Reflecting on this week’s discussion, I was particularly interested in Professor Bobo’s points about the benefits and drawbacks of different techniques for measuring discrimination. Specifically, he noted that a key issue with quantitative disparity analysis is the need to somehow prove discriminatory intent. Initially, as a black man, it is unthinkable how anyone could question how many black-white inequalities may not at least partially stem from unfair or prejudicial treatment. However, using the black-white mortality disparity from coronary heart disease, I realized that the difficulty of proving discrimination does not imply a racist disregard for other systemic inequities. Discrimination does indeed play a role in this unequal outcome, as Schulman et al. 1999 found that physicians were less likely to recommend blacks for cardiac catheterization compared to whites. However, this disparity also stems from blacks having less medicare-supplemental insurance, as highlighted in Chen et al 2001.

Nonetheless, I fear that this quantitative approach could give latitude to skeptics who may try to explain away or minimize discrimination’s role in race-based inequalities. This problem drew my mind to a saying outside the movie theatre on Church Street in Harvard Square which reads, “Indication of harm not proof of harm is our call to action.” If quantitative approaches lead scholars to demand proof of discrimination, my concern is that broader anti-discrimination efforts by government, NGOs, and other entities will be undermined, as their backers may also require more explicit evidence before offering their intellectual or monetary support. Such reluctance could thus undermine prompt responses to these issues.