>"I'm not saying all black men are criminals, but on average, they go to prison more."
Is that the underlying causation behind this 'fact' is that there is systemic bias against black men from law enforcement and the rest of society.
This is why we have diversity programs.
James Damore's argument is that diversity programs are moot because he says there is no systemic bias against women. Just as if a racist were arguing against diversity programs because they say there is no systemic bias against black men, because really, on average black men "just go to prison more".
Whether or not it's the average or the individual is a red herring. The point is Damore misrepresents data to argue against systemic bias - data which is inherently culpable to the same systemic bias he is arguing against.
> ...the underlying causation behind this 'fact' is that there is systemic bias against black men from law enforcement and the rest of society.
How is this rhetoric any better than Damore's? At best we can do studies that demonstrate the existence of bias, but we're nowhere near able to say that surely that bias is "the underlying cause of black people going to prison more" or that "this is why we have diversity problems". You're at least as bad as Damore. You want to believe that something is a certain way so you take inconclusive data and pretend like one hypothesis is not merely superior, but obviously, completely true.
> data which is inherently culpable to the same systemic bias...
How can data be culpable? And what data would this argument not invalidate? Has data every been collected by an fully un-biased society? Or can I, taking Damore's side, just throw out any data that shows that bias was the cause of a certain outcome and claim that, "this research is invalidated by the systemic bias in our society to attribute diversity problems to systemic bias."
> Is that the underlying causation behind this 'fact' is that there is systemic bias against black men from law enforcement and the rest of society.
No. The underlying causation by large consensus in the research community is that high crime rate is heavily caused by low social economic status.
Discrimination by law enforcement is not the primary cause of low social economic status. Racism in society contribute to lower social economic status for people of color but it too is not the main causation. Parents social economic status has the single largest impact on any individual social economic status and historical racism is the primary reason why African Americans as an demographic has lower social economic status than white Americans and why as a result, on average, African Americans commit more crime than white people. Programs which does not acknowledge and understand the critical relationship between social economic status and crime are unlikely to have any direct effect on crime or the rate in which African Americans end up in jail.
Which is why a lot of people in current time is arguing against diversity programs that tries to fix the problem by attacking the legal system. Its highly questionable if such programs can ever have any meaningful effect. A strategy that is more likely to succeed would be to address the social economic status issue through desegregation, social security, social economic support to parents, improving the education system in low social economic areas, access to health care, minimum wages, and other strategies that focus on the bottom 20% in the wealth hierarchy.
Different people can share the same goals but have distinctly different views on the causation and best strategy to achieve it. It does not mean it is a red herring or that they pretend to be against the goal. It just mean they have different ideas on how to reach it.
>"I'm not saying all black men are criminals, but on average, they go to prison more."
Is that the underlying causation behind this 'fact' is that there is systemic bias against black men from law enforcement and the rest of society.
This is why we have diversity programs.
James Damore's argument is that diversity programs are moot because he says there is no systemic bias against women. Just as if a racist were arguing against diversity programs because they say there is no systemic bias against black men, because really, on average black men "just go to prison more".
Whether or not it's the average or the individual is a red herring. The point is Damore misrepresents data to argue against systemic bias - data which is inherently culpable to the same systemic bias he is arguing against.