It won't harm the insurance companies, as it'll be a level playing field, and they'll all have to simply quote new rates that work out for them given the new data they're allowed to consider. The parties harmed will be, on average, women, whose rates will go up, and the beneficiaries will be, on average, men, especially young men, whose rates will come down.
Oh, good point. Let's also recognize that blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes and have violent crimes committed upon them, so we should be charging them extra for health insurance relative to whites.
I'm sorry, it's not technical innovation. If someone invents a horse and carriage when the automobile is already in existence, the horse and carriage is not innovation. The poster who has been downvoted out of existence is correct.
It is not that they have been systematically discriminated against; it is that they are being systematically discriminated against with this very fund. Let's get this straight: You are not cleared of being racist if you are discriminating against a group you deem as "in power". It is simply your careless redefinition of the word racism to apply not to ethnicity or nationality, but to power. This redefinition clears those not in power from being called racist when they explicitly discriminate on racial grounds.
The reason why the majority of funded founders are white men is because white is the majority color in places where there is the most VC money, and men are less risk averse, especially in the more extreme male personality types.
Racism does not depend on history or society, it depends on whether or not there is active racial discrimination. You imply that only the powerful may be racist, and that discrimination towards the racial or gender group "of power" is not only not racist, but a virtuous act.
It is at the very least racial discrimination, as it discriminates on the basis of race who should receive funding. You could argue that it does make the claim that non-colored men have relative superiority, otherwise it would not be able to justify it's abject racism towards them.
It _is_ a form of racism and sexism, by definition. You can make an argument that some forms of racism/sexism are not harmful, or even beneficial, to society, but let's not re-define words based on your convenience.
And before you reply, I suggest you look up the definitions in an English dictionary; personally I referenced Merriam-Webster, but most accepted English dictionaries will tell you more or less the same thing.
You find racial discrimination acceptable? Or also virtuous? Is it a good goal to strive for in 21st century society? Do you find virtue in breaking people up into racial and gendered groups, and then applying pre-calculated policies to "even them out"?
It’s not a goal, it’s a tool to combat systemic racism.
> Do you find virtue
Here’s what I think:
I think there’s no inherent genetic gender or race component that should impact outcomes in people’s relative success. If you believe there is, you are literally a racist or a sexist, by the very definitions of those terms. Given that, if you can predict a group of people’s outcomes based on their race or gender, there is an inequality of opportunity. I believe that the inequality of opportunity should be tackled.
I believe that tackling this is an urgent issue. I believe that affirmative action — like setting up these funds — is a working solution.
I'll give it a go. I first want to say something about the worldview required to do this sort of racial discrimination.
There is no way of quantifying the relative advantages and disadvantages between identity groups. How much is one group oppressed over another? Suppose that a simple tax would suffice to even things out, exactly how much should that tax be? There is no way of knowing precisely what that tax should be. Our attempts to define oppression are never going to be rigorous. They'll always be vague, which I believe is dangerous, since it will be enforced by some large bureaucracy. We need definition, but there will never be definition accurate enough. Feel free to argue me on this, but I don't see how you can do it.
Second, in separating people into these identity groups, you deny my individuality. Every time I speak, I speak as a member of my group, for my group. My actions are actions of and for my group, as well. With the world view taken here, I cannot speak or act without the presupposition that I'm doing it as a move in a power game between my identity group and other identity groups. Should we accept that a person's ethnicity and gender must always qualify their speech and actions?
I agree that in conversation, one can observe the race and gender of the other person - but the merit of their words is still paramount. You may know that a book author is from Spain or Russia, but that does not affect how you read the book. However, in the worldview in which a racially discriminatory VC fund is socially acceptable, people are defined as members of groups among other groups, constantly vying for power and oppressing one another.
Notice I'm not really going after the racially-discriminatory VC fund itself. I'm explaining the worldview in which the fund was conceived, and in which it is socially acceptable. It boils North America down from a melting pot of ambitious individuals trying to do great things with each other, into identity groups that are constantly holding power over, and suffering under the tyranny of, other identity groups. Obviously, the dominant narrative here is that white males are oppressing women of color founders. But you have no idea about the individual biases of the white males you're decrying. And you also have no idea whether or not they achieved funded status based on their competence. Yet you still assume the system is broken, and you still rob them of their individuality, still knowing nothing of their biases and nothing of their competence.
> Keep in mind that not doing anything doesn't seem to fix these things.
Why must we do something? Where is the evidence that people are not choosing to be founders of their free will? How can you be sure that the lack of founder diversity is evidence of a flaw in the system? I say that the system is operating in a very healthy manner.
Efforts to move power to the disadvantaged that disregard individuality has had tragic, deadly results in history (China, Vietnam, USSR).
> There is no way of quantifying the relative advantages and disadvantages between identity groups
I agree with this idea when you talk about giving a very specific quantity, but I'd argue that gathering some data can tell you that there is some significant disadvantage for some group relative to another. But yes, we will never get to a point where every group is 100% exactly equal. I'm not asking for Communism.
> in separating people into these identity groups, you deny my individuality
Yes, and that definitely sucks. I don't like my individuality being denied either. It's definitely a significant drawback, and again, I'd welcome an alternative solution.
> Yet you still assume the system is broken, and you still rob them of their individuality, still knowing nothing of their biases and nothing of their competence
I don't seek to rob white men (like myself) of individuality or to ignore their/my biases or competence or achievements or anything. I've been programming since I was eight but when looking for scholarships, it was harder for me to find any than it was for friends of mine who were in minority groups but didn't have any experience. I still can notice an issue, see people taking steps to solve it, and then decide that while these steps seem quite morally wrong and put me personally at a disadvantage, doing nothing seems like being complicit in something that was created out of the same kind of moral wrongdoings, and isn't getting any better. I'm not a fan of fighting fire with fire, but I don't see a better alternative.
Speaking of alternatives, I don't see you providing any...
> Where is the evidence that people are not choosing to be founders of their free will? How can you be sure that the lack of founder diversity is evidence of a flaw in the system?
You're right that quantifying these things gets messy, but when I look at these things, I see that the system is skewed in favor of white men. Just look at the number "76%" (the amount of white male Venture Capitalists) and the fact that racism and sexism are definitely present today, and then try to say that the system as it is is fair.
If you want to argue that we'll never know what's the optimal amount of fair or that we'll never reach 100% exactly fair, then ok - I agree. If you want to argue that this worldview is bad, then ok - I agree. I also agree that it's bad to take away individuality, and to put people in boxes. But I don't see an alternative, and I do see a problem, and I don't see the solution to be much worse than the origins of the problem.
You are the one using a very strange and tortured definition. Neither racism nor sexism involve power structures they both involve discrimination on racial/ethnic/imagined or gender grounds. This is well established English language stop trying to redefine it.
If you're a VC fund that discriminates by race and gender in the fight against "racism and sexism", then your definitions of those two terms do not rely on ethnicity or gender at all. The terms "racism and sexism" as used here describe power, first and foremost. Those holding power are necessarily prejudiced, and to discriminate against them cannot be a prejudiced act; by your definition, the minority cannot be prejudiced, and are but victims of prejudice.
The truth is this: To have equality of outcome across race and gender in entrepreneurship is impossible. It's unclear why anyone at all is interested in taking extremely high risk positions as founders of start ups relying on fast growth and with a small amount of burn; to segment that group by racial and gender identity is to shame and belittle the ones deemed "to hold the power". And when they cry out that they are being discriminated against on the basis of race, you are one step ahead of them: Your convenient re-definition of racism to be an act only committed by those of power denies the shamed their rightful defense.
