The system you describe isn't perfect, but almost certainly is a net increase in fairness.
Is there a reason we can't solve the equality issue for historically marginalized groups, then fix the systems again to address the smaller set of folks who were disadvantaged by the changes?
Basically, can we Zeno's paradox our way most of the way there, solving and disadvantaging smaller and smaller sets of people?
Why use historically marginalized groups - which almost always means racial groups as your target?
If you want to put more money into educational support for children where neither parent went to college or makes more then $x - I'm all in favor. But when you can easily measure those things, why then conflate it with race? If certain racial groups fall into those disdavtaged categories, they will automatically benefit. But maybe poor hard working white, or indian, or Chinese parents are dubious about giving additional benefit to the middle class or rich people who happen to be of a certain race? To take a specific example, why should a university prefer to accept one of president Obama's kids ahead of the child of a Chinese butcher or shopworker, all other things being equal?
I didn't say race very deliberately. There are plenty of marginalized groups of particular races, of course, but there are marginalized groups based on plenty of other criteria. LGBTQ+ folks, the elderly, women, immigrants, etc etc etc.
All of these are crude generalizations. If marginalization can be definitively stated to exist in someone, then it can be measured, and if it can be measured, then it can be directly compensated for without resorting to generalizations.
I would prefer that the state treats every one equally, instead of trying to equalize something as elusive, hard to measure and outside of any sensible government mandate, as good fortune (or lack of bad fortune) in one's life.
> I would prefer that the state treats every one equally, instead of trying to equalize something as elusive
I don't think you quite understand here. There are ways of helping out marginalized groups, with their specific problems, and still treating everyone equally.
For example, when there are laws that are passed, that make sexual harassment in the workplace illegal, this disproportionally helps out women, with this problem that they mostly face.
But, even though, yes, this helps this marginalized group, it is still equal. Sexual harassment is still illegal, whether it happens to either men or women, but passing such a law does help this marginalized group more.
You are correct, of course, but equality can be deployed the opposite way as well. The law that says "no sleeping under bridges" impacts different groups unequally.
I'm trying to imagine how you would quantify how marginalized someone is. Black Americans have challenges, women in America have challenges, Black Women in America have challenges that are unique from either Black Americans or women. (When people talk about intersectionality, this is what they mean.)
How does being queer interact with being from West Virginia, or being poor and and having celiac.
There's just too many factors, you cannot just calculate them all, because they are not independent variables.
Every one has challenges. Claiming certain groups have more challenges implies being able to measure the difficulty of challenges, in order to be able to ascertain the challenges of one group are greater than the norm.
I can't tell you how much concrete there is in my house, I can't tell you how much concrete there is in the apartment building down the block.
I can tell you with near certainty that the apartment building has more concrete. Even if I've never been inside it.
Likewise, I can't measure the amount of challenge I faced (they were significant), I can't tell you the amount of challenge a trans kid faces. I can tell you with near certainty the trans kid faces more.
You don't need to measure, you don't need to be exact. Opportunity is wildly uneven right now. We can absolutely level things, and worry about whether we over corrected later.
Biggest one of all they always exclude is genetics, intelligence, predisposition, drive, these are not evenly distributed, and why would they be under a system of evolution.
I think the reason we can’t is that even “just” defining the target state and path to get there is insanely difficult to get agreement even among people who staunchly and genuinely support some version of “solve the equality issue”.
When will we know we’ve solved it? When outcomes are equal? When 100.00% of unequal outcomes can be explained as the outcome of individual and family choices? When 99% can be explained?
How should we treat inter-generational wealth and property ownership? If I’ve worked all my life, lived prudently, carefully spent less than I earned, should I be able to pass along only my old baseball mitt to my kid? Maybe $100? Maybe $100K? Maybe $2M and the paid-off house under the condition he takes care of his mother? If one kid gets a musty baseball mitt and another a house and $2M, is that OK or not? One kid gets a house and another a house and a live-in elderly mother; equal?
Different people feel differently, even if they’re both “all for solving the equality issue”.
We won't ever know, but we'll know when we haven't solved it.
Let's fix the injustices we are aware of today. (E.g., the effects of racist housing policies that depressed wealth for generations of Black Americans.) As soon as we're no longer able to point to obviously and deeply unequal opportunities, then we can stay figuring out how to know when we're done.
“Why can’t we all just agree to do this specific one thing first?” Because not everyone agrees that’s the best first step.
To build a coalition, you have to get the coalition to agree on a goal and a path or at least the right first step(s). Maybe some of them believe that nationalizing public education is a shorter path; others believe that early childhood nutrition is their preferred way to make fastest progress; still others believe that race must be explicitly excluded because it’s an imperfect proxy; others want race to be front and center in the discussion because they think it’s more than just a proxy. If you think X is more important than Y, you may not want to sign up for “Y first; then after we do Y then maybe we’ll consider X.”
This goes triple when X and Y both require some common resource. If it was possible to fix all of the apparent inequalities at once, it’s fair to ask why hasn’t it already been done? I think the answer is usually that you don’t have enough “oomph” to do everything at once, especially when there’s a risk and low appetite for over-correcting to create new inequalities from the program designed to eliminate them.
Coalition building is hard, even among people who 70+% agree on how things ought to be.
Yes, but the bar needn't be to find the "best" first step. We just need to find a sufficiently large first step.
This is standard triage procedure, we don't halt all treatment until we've sorted through every possible procedure the hospital could provide. Instead, we look for areas that need our attention now and try to get them at the front of the queue.
Triage staff aren't seeking the best, most optimal first patient. They are trying to identify problems that need our attention.
I wasn't making a value judgment about "ought to be", but rather an estimation that a politician has a hell of a lot more to lose by doing something unpopular than by doing nothing.
That's the sense in which doing nothing is a sensible default for a career politician who wishes to extend their career.
Is there a reason we can't solve the equality issue for historically marginalized groups, then fix the systems again to address the smaller set of folks who were disadvantaged by the changes?
Basically, can we Zeno's paradox our way most of the way there, solving and disadvantaging smaller and smaller sets of people?