And how do we really love our neighbor if we’re not willing to examine the biases we may have against them?
Jesus told us to do as we would be done by. He didn't tell us to unearth unconscious bias.
Try reading the parable of the Good Samaritan again.
Indeed!
Jesus answer to the question “Who is my neighbour?” is the gold standard in confronting unconscious bias.
In one of the few really good decisions over the last century in the House of Lords (the judicial committee of which was then the ultimate UK court of appeal for these purposes) Lord Atkin said:
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.*
Just remove the qualification "in law" and you have a very valuable guide for day-to-day living.
I spoke earlier about my reaction to certain black faces. That's a bad bias - it made me unfairly look with disfavour on people that had those facial features. I am now able to consciously override my instinctive response. So, to a significant extent, I consider that bias "fixed". I don't know if my brain will ever reprogram itself so that the instinctive response doesn't happen in these cases. It would be good if it did, but I've successfully neutered this particular bias.
So evidence that you have an instinct-level bias is not in fact evidence that you make biased decisions ?
Seems to me a great idea for recruitment decisions to be taken in a way that is as "blind" as possible to irrelevant factors.
But if someone denies that their own decisions are biased, it may be quite difficult to actually assemble evidence to the contrary, rather than just assuming it as doctrine.
Do I need to quote Secretary Rumsfeld on "unknown unknowns" to you?
Almost all actions performed by my body are automatic. The few authentic decisions I've made have been strongly influenced by biology and by socialisation. It's my belief that the factors that bring me to choose A instead of B are complex beyond imagining. I have as much chance of understanding myself as a frog has of understanding a frog, and so I see no point trying.
Jesus doesn't exhort us to understand ourselves, or to unearth the hidden mysteries of the subconscious. Instead, he tells us to obey his commands. As we attempt the difficult task of obedience, God will fix our secret selves in his own good time.
You react to certain faces? "Love your neighbour" is all you need to know. "Blessed are the merciful" provides us with more than enough motivation to treat others with fair-minded kindness. Speculation about the unconscious adds nothing.
... a bias about the competence of my colleagues related to their gender.
Why not ask, "Am I treating my staff fairly?"
"You can't fix all your problems, so there's no point in fixing any of them" is a really stupid argument.
Comments
For example, every time a speaker uses "she" for some sort of generic character, it catches in my ear just slightly.
There's absolutely no rational reason why generic characters in narratives should all be male. And yet that's what my brain expects.
The end.
The thing, then, is to have enough awareness of this tendency to question it when it has the potential to affect real live people.
In one of the few really good decisions over the last century in the House of Lords (the judicial committee of which was then the ultimate UK court of appeal for these purposes) Lord Atkin said:
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.*
Just remove the qualification "in law" and you have a very valuable guide for day-to-day living.
*[1932] AC 562
So evidence that you have an instinct-level bias is not in fact evidence that you make biased decisions ?
Seems to me a great idea for recruitment decisions to be taken in a way that is as "blind" as possible to irrelevant factors.
But if someone denies that their own decisions are biased, it may be quite difficult to actually assemble evidence to the contrary, rather than just assuming it as doctrine.
That's a great observation.
I suspect that:
Unconscious Bias = Original Sin
Unconscious Bias Training = Confession
Fixing Bias = Penance
ie. The whole show is a drab manifestation of secular religion.
Interesting, if limited perspective but it's nice to see you realise how you were wrong here:
Hey-ho.
AFZ
(*Without a date [sc. for returning])
I hadn't noticed. Apologies.