By Thomas Sowell
A long-standing legal charade was played out again
recently, when Federal Express paid $3 million to settle an employment
discrimination case brought by the U.S. Department of Labor.
Federal Express was accused of both racial
discrimination and sex discrimination. FedEx denied it.
Why then did they pay the $3 million? Because it can
cost a lot more than $3 million to fight a discrimination case. Years ago, the
Sears department store chain spent $20 million fighting a sex discrimination
charge that took 15 years to make its way through the legal labyrinth. In the
end, Sears won — if spending $20 million and getting nothing in return can be
called winning.
Federal Express was apparently not prepared to spend that kind of money and that kind of time fighting a discrimination case. The net result is that the government and much of the media can now claim that race, sex and other discrimination are rampant, considering how many anti-discrimination cases have been "won."
At the heart of these legal charades is the prevailing
dogma that statistical disparities in employment — or mortgage lending, or
anything else — show discrimination. In both the Federal Express case and the
earlier Sears case, statistical differences between the mix of the workforce
and the population mix were the key evidence presented to show discrimination.
In the Sears case, there was not even one woman who
worked in any of the company's 900 stores who claimed to have been
discriminated against. It was all a matter of statistics — and of the arbitrary
dogma that statistical disparities show discrimination.
Once statistical disparities have been demonstrated,
the burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove his innocence, contrary to
centuries of legal tradition that the burden of proof in on the accuser.
No burden of proof whatever is put on those who argue
as if there would be a random distribution of racial and other groups in the
absence of discrimination.
Happenstances may be random but performances seldom
are. Most people are right-handed but, among major league hitters with lifetime
batting averages of .330 and up, there have been 15 left-handed batters and
only 5 right-handed batters since the beginning of the 20th century. All the
best-selling beers in the United States were created by people of German
ancestry. Anyone who follows professional basketball knows that most of the
leading stars are black.
Some years ago, a study of National Merit Scholarship
finalists found that more than half were first-born children, even in
five-child families. Jews are less than one percent of the world's population
but they won 14 percent of the Nobel Prizes in literature and the sciences
during the first half of the 20th century, and 29 percent during the second
half.
It would be no problem at all to fill this whole
column — or this entire page — with examples from around the world of gross
statistical disparities in outcomes, in situations where discrimination was not
involved. But those who take the opposite view — that numbers show
discrimination — do not have to produce one speck of evidence to back up that
sweeping conclusion.
Human beings are not random events. Individuals and
groups have different histories, cultures, skills and attitudes. Why would
anyone expect them to be distributed anywhere in a pattern based on statistical
theories of random events? Much less make the absence of such a pattern become
a basis for multimillion dollar lawsuits?
However little evidence or logic there may be behind
the belief that an absence of random distribution shows discrimination, there
are nevertheless strong incentives for some people to cling to that belief
anyway. Those who lag behind — whether educationally, economically or otherwise
— have every incentive to think of themselves as victims of those who are more
successful.
Those who want their votes have every incentive to go
along, or even to actively promote that idea. So do those who want to see
issues as moral melodramas, starring themselves on the side of the angels
against the forces of evil. The net result is an invincible dogma — and a
polarized country.
No comments:
Post a Comment