PPECMC2021CovidCrusaders

               A few weeks ago, I attended a talk at the Athenaeum with Harvard Professor of Economics, Raj Chetty. Professor Chetty discussed how a person’s neighborhood affects their social and economic mobility, as well as how to create opportunities for upward mobility for people in low-income neighborhoods. These  people  are, in Professor Shelby’s words, the ghetto poor. In addition to race as a determinant of upward mobility, Professor Chetty presented other factors like conditions of childhood, two parent homes, quality public schools, and social capital. Professor Chetty especially emphasized the importance of mixed-income neighborhoods in providing upward social mobility for low-income individuals. Moving from a low-income neighborhood (like a ghetto), to a mixed-income neighborhood caused a dramatic change in an individual’s social and economic mobility and life expectations. All of the evidence Professor Chetty provided ...

  In Chapter 1 of Dark Ghettos , Shelby outlines how racism is itself an ideology, defining an ideology as “ a widely held set of associated beliefs and implicit judgments that misrepresent significant social realities and that function, through this distortion, to bring about or perpetuate unjust social relations ,” (22). He argues that those who take up ideologies do so because of the considerations in favor of truth (23). As I have come to understand, ideologies can be either political or epistemic, and this distinction is noticeably lacking in Shelby’s account. Based on his definition, I believe that Shelby’s definition refers to the epistemic kind. Furthermore, I believe this definition aptly describes the role of religion in today’s society. It is a system of beliefs that actively encourages the believers to disregard counter-evidence and rationality in favor of faith, often leading to disregard of others who do not think/act the same way. Because Shelby’s definition encompas...

     In chapter 2 of Dark Ghettos, Shelby argues for self-segregation of black communities and against proposals of racial and economic integration. He claims that black people have legitimate reasons to self-segregate like maintaining "long-standing community ties, to sustain black institutions and cultural practices, and to ensure access to establishments that serve black needs."(pg. 71) However, racial integration attempts to solve inequalities and problems that exist with stigmatized black neighborhoods, by having members of different races live in the same neighborhood so that blacks will have better access to social capital. Economic integration attempts to solve the issues of inequalities and disadvantaged black neighborhoods, by having providing capital in the form of money so that black people could "leave ghettos for more advantaged neighborhoods," effectively making ghettos disappear(pg 77). He also argues that the "integrationist vision" fails ...

  In the Introduction, Shelby separates the two common ways to explain the stark difference between white and black livelihood in the United States. These are what are known in the zeitgeist as the culture argument and the institutional racism argument. However, in a fascinating tactic, Shelby reframes the debate to be centered around justice (2). Shelby posits that reform targeted at ghettos subscribes to a “medical model” that aims to  “increase the material welfare of people living in ghettos through narrowly targeted and empirically grounded interventions into their lives” (2). From my understanding, Shelby’s concern with the medical model is that the hospital has not discovered the disease of injustice yet. In this way, the patients aren’t always sick. Rather, the basic unit of the hospital is deeply flawed, which ultimately results in bad outcomes. I was curious about the implication of the medical model on ongoing debates over reparations. Shelby juxtaposes reparations ...

In his book, Tommie Shelby argues against what he calls “the medical model” for solving social and economic issues in impoverished communities and instead advocates for “a systemic-injustice framework.” (Shelbie 2-3). The medical model strives to address inequalities through narrowly targeted and pragmatic interventions. The systemic-injustice framework takes a broader approach and focuses on the need to ensure the overarching social and economic system in society is just. In Shelbie’s view, the medical model fails to consider the background conditions affecting American political, economic, and social structure — a structure created by the historical and ongoing consequences of racial discrimination and exploitation. Only a systemic-injustice framework that recognizes ghettos as a matter of injustice can truly address the underlying causes.   While Shelbie provides a convincing argument for the systemic-injustice view, one tradeoff seems to be that targeted reforms via the med...

  In the book Dark Ghettos , Tommie Shelby defines the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic racism and the nuances of their implementation. Shelby defines intrinsically racist institutions as ones that maintain policies that are inherently regarded as racist or passed for the value of racism. On the other hand, extrinsically racist institutions are ones that are racist “solely in virtue of the policies’ effects” (24). This means that there may be no racist intent or racist reason for a policy, but the effect it perpetuates is one of racial injustice. After these definitions, Shelby dives into an example of extrinsically versus intrinsically racist institutions or policies. He highlights his comparison with the real-life example of racial profiling in policing. He argues that even if racial profiling is not accepted because policymakers have intrinsically racist beliefs, that this policy may still result in racist results in practice.  Ultimately, whether an institution i...

     In chapter one, Shelby introduces his ideas on injustice by stating that they “fit within a number of liberal-egalitarian frameworks” (19). He says earlier in the reading that liberal-egalitarian insights stem from a combination of black nationalism, feminism, and notably, Marxism. What I was somewhat confused about was the use of Marxism in a slightly incomplete sense. I do not say this as a fault in liberal-egalitarianism, but more to see what Shelby’s ideas or critiques of Marxism would be. For example, liberal-egalitarianism relies somewhat on the state to equalize individual opportunities and minimize injustice. In Marxism, however, the state is non-existent. An odd tension here seems to develop between the two ideologies as they intersect with the same intention but different means.      Later in chapter one, Shelby defines ideological doctrines as “developed theories” that are absorbed by the population through “assumptions propagated by the eli...

  Tommie Shelby’s first few chapters in Dark Ghettos paint a bleak picture of national progress on desegregation. In a way, I now perceive the situation of overcoming racial inequality as a little hopeless, which is discouraging. However, the reading also provides clarity.   A significant takeaway for me was the topic of forcing desegregation and rapidly attempting to compensate for centuries of wrongdoing. Very few past discussions about race in America that I have attended addressed the fact that black people may feel much safer in their own disadvantaged bubble than in a desegregated society filled with blatant racism from neighbors and friends. In a way, black people may feel safer in their bubble, despite the fact that they are living well below the poverty line and are dealing with severe crime nearly every day. To best address the issue of institutionalized racism, society must first acknowledge that the process will take time and that nothing can...

       In his book Dark Ghettos, Tommie Shelby presents an argument for a new way of thinking of ghettos in America and a new framework for considering solutions to commonly faced problems in ghettos that center around justice. In this discussion, Shelby raises the point of what individuals' roles are in resolving injustice, as the oppressors, the bystanders, and the oppressed. Shelby distinguishes his work from the “work that does exist [that] often focuses on the affluent or bystanders rather than on the oppressed” and explains what the “the unjustly disadvantaged are morally required and permitted to do in response to the unjust conditions that circumscribe in their lives” (5). He writes that if there can't be an ethics of the oppressed there can't be an agency of the oppressed, and that he will balance not viewing the “ghetto poor as inert” nor “rush to blame them and to romantically celebrate them” (6).  He goes on in chapter 2 to discuss how “the oppressed...

  In Chapter 2 of Dark Ghettos , Shelby argues against new integrationism as a solution to ghetto poverty. To do so, he considers and refutes the arguments of Elizabeth Anderson. Anderson contends that “today’s residential segregation is the legacy of state-sponsored, overt housing discrimination and contemporary private (though sometimes covert) discrimination” (64). Her solution of integration rests on the impacts of social capital, or “the networks of associates through which knowledge of and access to opportunities are transmitted and norms of trust and reciprocity are enforced” (64). She specifically points to the potential impact of “bridging social capital,” in which people of different backgrounds and identities make such connections.  In response, Shelby argues against the social capital argument and the necessity of integration, instead promoting egalitarian pluralism. While I agree with his central contention that “blacks, including poor blacks, should be free to ...

  In the wake of the horrendous killing of George Floyd at the end of May, 2020, hundreds of thousands of people took to the street in protest of police brutality and systemic racism. Most of the protests were peaceful; a study conducted by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project found that about 93% of 7,750 protests from May 26 through August 22 remained peaceful and nondestructive. Nevertheless, the protests that generally garnered the most attention from the media were more violent: the looting of stores, riots, and continued police brutality during protests gained the bulk of media representation. In response to this violence, many criticized the protesters for not protesting the “right way,” and condemned the looting and rioting.  In response to these critics, Trevor Noah produced a thought-provoking video about the ongoing Black Lives Matter protests. Noah brought up the idea of contract theory, in which we all agree to “common rules, common ideals, and c...

In the introduction of Dark Ghettos, Tommie Shelby outlines his argument and explains why he is proposing a nonideal theory meant to guide responses to injustices, both as individuals and as larger communities and groups. In doing so, he asserts that if the more affluent members of society were to consider what he is arguing regarding the fairness of overall societal structures, he believes that they would understand that marginalized groups are “fellow citizens with an equal claim on a just social structure” (3). Similar to the idea Rawls presents regarding the veil of ignorance, having the ability to look at broader institutions and structures deeply entrenched in society can help to provide a perspective on privilege, justice, and fairness. Yet with Shelby, there is no veil of ignorance, and those at the top, in using his guiding principles, would still know they are at the top. However, if we consider this logically, is it reasonable to assume that the affluent would actually reach...

In Jonathan Rawls’ Theory of Justice , he explains the necessary role of justice in establishing a fair society, a “cooperative venture for mutual advantage” but there exists a distributional conflict because people are differential as to how the “benefits produced from their collaboration are distributed” (4). From the beginning of this book, Rawls’ anti-utilitarian argument is made clear because he denies that the “loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others” (3). Under utilitarianism, the most important thing is to maximize the overall good in a society, regardless of how that utility is distributed. Then this is capitalism: a society in which people have the freedom to choose what they spend their money (a proxy for utility) on, and people as rational beings will always choose to spend their money such that they are maximizing their own utility. In sum, there will be maximized utility, but Rawls disputes this factor as the most important value used to ...

 I personally found Rawls on the difference principle very convincing, and reading section 13 in A Theory of Justice  felt like a 'eureka' moment. In this section, Rawls makes an argument on how social order should be established. He claims that the "higher expectations of those better situated are just if and only if" the betterment of those more well off is to the "advantage of those less fortunate."(pg. 65) The difference principle stands in stark contrast to pure utilitarianism. From a utilitarian point of view, the best distribution is achieved at Pareto efficiency: the point at which there can not be a better position economically. However, utilitarianism allows for "larger inequalities."(pg. 67) The difference principle in contrast states that inequality is justifiable "only if the difference in expectation is to the advantage" of people who are less off. (pg 88). He gives two cases when applying the difference principle. The first...

  In this Theory of Justice, John Rawls veil of ignorance seemed aligned with the suggestions Harris presented about how to go about the policy change she suggested we need. Harris pointed out that we need to include more voices than just those at the top, we need the people who policy affects, the people society has pushed to the bottom to have a voice in policy or we will never see meaningful change. In this sense, behind the veil of ignorance where everyone is unaware of their social standings or physical or mental capacities, wouldn’t all rational men be thinking and making policy with the intention of protecting against their worst case scenario, and therefore essentially be making policy with the interest of those at the bottom in mind? It raises the question if those who disagree with policy like affirmative action would disagree with it if they did not know their own position in society, and puts many oppressive laws made in the past in perspective, if people would have rea...

 In Chapter 1, John Rawls proposes a theory of justice that is less focused on the principles of justice and more on the process of deriving principles. His theory imagines an initial state of equality, defined as the original position, which exists before and society or government, although not in the same way as other social contract theorists like Locke and Rosseau. Rawls’s original position is purely hypothetical; it is a state filled with rational actors that have no knowledge of their actual position, talents, and possessions in society (Rawls calls this separation “the veil of ignorance”). In sections 5 & 6, John Rawls considers the differences between his theory of “justice as fairness” and the classical utilitarian theory of justice. In the classical utilitarian view, what is “right is defined as that which maximizes the good.” (Rawls 22). Violating the rights of the few is therefore justified if it benefits the majority enough to maximize the good. Rational actors i...

  John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice makes me consider the similarities and differences between Rawls’ and Cheryl Harris’ viewpoints. Rawls implicitly addresses issues that Harris explicitly explores. Rawls admits that “what is just and unjust is usually in dispute” (Rawls 6). Harris would agree, but she would also point out that the ones continuing to make the decision, the whites, are on the winning side of history. Social institutions, which involve legal protection, have a great influence over rights. Both authors mention this, but Harris really dives into it.   It is interesting to consider that justice depends on “how fundamental rights and duties are assigned” (7). To Harris, these rights have been assigned based on skin color for the past centuries. Social cooperation drives the system of justice, even if the cooperation is unfortunately in the favor of a particular race. Distribute justice, as Rawls discusses, must take into consideration inequali...

     It was really interesting to compare Rawls’ vision of justice with utilitarianism. Rawls makes a point to differentiate his views from utilitarianism. He writes “My aim is to work out a theory of justice that represents an alternative to utilitarian thought” (20). Rawls chooses to consider Sedgwick's version of utilitarianism, in which society is structured to create the highest possible amount of satisfaction. The main criticism of utilitarianism is that it doesn’t account for justice and fairness. The highest amount of satisfaction might be unevenly distributed among the population, making some happy and others miserable. This is Rawls’ concern, “The striking feature of the utilitarian view of justice is that it does not matter, except indirectly, how this sum of satisfactions is distributed among individuals” (23).     However,I was unclear how Rawls’ original position evades this problem. Of course, Rawls explains in later sections (2.13, 2.16) tha...

  In reading Chapter II of A Theory of Justice , I found Rawls’ presentation of the difference principle (Section 13) to be very interesting, especially against Marx’s theories. Raws illustrates this principle through the example of social classes. He posits that according to the difference principle, inequality is “justifiable only if the difference in expectation is to the advantage of the representative man who is worse off” (Rawls 68). In other words, inequality is only justifiable when it makes the least advantaged group better off than they would be under a system of strict equality. He further distinguishes between two cases. In the first, the status of the least advantaged group is maximized . In the second, Rawls outlines a proportional response; as the expectations of the most advantaged group rise, the expectations of the least advantaged likewise rise, despite not having reached a maximum (Rawls 68).  To illustrate the tension between Marx and Rawls regarding inequ...

  In chapter one of A Theory of Justice, Rawls presents a contrast between utilitarianism and his own conception of justice as fairness. To Rawls, the very essence of justice dictates that the pursuit of the greater good can never justify the loss of freedom for some. In Rawls’ conception of a just society, basic liberties can never be infringed. He explains that “each member of society is thought to have an inviolability founded on justice or, as some say, on natural right, which even the welfare of every one else cannot override” (24-25). Rawls rationalizes this claim by stating that justice as fairness explains the “priority of justice” because it is a result of the principles chosen under the “original position.” Rawls contrasts this with utilitarianism, which is defined by the idea that society and its institutions should promote the “greatest net balance of satisfaction” (20). Under utilitarianism, when justice and natural rights come in conflict with greater social utility...

In A Theory of Justice , Rawls provides an account of his conception of justice: justice as fairness. In so doing, he explains how justice as fairness is a critical aspect of rational choice and social ideals. In order for rational men to make rational decisions related to justice, Rawls explains, it is essential that “no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like” (Rawls 11). This is necessary to establish justice as no one would be acting in favor of his particular conditions.  Because Rawls believes that “the principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance,” I am reminded of Marx and his perception of the communist revolution (Rawls 11). To Marx, communism is the system of justice because it does away with ideology, oppression, class struggle, and the division of labor. In a communist state Marx would be able to “hun...

First, let me just say that, having read over your blog posts, I find myself blushing with other-directed pride! Several of you draw intriguing parallels between Harris's argument and Johnson's (Olivia, Alexis, Cam), and between the role of canons in inductive inference and the role of canons in statutory interpretation (Jess).  These are fascinating claims, and I look forward to exploring them. Harris is of particular interest to me here, moreover, because although she argues that doctrines that claim to be unbiased, just, neutral, and fair, e.g. strict scrutiny, colorblindness, and a corrective justice framework, are not, she advocates for approaches that she takes to be in some sense unbiased (less biased), just, and fair.  The standard interpretations claim to be unbiased, but are in fact biased in ways that serve to perpetuate a property interest in whiteness.  But exposing this bias helps us see our way clear to other principles, e.g. strict scrutiny for the oppress...

  In her paper Are Algorithms Value-Free? , Johnson underlines how our idealization of the objective truth and its association with algorithms and machine learning is misguided and potentially dangerous. Early in the paper, she draws an important distinction between inductive and deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning, as she defines it, ensures truth “because the conclusions of deductive arguments are always in some sense contained in their premises,” (4). Inductive reasoning is the extrapolation of premises to reveal truth upon certain assumptions, the primary assumption being “the world will continue to remain uniform and exhibit patterns we’ve seen the past and that are encoded in the premises,” (4). She claims that this is an inherent weakness of inductive reasoning as it allows room for error in a way that deductive reasoning does not. She goes on to discuss the ways in which current algorithms utilize inductive reasoning, and how these algorithms are susceptible to the sam...

In "Are Algorithms Value-Free?" Johnson makes the argument that the inductive processes used in machine learning algorithms are based on assumption and as such their usage is value-laden. She argues that there is a difference between induction and deduction. Deductive arguments which are "contained in their premises" are true if their "premises are true." However, inductions are based on their "probable support" and as such always leave room for wrongness, not matter how small that probability may be. She focuses on the particular problems that arise in which people try to draw conclusions based on limited data.  To elaborate, she uses "the argument from demarcation." She takes the contrast Longino makes between "simplicity and ontological heterogeneity." To make her argument, she gives the example of Ambien. She points to the mistake made in discerning the difference between the metabolism of men and women and the effects tha...

  Johnson argues that machine learning is not value-free, but is actually subjective. First, she points out that algorithms rely on inductive logic. Algorithms use raw sets of data to formulate predictions. Hume’s famous problem with inductive reasoning was that he could never be one-hundred percent sure that the sun would rise the next day. However, Johnson shows that this understand, my understanding before reading this paper, is misinformed, as “The justification of induction is contingent—it depends on the world being a certain way” (4). She parlays this point to assert that value-free algorithms are actually laden with values that only apply to seeing the world one way. She appropriates Feminist Theorist Longino to show that it is not possible to differentiate value-free epistemology from value-laden judgments, as a value-free judgment can only be justified inductively (10). Longino argues that ethical considerations should be considered when prescribing a set of values to use...