Inclusion: Are there any downsides to including everyone?

     A business (AA) sells products. Because of the views of the owner of the company, they decide that they will only sell to 40% of the possible clientele. Another business (BB) is willing to sell to everyone without restriction. Which business do you think will do better?

     A development company (CC) decides they will only hire people who meet a specific set of criteria. Only about 40% of the possible new hires meet this set of criteria. Another development company (DD) interviews everyone to see if they will add value to the company. Which company is most likely to bring new, well designed, products to the marketplace?

     The above scenarios are simple ones. Yet they are the scenarios that most often apply when people try to push for exclusion policies. Inclusive policies for hiring and selling make better products and better profits. I cannot think of any situation where a company benefits from not selling to people who can afford, and properly use, their product.

     Ah, but some of those being excluded for employment are not as “good’ as those who are being included in company AA or BB. Really? Is there a way to prove this if they are not included? Actually, there is. Have companies of the nature of AA or CC in the marketplace. Have companies of the nature of BB or DD competing in the marketplace. Which ones do better overall? If AA/CC companies do better then exclusion works best. If BB/DD companies do better then inclusion works best.

     So, what is the answer? I have no facts at my fingertips to back up an answer so I cannot say “See! This answer is obvious” (though I do have my strong opinion based on profit patterns that changed during the 1960s and 1970s as segregation was reduced). But, I don’t need to prove one answer over another. The market will do it.

     Why would there ever be a desire to force the issue? To say “yes, you shall include”. Well, humanity has a long history of not doing what benefits them if it conflicts with the status quo. That is, people and companies really dislike change, in general. Policies that mandate inclusion (or exclusion) put all companies “on a level playing field”. If the policy proves beneficial, it continues. If the policy proves non-beneficial it may change (with the strong attraction of the status quo still in effect).

     Ah, but how can a company be proven to be inclusive? A typical method is via quotas. If 20% of the population has characteristics G, then the company should have 20% of its employees with characteristics G. And that has problems — for the person hired and for the people not hired. How can it be proven that the person hired is truly qualified (even “best” qualified) for the job? As it is, it really cannot and that is the semi-rational excuse (it is still often really based on historical beliefs about qualifications rather than true qualifications) for bitterness from the not-hired.

     So, do “blind hiring”. Real names are hidden from the interviewer (because they often give hints about ethnicity/”race”/gender). Live interviews happen via web interviews with no video and disguised speech. Eliminate identifying aspects as much as possible. There still may be aspects such as speech patterns, familiarity with the interview language, and so forth that cannot be obscured — but the interviewer would have to work hard to get past the blinds. Elimination of passive bias can be greatly reduced.

     What about after-hiring? Promotions? People in powerful groups, etc.? If you can get rid of the bias at the hiring point then it is reasonable that the same percentages should maintain as one goes through the corporate structure. If they do not, there is likely to be active biases and prejudices involved.

     What about there still being fewer people in certain groups being hired? Isn’t a quota still necessary? Otherwise, won’t the composition of levels in society stay stagnant and less-represented groups stay that way? It is possible to do it without quotas but it may take decades or generations for underlying social inequities to change. Doing it with quotas, blind hiring can still enforce the concept of qualified hires but it can still create bad feelings within those who were previously preferred.

     Is there a complete answer? On selling to — yes. On employment, not with society the way it presently is. The status quo always means that some do better and some do worse — and those who do better will struggle to remain in that situation.

     And there probably is not an answer to that. We do not have a perfect world or perfect people in it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber by following this link and scrolling to the end.

Substitution: A spotlight on biases and prejudices

 

     There is a difference between direct, active biases and prejudices and indirect, passive biases and prejudices. The difference is largely one of being conscious of the situation. If you are aware that you have biases and prejudices and you take no action to eliminate, or reduce, them then you are actively encouraging them. Certainly, there are people and groups in this category.

     But there are many more situations of passive bias and prejudices. Being passive and indirect, and part of everyday life, these types of biases and prejudices become part of the general environment. It is necessary to recognize these situations and bring them to the conscious level in order to struggle against, and eliminate, them.

     How can this be done? One method that I suggest is that of substitution. This is another way of saying "walk in their shoes" but it is more of a general exercise than a specific example. No matter how much it might be desired, it is truly impossible to be part of the society, the history, and the world,  of another person. There is no way to live another's life.

     The best that we can do is to recognize that we treat others differently. In the case of substitution, we take a situation and "substitute" various factors to determine whether it changes the way we think about it.

     Changing the use of the word "mailman" to "postal carrier" was ridiculed. But, in the years since that change was made, we now have a large number of female postal carriers in addition to male postal carriers. The change of word did not matter but the change in thought did. Language directly affects the way we think.

     In other areas, if a person uses a pronoun for a position or job category, what happens if you substitute a different pronoun? If you are used to saying "he did a good job", how does it change the way you think about it if it is now "she did a good job"? Does the change in pronoun make you uncomfortable? Do you find it hard to visualize someone different in that role? Once upon a time, in the U.S., nurses were mostly men. Then they became female. Then we started to consciously make it a position for men and women. The same is true for secretaries (now, often, administrative assistants).

     Doctors, CEOs, department heads, directors, business owners -- substitute the pronoun used and see if you look at the position differently. Note that changing the title to a non-genderized form is not sufficient. CEO is not a gender specific word, but people do not sufficiently use "she" or "her" with the title. Since, in English, pronouns are what specifies gender, use of alternating genders is needed to retrain expectations. In other languages, the gender is often directly part of the title but not always.

     Substitution methods do not stop at pronouns, language, and gender. You see a group of young people doing something in a store or on a street. Change their skin color, or external religious symbolism, or the way they are clothed within your mind. If you make that change, do you react, or think about them, differently? If you find yourself reacting differently, you can notice it. Once consciously aware, it is a situation you can now address.

     This is not just a mind game. Studies have been performed showing photos of people in various normal activities and situations. The photos have people in the driver's seat of a car, shopping, walking in a high-priced neighborhood (or low-end neighborhood), talking with a teacher, and so forth. When the researchers kept all other factors the same and just changed one in the photos (it might be the way they are dressed or their skin color or external religious indication or whatever), there were significant differences in the way people described the people in the photos.

     Recently, the same tests were performed with police officers of several cities. In spite of being aware of the general subject of the tests, the description of the people in the photos differed dependent on skin color, gender, and other aspects.

     When job applications are stripped of identification markers, the pool of acceptable candidates change. Things such as names, addresses, specific affiliations are removed or substituted with generic items. The person reading the application cannot determine gender or ethnic or religious heritage. And it makes a difference.

     Photos, of course, make a considerable difference. Since face to face interaction is a large part of being able to perform most jobs, it is difficult to know just how this factor can be made generic within in-person job interviews. It is necessary to know how they speak, how they listen, their body language, and general conduct.

     Perhaps the best we can do, at present, is to keep the first levels of applications, which are not in person,  generic. Any suggestions?

The Puritan effect: Why are U.S. jails so full?

     In the United States, our incarceration rate is number one among the larger countries (The Seychelles have a slightly higher rate but with many fewer people). So, why does the U.S. have so many people in prison? Are U.S citizens just natural crooks?

     And should we care? Well, the greater the number of people there are in jail, the fewer there are paying taxes and participating in constructive contributions to society. In addition, a person in jail costs the community/state/federal government from $70,000/year to $200,000/year. Personally, I would much prefer to use that kind of money on improving education, infrastructure, child care, and other public benefits. Remember that, even though there is no such thing as a "free lunch", we SHOULD be able to determine how our tax money is used.

     The reality is that the incarceration rate varies for all countries depending on various factors -- some of which fluctuate because of political and economic events. In the U.S., we had a very low rate of imprisonment in the 1930s and 1940s -- possibly because the U.S. economy could not support that many people in the prisons so it was primarily the violent offenders that remained there. In the 1960s, the U.S. had a "world average" of imprisonment and it has continued to rise until, today, it is about the highest in the world with around 700 people in prison for every 100,000 citizens. In contrast, Cuba has about 500, Russia has about 450, Costa Rica has about 350, and the United Kingdom has about 150.

     People are basically the same all around the world. Some are jerks. Some are criminals. Some are saints. Some are lazy. Some are hard-working. Some are poor. Some are rich. Some are smart. Some are not smart. And so forth. External aspects don't make much difference -- skin color, gender, religion, nationality, et cetera. There are some cultural influences on how important studying may be or how much physical activity is praised and rewarded but, at heart, everyone is in the same human pool.

     So, why does the U.S. presently have such a high prison rate? A large part of it has been the slide of income inequality as (true in every country) there are a higher percentage of poor people in prisons than there are of rich people (once again, NOT because poor people are more likely to be criminals). Keep in mind that a "crime" means that a law has been determined to have been broken. Thus, something may be a "crime" in one country, or by certain people, or at a certain time -- and NOT a "crime" in a different country, or when done by different people, or at a different time.

     But, specifically, there are a number of factors (not firmly listed in order -- but perhaps in order of most easily changed):

• For-profit Prisons. This makes absolutely no sense within a capitalistic society. Capitalism operates (loosely) on Supply and Demand as well as profit margins. In order to increase profits per inmate, a prison will work to reduce expenditures which is likely to increase the chance of the criminal coming back. Also, it is to their interest to INCREASE the number of criminals and they do this by heavily lobbying for increased sentences for a greater number of newly created "crimes". A profitable prison means a greater and greater number of criminals every year.
  
  
• The Pilgrim Effect and Vice Crimes. The Pilgrims were a small group of settlers within the United States -- very small in number in proportion to all of the other immigrants (all in the U.S. are immigrants -- even First Nation). But their effect on the national psyche is enormous. Or, at least, that is the way I refer to it.
  
  The Pilgrims felt that they should control how every individual behaved and thought on a daily and minute-to-minute basis. Politicians in the U.S. make use of this desire to control others by creating laws (and, when laws are created, so are crimes and criminals) that are aimed at the thoughts and behaviors of citizens THAT DO NOT AFFECT OTHERS. These are also called "vice" laws. There are lots of them -- and a huge difference between the U.S. and other countries in longer governed countries. Laws about drugs (including alcohol), gambling, sexual behavior, and so forth.
  
  One problem with these laws is they do NOT work. The "vices" continue to happen. Secondly, they do succeed in increasing the profits of those who are involved with these activities -- causing additional corruption and organized, highly profitable, criminal businesses both within and without the U.S. The U.S. attempted "Prohibition" of alcohol with the 18th Amendment. After giving the Mafia, and other organized crime, a huge boost in the U.S with attendant increases in murder and other violent crimes, the 21st Amendment reversed it but much of the damage to the country remained.
  
  A side-effect of "vice" laws and increasing their profit margins is that people who feel the need or desire for these substances/behaviors have a greater need for money to participate. This causes a multiplying effect when robberies, assaults, and other property crimes are done to be able to afford the law-enhanced prices.
  
  
• Income Inequality. There are a higher percentage of poor people in prison than there are of rich people. Some of this is similar to the predicament of Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman in the recent movie version) in Les Miserables -- turning to crime to feed their families when they are desperate. By definition, the rich are almost never desperate except in non-economic situations.
  
  Secondly, most of the laws are written BY the rich and FOR the rich. In the federal government, most members are millionaires and it is unlikely to be coincidental that the longest sentences and greatest number of "crimes" are created for actions more likely to be done by the poor and the lightest sentences and fewest "crimes" are created for actions more likely to be done by the rich. The income discrepancy lessens as one moves down to state and local levels but still exists and makes a huge difference.
  
  
• Recidivism and Employment. When "Antman" gets out of prison for a non-violent, capital property crime he gets (with his high-tech degree) a service job from which he is fired once they find out he was convicted of a "felony". While this may be a bit out-of-place (high-tech people are less likely to be discriminated against) the general attitude, and situation, is NOT. It is as if a "felon" is given a lifetime sentence as they are forever actively prevented from being a positive economic or societal force. They may literally have "no choice" but to get sent back to being taken care of in jail.
  
  In addition to permanent economic retribution, ex-prisoners (especially from the for-profit prisons) may not have improved their ability to get a job (assuming anyone will let them have one) and be sent back to the same economic and societal environment that left them feeling that "crime" was their best option.
  
  
• Racism. J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI from 1935 to 1972, was a fervent racist and implemented dual-prong attacks to help keep blacks, in particular, from achieving greater opportunities. He instigated additional drug sales into poorer neighborhoods while, at the same time, blackmailing and pressuring Congress into passing laws making use of those same drugs to be a crime. What didn't use to be a crime -- now was. And what didn't use to be a problem in those neighborhoods -- now was.
  
  Prior to the various Civil Rights laws and, once again, since the Supreme Court decided (on June 25, 2013) to remove the ability to enforce many of those Civil Rights laws, many laws were put into place where they applied ONLY to people of certain definitions -- usually of certain skin colors or of more recent non-Anglo heritage.
  
  
• Unequal Enforcement. Related to income inequality in that there are different laws defined to be more likely oriented towards the rich as to the poor. However, even within the same category of laws, certain groups are favored over other groups. These groups include "whites", the rich, males, and other majority (or formerly majority)-oriented groups.
  
  A poor person may get 10 years of prison for a $10,000 theft. Meanwhile, a rich person may get 6 months probation for stealing $10 million from a group of people. The punishments are actually reverse proportionate. Discrepancies get even greater when corporate crime is committed, with no one actually getting punished at all (and only a mild discomfort when any fines are passed along to the employees and stockholders). This is a broken Justice System.
  
  Note that, in the United States, there is the notion of a "jury of our peers". This should mean that poor people should be judged by poor people and rich people judged by rich people -- but doesn't always quite mean that. However, poor people are more likely to be harsh with other poor people. I believe it is an attitude of "I had to struggle so hard to survive without having to commit crimes, how dare you take an easier route".
  
  
• Alternate Punishments. Of course, one method of reducing the number of people in prison is to have alternate punishments. It is possible to have periods of public work labor. It is possible to have a separate "withholding" of parts of a paycheck(s) to pay back damages or theft losses.
  
  The idea of alternate punishments is to address the damage(s) caused by the "crime" while retaining the ability for people to continue to contribute to society. This is normally only possible for non-violent crime. In some countries, prison is avoided by increasing the frequency of the death penalty -- which I don't recommend because it is so difficult (impossible) to correct mistakes (which do happen on a regular basis).
  

     In summation, the U.S. could quickly reduce the number of people in prison. Eliminate for-profit prisons. Eliminate laws that are about "crimes" that only affect the individual -- the "vice" crimes. AND make it retroactive such that all who have been convicted under such laws are released and their records eliminated. Make it a requirement to have a reason-produced court order to obtain criminal records of job applicants.
     Other aspects of imprisonment imply a direct change to culture and society that may end up taking many years -- but still are worthy of effort for change.