Social Justice

I have been studying the subject of social justice off and on for almost a decade, and I have come to a conclusion: Social justice is a social problem, not a legal one.  There are, of course, exceptions, but a good deal of social justice issues have no business being handled through legislation.

The exceptions are things like voting.  Voting itself is a legal thing, and thus social justice with respect to voting rights is definitely a legal issue.  Of course, one might argue that voting rights is not a social justice issue at all, but it is rather a legitimate legal justice issue.  When it comes to how the government itself treats people, social justice issues are also legal issues.  Obviously, the government should not be allowed to discriminate, except in cases of cognitive limitation (which is why it is not wrong to have an age requirement for voting), citizenship (non-citizens have no business voting), and criminals (government agencies should not be required to hire convicted felons in security sensitive positions).  The Constitution sets a precedent in forbidding government positions from discriminating on basis of religion, and that has been extended outside of Constitutional law to include race, gender, and other factors.  In a government that supposes itself to represent the people, allowing this kind of discrimination would be hypocritical.

Non-government entities should not be legally bound to the same standards as the government, because they are not inherently part of the law.   Individuals especially should not be forced by law to adhere to social justice standards.  The Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of conscience.  When the government enforces social justice standards, it infringes on this right, which is one of the most fundamental rights of a free people.  Only when the stakes are extremely high, does the government have any business infringing on this right.  Further, freedom of conscience is not exclusively a right of the mind.  Social justice advocates often claim that forcing people to act in some way is not infringing on this freedom, because those people are still allowed to believe as they please.  The fact is, it is impossible to force people to believe in some way that they don't want to.  People can be forced to claim that they believe something, and they can even be forced to act like they believe something, but they cannot be forced to actually believe something.  If freedom of conscience is purely about the mind, then there is no point protecting it, because it is impossible to take away.  Freedom of conscience necessarily includes action, and no matter how repugnant it may be, this includes the right of individuals to discriminate, even based on really stupid criteria.

What about entities that are neither government nor individuals, for example, businesses?  I believe this is ultimately self correcting, but there are some special cases.  Organizations that are given preferential treatment by government, for things like charitable causes, should have some legal requirements with reference to social justice, so long as it does not infringe on things like religious freedom.  For example, a non-profit charity that is not affiliated with a religious organization should definitely not be allowed to discriminate based on certain criteria, when it comes to who they serve.  Essentially, if a non-religious non-profit is discriminating based on religion, race, or gender, and getting tax cuts (which is a lot like a government subsidy) due to non-profit status, something is wrong.  Religious groups should be allowed more flexibility, so long as that flexibility fits the teachings of the religion (for example, a religion should be legally allowed to have an all male clergy, if that is what it teaches as correct).  I am not going to go any deeper into the religion thing here, because it is a minor detail at this scale.

It might seem like it makes more sense to impose legal social justice requirements on for-profit businesses, but in reality it does not.  Government interference at this level is horribly inefficient, and it is not very effective.  Plenty of for-profit businesses discriminate based on religion, race, gender, and other things, and a vast majority get away with it.  I personally know of a number of cases of discrimination involving friends and acquaintances, and I don't even know of one of those cases where the law was enforced.  The people who are most affected by discrimination when it comes to service or employment cannot afford to do anything about it, and state agencies that are supposed to investigate cases like this typically tell complainants not to bother, because they are so backlogged on other things.  Besides that, there are better and more effective options.

Social justice is a social thing.  Law has always been a poor enforcer of social justice.  The best evidence of this is how black people are treated in the U.S..  During the era of slavery in the South, people in the South deliberately dehumanized black people, so they would not have to feel guilty about owning and sometimes mistreating black slaves.  In the North, there was some discrimination against black people, but it turns out there was not a whole lot.  In areas that had imported slaves, before slavery was banned in most northern states, some discrimination still persisted, but many parts of the North were no worse (and some perhaps better) than today.  Anti-slavery and anti-discrimination sentiments in the North even grew as the Civil War approached.  In the South, however, even free black people were treated poorly.  Racial discrimination was very common, for slaves and free black people alike.  After the Civil War, a series of laws were passed, in an effort to eliminate discrimination.  Migration between the South and the North appears to have spread discriminatory practices somewhat, and the segregation of black people and white people in the South lead to the rise distinctly different cultures, which also spread due to migration.  Despite great amounts of effort, money, and time spent changing the law in an attempt to eliminate discrimination, it has managed to persist even to today.  Most large cities are somewhat self segregating, as black people and white people tend to settle in neighborhoods of those of their own race.  Attempts at legally forcing anti-segregation policies, like requiring schools to mix students from poor black neighborhoods with those from more wealthy white ones have resulted in serious political backlash, ultimately ending with the practice being declared illegal in most areas that have tried it.  Black people are dramatically over-represented in our jails, and the evidence shows that judges and juries (regardless of race) are more likely to convict black people than white people for exactly the same crime, with exactly the same evidence.  In addition, black convicts are consistently served with more severe sentences than white convicts.  On average black workers are paid less than white workers for the same work.  Employment, housing, and service discrimination are also still common for black people.  The fact is, the law failed, because it cannot effectively and efficiently enforce social justice.

What happened?  The problem is, the law forbids discrimination, but it still exists.  No, people are not going out and murdering black people on "principle" anymore.  That's great, but anti-discrimination law would not have helped that in the first place.  Murder is illegal, and that is enough.  Desegregating bathrooms was a great idea, mostly because it saves a lot of money.  Having two sets of bathrooms, for racial segregation, is wasteful and stupid.  So now, people who think that black people are inferior can be angry and stew over it, when they are forced to use the same bathroom, because there is no other option, or they can just hold it till they get home.  Perhaps as a matter of principle, this is great, but as a matter of practicality, it does not ultimately reduce discrimination.  It only helps businesses operate more efficiently.  Bigots will find other ways to discriminate, and they have.  What happened is that the law forced discrimination into hiding.  Perhaps discrimination has been reduced, but this is less due to the law and more due to cultural progress.

The problem we have now is that discrimination is nearly impossible to identify.  We still have discrimination happening constantly, but now it is not in the public eye.  Most Americans actually believe that discrimination against black people has actually been eliminated, because they don't see it anymore.  Many Americans are actually still discriminating, but they don't even realize it!  This hidden discrimination has been passed down through several generations now.  It is firmly entrenched in our society, but it is so well hidden that people don't even realize that what they are doing is discrimination.  The law cannot fight this.  Honestly, I think overt discrimination might be better.  Consider, a black guy goes into a fast food restaurant.  He orders a burger.  Now, we have a split.  On one side, there is overt discrimination, where the guy at the register says, "We don't serve your kind here."  On the other hand, there is the covert discrimination, where the guy making the burger sees who is ordering, thinks the guy looks a bit sleazy (he does not even realize that his judgement is the result of a cultural indoctrination against black people, and he may even have black friends), and so he spits in the burger.  In the first case, the black guy goes somewhere else, depriving the business of his patronage, and he tells all his friends (including some white friends) to avoid this racist business.  In the second case, he gives the business his money, and he gets a cold from the idiot that made his food.  Which case is better?  Yes, both are bad, but at least in the first case, there were consequences for the racist business, while in the second, the black guy paid the full price.

Enter real social justice.  I have written about social intolerance before.  Enforcing social justice through law is a failure.  Yes, it has accomplished some good things.  In the end though, it has entirely failed its goal, and there is no evidence it will ever succeed.  Law is no match for social intolerance in getting people to change their behavior and their minds.  Law might be able to change behavior somewhat, but social pressure can change ingrained political positions, and anything that can do that is incredibly powerful.  Social justice advocates need to stop wasting their time and money on lobbying the government, and the government needs to stop wasting its time listening to them.  We need to save social justice in law for occasions where the law is the appropriate avenue for change.  Social justice advocates need to take a different approach.  They need to leverage social intolerance to cause real change.

The first place to start would be to create a list of businesses.  Each business should be rated for its level of discrimination, and who it targets.  The U.S. government has an organization that does this sort of thing for religious freedom of countries around the world (ironically, the U.S. does not measure up very well).  Social justice advocates need to create a similar organization that ranks businesses.  Then, it should run campaigns encouraging people to consult the list before patronizing a business or applying to work at a business.  Yeah, a lot of people will ignore it, but businesses won't.  They can't, because both workers and customers are essential to the survival of any business.  The social pressure will eventually push businesses that are discriminating into line, or they will ultimately fail.  The mere existence of the list will put pressure on people to change their opinions.  And it does not have to end there.  A group in a city might create a list of apartment complexes, rated by discrimination.  Schools might be another good option.  Even city council members might be listed for discrimination in policies that they have supported.  Just the existence of the lists will make it clear to everyone that discriminatory behavior is not acceptable, and it will bring the discussion into the public square more, forcing people thing think about it and reconsider their positions.  It will also point out covert discriminatory behavior better.

Another major avenue for putting social pressure on people is media.  Black people (for example) are seriously underrepresented in movies and television shows, and those that they are in are more likely to depict them as criminals, hoodlums, impulsive, rude, or stupid.  We need more black people in movies and television who are not depicted as part of the black ghetto culture.  A great example that unfortunately seems to have been a one off is the Cosby Show, where a black family is depicted as living the sort of life style and in the culture that a majority of well off Americans live in.  Even token black characters would help, if they were not depicted as useless idiots!  White people can have black friends who are not constantly getting into trouble or acting like morons.  We need more media that depicts respectable black people.  If social justice advocates are going to aggressively lobby anyone, the media is a way better target than the government, for any group that is regularly discriminated against.

Social justice is a social problem, not a legal one.  Approaching it from a legal perspective is the wrong solution, and ultimately it will only end up pushing discrimination deeper and deeper into society, until it is so completely ingrained that we cannot even see it.  The solution for social justice is not trying to force people to think the way you want them to through the law.  The solution for social justice is to persuade people to change how they think by making discriminatory thinking socially unacceptable, and nothing the government can do will accomplish that goal.