We should delineate between unfair treatment, which is a real problem, and unfair circumstances, which is much less so. Too often there’s an application of the unfair treatment to “address” the unfair circumstances.
When I was talking some years ago with my youngish children about these issues, I found myself emphasizing what you describe as the Shelby Steele/Cornel West dichotomy. I call the latter the "sociologists' approach", contrasted with the "individual approach". The sociologists' approach is crucial for understanding society in the large, but it can be a terrible guide to individual attitude and action. I was glad to see you bring this up, since it's not often expressed clearly.
Some people have more advantages than others through no doings of their own. True. I was born in the US, and someone else was born in North Korea. The question is what do you propose to do about it?
Yes, that is the question and it has many, many facets and many possible legitimate answers. In this case, parents talking to their children about that could consider whether the US has any responsibility to intervene on North Korea or impose sanctions on them for human rights abuses and general discussion about preserving the foundational principles of liberal democracies.
One of the issues is defining "fairness" - and trying to be logical about it, which means recognising that because "rewards" are ambigious, so is "fairness". Fairness to what ends? Material wealth, happiness, power, authority, self-actualisation? I read recently that those pursuing "passion careers" are indeed more satisfied in work, but no more happy, overall, than those pursuing careers/jobs through obligation.
If its a calculation about wealth, then its rather funny that the progressive should take the line they do (i.e. restrictions or punishment on higher achievers). It invariably leads to misery and suffering for many more people and what's more they have fewer off ramps. (Let's not forget that the BLM movement incited a violent crime wave in the US that killed about 50% more people in the following year than 9/11). I'm still not finding a reason to consider modern progressivism something other than a form of cultish narcissism, where "truth" is little more than self-serving irrational sentiment. Of course the professor wants better off parents not to read to children - if people were independent from the extended state, it would be a threat to his purpose and pay cheque.
I'm simply for telling children the best version of the messy truth. I think that honesty lowers resentment, not builds it - building empathy, nuance and agency. You teach them about economic inequality, about contested narratives between "oppression", cultural failure and geography as causes of better/poorer performing groups, you teach them about social mobility, and about routes for all people to find happiness, fulfillment, authority, autonomy, good health, happy relationships et al. You point out that sometimes, the allocation of time and financial resources will mean that you need to make trade offs between each of these rewards, and between present and future rewards. You teach them about probability. You teach them about bad luck, life shocks, and inherited disadvantages (using evidence not activist narratives). You teach them that hardship both lowers social capital and can create purpose and resillience. And you teach them about recovery paths.
And you help them become aware of their own choices, and critically explore the pros and cons of their options.
A good education is one grounded in truth and reason, while leaving room for different forms of self-expression amongst the learners. (In ways relevant to their age).
As the great Mr Sowell said, if you want to serve someone else, you tell them the truth. If you want to serve yourself, you lie
Yes, we will likely never agree on definitions of fairness but, I’d suggest we nearly all think individuals have some responsibility to strive through fairness and some responsibility to address unfairness and seek a just society.
Helen, you used the term 'fair' throughout this piece without defining it. I don't know how to relate to your article without that, although I know this may sound pedantic. Is fair the same as just? Is it the same as equal? It is not just, let's say, for two friends to shoplift together and get treated differently by the law because one is the child of a politician, or the kids' skin color is different...Justice should be blind. Each human being is unique so there is no being 'equal' to someone else, as you note that you weren't going to have the option to be a ballerina.
Those are quite different from fair. There is also a place for individuals being compassionate, helpful, and empathetic - but a system cannot be those things.
So, I appreciate your thinking through this issue, but I am not sure what the word 'fair' means.
Of course, that's true for everyone. We each have advantages and disadvantages, some more and some less obvious and visible. As the parents you worked with (great letter!) showed, as soon as we try to treat people as a group, we risk messing things up instead of helping.
Well, that’s one rather absolutist stance. Others also exist and discussion of the responsibility of the individual vs the responsibility of society will likely be going on forever. My daughter’s primary school, for example, addressed boys falling behind in literacy by funding more non-fiction books and having an initiative to get boys into them that worked quite well. Her senior school had a tech initiative aimed at girls that she benefitted from. Kids in deprived areas have benefited from homework clubs, breakfast clubs and access to WiFi and laptops. My husband benefitted from a state-funded adult literacy class. Migrants have benefited from English as a second language class. When such initiatives are targeted at specific, measurable deficits rather than at identity groups with insulting generalisations and theorised bias and brain retraining classes, I think they can do rather well and, if not, their failure can be measured and they can be discontinued. We don’t have to agree on this, but I think there is more to discuss in the realms of fairness than just accepting the status quo and never doing anything to help those who have significant, material hindrances to reaching their potential.
Oh, I completely agree with you about that. I think, as you pointed out, that when you make the criteria color or birthplace, etc. rather than open to anyone wanting to improve a skill, we sometimes end up leaving out people who would benefit but don't fit the category.
Yes, affirmative action that does not take account of material circumstances tends to end up benefiting wealthy and privately educated black people and women.
Good article. I had to re-learn fractions in my late thirties so I could go to nursing school. I can relate to the math thing lol. Being a male nursing student was unfair at times. Working as an RN in inpatient mental health was - well shit - highly unfair and often dangerous. In fact, I had to quit a good paying job (more than one) due to unfairness. Being the only White guy (often the only male) also had challenges. I can get the unfairness thing. I also think I understand what the cultural leftist mean by "Intersectional". Though I am not what they had in mind when they invented their theory.
I hope all is going well for you and your family. Thank you for sharing this.
I appreciate your framing of the value of teaching our kids (mine are 7 and 9) that unfairness exists and to understand and accept that fact on some level, AND be opposed to it on principle, AND to endeavor to treat others as fairly as possible as an attempt to mitigate it as much as possible in one's own life and sphere of influence.
Separately, what is "fair" in a given situation can be amazingly complex as multifaceted. The best process for handling these things, at least in my experience, is to try to define the ways the term is being defined and applied and then be equally transparent in the adjudication process. In that way the discussion can be moved away from competing shouts of unfairness and instead (ideally speaking) over to a discussion on the value of the process.
A combination of stated ideals, recognition of impossible attainment, and demand of perpetual effort towards them anyway is a powerful frame of operations - such as your excellent ongoing advocacy of Liberalism (in the traditional sense).
For an example of this frame applied to the idea of Fairness, which I'll share here briefly, comes from back when I owned a chain of cafes and from when we first achieved a degree of success that allowed for bonuses to be paid out.
How to decide who would get what?
Long story short, we decided to include everybody on principle, but then built an algorithm to recognize the qualitative distinctions between length of service, level of contribution, and weekly hours worked as all of those were real places where claims of "But I deserve more!" would have merit if not addressed.
There were still claims of unfairness after the first year, but those were specific to the weighting choices and many were well reasoned. The 2nd year was better, and by the third we had a very clear system in place that provided real time tracking of point accumulation.
The point here being that we created a good system based on aspirations of fairness, AND recognized that there was and likely still is plenty of room for further improvements.
One of the issues is defining "fairness" - and trying to be logical about it. At this point, people become defensive and emotional. Fairness to what ends? Material wealth, happiness, power, authority, self-actualisation? I read recently that those pursuing "passion careers" are indeed more satisfied in work, but no more happy, overall, than those pursuing careers/jobs through obligation.
If its a calculation about wealth, then its rather funny that the progressive should take the line they do (i.e. restrictions or punishment on higher achievers). It invariably leads to misery and suffering for many more people and what's more they have fewer off ramps. (Let's not forget that the BLM movement incited a violent crime wave in the US that killed about 50% more people in the following year than 9/11). I'm still not finding a reason to consider modern progressivism a form of narcissism, where "truth" is little more than self-serving irrational sentiment.
I'm simply for telling children the best version of the truth. I think that honesty lowers resentment, not builds it. You teach them about economic inequality, about contested narratives between societal "oppression" and cultural failure as causes of poorer performing groups, you teach them about social mobility, and about routes for all people to find happiness, fulfillment, authority, autonomy, good health, happy relationships et al - and point out that sometimes, the allocation of time and financial resources will mean that you need to make trade offs between each of these factors, and between present and future rewards. You teach them about bad luck, life shocks, and inherited disadvantages (using evidence not activist narratives).
And you help them become aware of their own choices, and critically explore the pros and cons of their options.
(In ways relevant to their age).
As the great Mr Sowell said, if you want to serve someone else, you tell them the truth. If you want to serve yourself, you lie
Perhaps issuing a trigger warning along with the birth certificate would be appropriate. Later they can be assured that they were indeed duly notified. It's on them now.
Excellent as usual
We should delineate between unfair treatment, which is a real problem, and unfair circumstances, which is much less so. Too often there’s an application of the unfair treatment to “address” the unfair circumstances.
Very clear and excellent advice. Thankyou for the personal story.
When I was talking some years ago with my youngish children about these issues, I found myself emphasizing what you describe as the Shelby Steele/Cornel West dichotomy. I call the latter the "sociologists' approach", contrasted with the "individual approach". The sociologists' approach is crucial for understanding society in the large, but it can be a terrible guide to individual attitude and action. I was glad to see you bring this up, since it's not often expressed clearly.
Some people have more advantages than others through no doings of their own. True. I was born in the US, and someone else was born in North Korea. The question is what do you propose to do about it?
Yes, that is the question and it has many, many facets and many possible legitimate answers. In this case, parents talking to their children about that could consider whether the US has any responsibility to intervene on North Korea or impose sanctions on them for human rights abuses and general discussion about preserving the foundational principles of liberal democracies.
One of the issues is defining "fairness" - and trying to be logical about it, which means recognising that because "rewards" are ambigious, so is "fairness". Fairness to what ends? Material wealth, happiness, power, authority, self-actualisation? I read recently that those pursuing "passion careers" are indeed more satisfied in work, but no more happy, overall, than those pursuing careers/jobs through obligation.
If its a calculation about wealth, then its rather funny that the progressive should take the line they do (i.e. restrictions or punishment on higher achievers). It invariably leads to misery and suffering for many more people and what's more they have fewer off ramps. (Let's not forget that the BLM movement incited a violent crime wave in the US that killed about 50% more people in the following year than 9/11). I'm still not finding a reason to consider modern progressivism something other than a form of cultish narcissism, where "truth" is little more than self-serving irrational sentiment. Of course the professor wants better off parents not to read to children - if people were independent from the extended state, it would be a threat to his purpose and pay cheque.
I'm simply for telling children the best version of the messy truth. I think that honesty lowers resentment, not builds it - building empathy, nuance and agency. You teach them about economic inequality, about contested narratives between "oppression", cultural failure and geography as causes of better/poorer performing groups, you teach them about social mobility, and about routes for all people to find happiness, fulfillment, authority, autonomy, good health, happy relationships et al. You point out that sometimes, the allocation of time and financial resources will mean that you need to make trade offs between each of these rewards, and between present and future rewards. You teach them about probability. You teach them about bad luck, life shocks, and inherited disadvantages (using evidence not activist narratives). You teach them that hardship both lowers social capital and can create purpose and resillience. And you teach them about recovery paths.
And you help them become aware of their own choices, and critically explore the pros and cons of their options.
A good education is one grounded in truth and reason, while leaving room for different forms of self-expression amongst the learners. (In ways relevant to their age).
As the great Mr Sowell said, if you want to serve someone else, you tell them the truth. If you want to serve yourself, you lie
Yes, we will likely never agree on definitions of fairness but, I’d suggest we nearly all think individuals have some responsibility to strive through fairness and some responsibility to address unfairness and seek a just society.
Helen, you used the term 'fair' throughout this piece without defining it. I don't know how to relate to your article without that, although I know this may sound pedantic. Is fair the same as just? Is it the same as equal? It is not just, let's say, for two friends to shoplift together and get treated differently by the law because one is the child of a politician, or the kids' skin color is different...Justice should be blind. Each human being is unique so there is no being 'equal' to someone else, as you note that you weren't going to have the option to be a ballerina.
Those are quite different from fair. There is also a place for individuals being compassionate, helpful, and empathetic - but a system cannot be those things.
So, I appreciate your thinking through this issue, but I am not sure what the word 'fair' means.
It’s at the beginning. That some people have more advantages than others through no doings of their own.
Of course, that's true for everyone. We each have advantages and disadvantages, some more and some less obvious and visible. As the parents you worked with (great letter!) showed, as soon as we try to treat people as a group, we risk messing things up instead of helping.
Well, that’s one rather absolutist stance. Others also exist and discussion of the responsibility of the individual vs the responsibility of society will likely be going on forever. My daughter’s primary school, for example, addressed boys falling behind in literacy by funding more non-fiction books and having an initiative to get boys into them that worked quite well. Her senior school had a tech initiative aimed at girls that she benefitted from. Kids in deprived areas have benefited from homework clubs, breakfast clubs and access to WiFi and laptops. My husband benefitted from a state-funded adult literacy class. Migrants have benefited from English as a second language class. When such initiatives are targeted at specific, measurable deficits rather than at identity groups with insulting generalisations and theorised bias and brain retraining classes, I think they can do rather well and, if not, their failure can be measured and they can be discontinued. We don’t have to agree on this, but I think there is more to discuss in the realms of fairness than just accepting the status quo and never doing anything to help those who have significant, material hindrances to reaching their potential.
Oh, I completely agree with you about that. I think, as you pointed out, that when you make the criteria color or birthplace, etc. rather than open to anyone wanting to improve a skill, we sometimes end up leaving out people who would benefit but don't fit the category.
Yes, affirmative action that does not take account of material circumstances tends to end up benefiting wealthy and privately educated black people and women.
Good article. I had to re-learn fractions in my late thirties so I could go to nursing school. I can relate to the math thing lol. Being a male nursing student was unfair at times. Working as an RN in inpatient mental health was - well shit - highly unfair and often dangerous. In fact, I had to quit a good paying job (more than one) due to unfairness. Being the only White guy (often the only male) also had challenges. I can get the unfairness thing. I also think I understand what the cultural leftist mean by "Intersectional". Though I am not what they had in mind when they invented their theory.
I hope all is going well for you and your family. Thank you for sharing this.
Work hard - demand fair treatment.
I will try again soon - I hope.
I probably should not have posted that - I don't have kids - not sure what to tell those that do have them.
But try hard and assert your rights - well I think that sounds good.
I appreciate your framing of the value of teaching our kids (mine are 7 and 9) that unfairness exists and to understand and accept that fact on some level, AND be opposed to it on principle, AND to endeavor to treat others as fairly as possible as an attempt to mitigate it as much as possible in one's own life and sphere of influence.
Separately, what is "fair" in a given situation can be amazingly complex as multifaceted. The best process for handling these things, at least in my experience, is to try to define the ways the term is being defined and applied and then be equally transparent in the adjudication process. In that way the discussion can be moved away from competing shouts of unfairness and instead (ideally speaking) over to a discussion on the value of the process.
Yes, it is one of those subjects which do need to be addressed with nuance and granularity and on a case by case basis.
A combination of stated ideals, recognition of impossible attainment, and demand of perpetual effort towards them anyway is a powerful frame of operations - such as your excellent ongoing advocacy of Liberalism (in the traditional sense).
For an example of this frame applied to the idea of Fairness, which I'll share here briefly, comes from back when I owned a chain of cafes and from when we first achieved a degree of success that allowed for bonuses to be paid out.
How to decide who would get what?
Long story short, we decided to include everybody on principle, but then built an algorithm to recognize the qualitative distinctions between length of service, level of contribution, and weekly hours worked as all of those were real places where claims of "But I deserve more!" would have merit if not addressed.
There were still claims of unfairness after the first year, but those were specific to the weighting choices and many were well reasoned. The 2nd year was better, and by the third we had a very clear system in place that provided real time tracking of point accumulation.
The point here being that we created a good system based on aspirations of fairness, AND recognized that there was and likely still is plenty of room for further improvements.
One of the issues is defining "fairness" - and trying to be logical about it. At this point, people become defensive and emotional. Fairness to what ends? Material wealth, happiness, power, authority, self-actualisation? I read recently that those pursuing "passion careers" are indeed more satisfied in work, but no more happy, overall, than those pursuing careers/jobs through obligation.
If its a calculation about wealth, then its rather funny that the progressive should take the line they do (i.e. restrictions or punishment on higher achievers). It invariably leads to misery and suffering for many more people and what's more they have fewer off ramps. (Let's not forget that the BLM movement incited a violent crime wave in the US that killed about 50% more people in the following year than 9/11). I'm still not finding a reason to consider modern progressivism a form of narcissism, where "truth" is little more than self-serving irrational sentiment.
I'm simply for telling children the best version of the truth. I think that honesty lowers resentment, not builds it. You teach them about economic inequality, about contested narratives between societal "oppression" and cultural failure as causes of poorer performing groups, you teach them about social mobility, and about routes for all people to find happiness, fulfillment, authority, autonomy, good health, happy relationships et al - and point out that sometimes, the allocation of time and financial resources will mean that you need to make trade offs between each of these factors, and between present and future rewards. You teach them about bad luck, life shocks, and inherited disadvantages (using evidence not activist narratives).
And you help them become aware of their own choices, and critically explore the pros and cons of their options.
(In ways relevant to their age).
As the great Mr Sowell said, if you want to serve someone else, you tell them the truth. If you want to serve yourself, you lie
Perhaps issuing a trigger warning along with the birth certificate would be appropriate. Later they can be assured that they were indeed duly notified. It's on them now.