I was trying to be careful in my language...
<regarded as equals until evidence for the contrary is provided >
So, I'm not advocating, for instance, that neurosurgery have representative Downs Syndrome people and enforcing some metric to ensure there is no bias against them. Or that we have quotas.
Ultimately, a meritocracy that spends some time developing opportunities for all people is the ideal (IMO) state. And in the statement above in angle brackets, it is predicated that we should have the same good schools wherever people live, whether it be in Atherton or East Palo Alto (my regional economic extremes).
If part of your opportunity is that your daddy is rich, or that you are male, or you are white then any system that is sensitive to that is going to tend to produce de facto discrimination with respect to money, gender or race. Some people just don't care about that. Accordingly, if males dominate science and that produces opportunity just because you are male, then that needs to be addressed (IMO). This can be very subtle. If between two daughters, one is very rough and tumble and the other isn't, then there is no reason to fight their natural tendencies. However, I don't want my society to ASSUME that both are the same and send both a saucepan and housecoat. |
