When does differentiation become discrimination?

[prufrock]

Prompted by the James Watson thread, and something I heard on the radio the other day about age discrimination legislation,is it OK to use proven facts to discriminate against people?

Obviously Watson is talking bollocks becasue his testing methodology is skewed towards WASP men, but what about situations like women car driver being given better premiums because they are statistically less likely to have accidents. Is that discrimination against men? Or stop and search being directed towards young black men because they are statistically more likely to be involved in street robbery? Is taht discrimination or sensible policing? Or older people paying significantly more for travel insurance because they are statistically likely to fall ill on holiday, or gay men finding it difficult to get life insurance because they are statistically more likely to get HIV? Where should the line be drawn, and who should decide where the line is?

Discuss

I suppose the difference is that some might call it positive discrimination, which can sometimes be necessary to correct an ingrained wrong. Others might call it being sensible. After all are you going to charge a 17yo who has just passed his test the same insurance premium as his dad, who has an unblemished record for 25 years?

I think the line is normally drawn by the person who is likely to benefit from being on the right side of that line .

If facts are proven, there is no reason why one group of human beings should not be treated differently to another.

It is when there is no basis in fact that we talk of discrimination ie unfair treatment of a group of human beings.

economists talk about statistical discrimination. This means treating all members of a group as if they have the average characteristics of that group. Thus women pay lower premiums because they are safer drivers on average. This will mean, of course that a safe man driver will pay too much and a dangerous woman driver will pay too little.

it is a matter of debate whether this is legitimate or not

"Or stop and search being directed towards young black men because they are statistically more likely to be involved in street robbery?"

So what about the areas where there are not a lot of black men and there is still a lot street crime?

okay so the problem with statistical discrimination are
a) often based on prejudice and not fact
b) can be self fulfilling. eg teacher thinks a child eating a greggs sausage roll is thick, does not encourage it and so child does less well in school ergo expectations are fulfilled even though they were not based in fact before.
c) if based on fact they are reflective of real discrimination elsewhere (acess to jobs etc)
d) it is just unfair to those who do not exhibit the average characteritics

Not always fact. Insurance is quoted based on the risk. 90 year old more likely to die than a 40 year old, hence life insurance cheaper the younger you are (generally). 40 year old skiing in the Alps more likely to fall and hurt himself than a woman of 55 sightseeing in the Alps, so holiday insurance more expensive for the skier. Not always age related, just risk related.

but caroline the issue is that differences in age are used to predict differences in risk even though they may be plenty of v. healthy 90 year olds and v. ill 40 year olds.

Most insurance these days includes a medical disclaimer and you have to reveal any salient medical information - so there will be a background actuarial age-related risk and then that will be adjusted for the individual's circumstances.

Tends to make one long for the days of no computers, data banks etc. and all the other modern day facilities which inevitably cost the honest people more.