David Reich geneticist

In a recent article, David Reich, the Harvard geneticist writes:

How do we accommodate the biological differences between men and women? I think the answer is obvious: We should both recognize that genetic differences between males and females exist and we should accord each sex the same freedoms and opportunities regardless of those differences.

I have a question for Professor Reich: If the same freedoms and opportunities should be accorded to each sex regardless of their differences, does that mean that the same outcomes should be assigned to the sexes, too? If not, it appears that Professor Reich's argument undermines the doctrine of disparate impact, one of Liberalism's preferred tools for obtaining similar outcomes and a bedrock of the Obama/Holder Justice Department. For example, it seems that Professor Reich is saying that, yes, all women need to be given the opportunity to be software engineers, but we shouldn't be surprised if more software engineers end up being men. Conversely, we shouldn't be surprised if individual female software engineers exist who are better than some (or even all) male software engineers. This is quite different from the disparate impact approach, which holds that the percentage of female software engineers must be the same as the percentage of females in the general population (equality of outcomes, not of opportunity).

I would also like to hear Professor Reich address the following question: If Group A and Group B are genetically different in such a way that members of Group A require more medical care in aggregate than those of Group B, should members of both groups pay the same for health insurance? If not, who should pay the difference in cost? The individuals, the insurance company, the government, who? Is it ever ok for an insurance company to deny members of Group A health insurance? It would seem that denying them health insurance is denying them an "opportunity or freedom." But, if the insurance companies are forced to cover them at the same cost, would not the insurance company rapidly go broke?

Here is a similar question: if Group A and Group B are genetically different in such a way that members of Group A are less creditworthy in aggregate than those of Group B, should members of both groups receive credit at the same rate and cost? Is it ever ok for a bank to deny the members of Group A credit? But, once again, if banks are forced to lend to the non-creditworthy, won't they rapidly go broke?

Note that the question about creditworthiness assumes there can be a correlation between genetics and creditworthiness. I am not aware of any evidence that such a correlation exists. (I suspect Professor Reich would label this an unwarranted prejudice.) But, It seems these questions about insurance and credit and the like can be generalized: If Group A and Group B are genetically different in such a way that selection of members of Group A for some purpose costs the selector more in aggregate than selection of members of Group B, then is it justified for the selector to select only from Group B and to avoid selecting from Group A (all else being equal)?

But, if this is the correct general form of the question, then, it seems that this question can be asked about software engineers, too: If women and men are genetically different in such a way that the selection of women to be software engineers costs the software company more in aggregate (say, because of the lower aggregate performance of women; shades of Lawrence Summers!) than selecting men, is the software company justified in selecting only men and avoiding women (all else being equal). Remember: we are stipulating that we have genetic findings that demonstrate that there is a correlation between being male and having a greater aptitude for software engineering.

I think perhaps the correct approach is hinted at in the phrase "(all else being equal)" and is shown by the following example: Let's say that A and B are seeking health insurance. A has a gene that makes those who have it more susceptible in aggregate to heart attacks. As a condition of offering health insurance, both A and B are required to take a battery of tests of their coronary health and performance. Both A and B score equally well on all these tests with very high marks. Is the health insurance company justified in charging A more? Perhaps the test for the gene is just another test that should be considered in the total battery of tests, so that if A tests positive for the gene, then his overall score is, in fact, less than B's score (by the significance of the gene test) and the insurance company would be justified in charging him more for insurance because of the additional single risk factor. In addition, the costs of insuring A and B may be far less than the cost of insuring others who have scored much lower on the other tests.

The extraordinary thing is that such an approach would seem to suggest that there are times when protected characteristics like gender can and should be taken into consideration in selection processes to accentuate different aggregate outcomes, rather than ignored so as to create equal aggregate outcomes. It should be noted that such an approach would likely give us our original outcome with software engineers: more would be men, but there would be very many good women, too.

I do not claim to speak for Professor Reich in any of this. I am aware that the statements I have made above may be entirely sophistical. If so, I would take pleasure in hearing him refute them; the gain in knowledge would be mine. Professor Reich seems to be the kind of person who follows the facts and science wherever it leads him, even if they end up leading him to reject the assertions of political correctness or to refute unwarranted bigotry. I have pre-ordered his new book and look forward to reading it when it is released.