effect of this increased supply of housing, of course, would be to reduce the rental premium paid by blacks. And because a mere one percent premium would mean significant extra profits in supplying blacks with housing, even a premium of this small size could not be maintained. Thus, blacks would pay no higher rents than whites, and obtain housing equal in quality to that obtained by whites." (Capitalism: The Cure for Racism)
As I've said, the invidious discrimination that is characteristic of racism is solved by being more discriminating in one's judgments, not less. Nor is discriminating among different groups immoral, when discriminating among different individuals is impractical. In fact, as we have seen, group discrimination is often necessary in order to protect one's life and property.
- Bill
|
|
