Abstract
We analyze a frequent but undertheorized form of structural injustice, one that arises due to the difficulty of reaching numerically equitable representation of underrepresented subgroups within a larger group. This form of structural injustice is significant because it could occur even if it were possible to completely eliminate bias and overt discrimination from hiring and recruitment practices. The conceptual toolkit we develop can be used to analyze such situations and propose remedies. Specifically, based on a simple mathematical model, we offer a new argument in favour of quotas, explore implications for policy-making, and consider the wider philosophical significance of the problem. We show that in order to reach more equitable representations, quota-based recruitment may often be practically unavoidable. Assuming that members of groups in statistical minority are more likely to quit due to their marginalization, their proportions can stabilize at a low level, preventing a shift towards more equal representation and conserving the minority status of the subgroup. We show that this argument has important implications for addressing, preventing, and remediating the structural injustice of unfair representation.
Highlights
This paper deals with a frequent but hitherto undertheorized form of structural injustice, one that arises due to the difficulty of reaching numerically equitable representation of underrepresented groups within larger groups
Our model shows how to identify and overcome the obstacles posed by intragroup dynamics to realizing adequate representation
Our analysis shows that the dynamics of intragroup proportions can result in unfair underrepresentation even when every effort is made by the stakeholders to adopt hiring policies free of explicit or implicit bias
Summary
This paper deals with a frequent but hitherto undertheorized form of structural injustice, one that arises due to the difficulty of reaching numerically equitable representation of underrepresented groups within larger groups. Combining mathematical modelling techniques and formal ethical arguments, we show that even a recruitment policy that is free of any explicit or implicit hiring bias can unwittingly perpetuate wider societal structures and maintain the minority status of disadvantaged groups within organizations. This finding has important implications for the question of how to address this form of structural injustice. When minority members (here, women) are more likely to quit due to their relative marginalization within the group (an assumption we will investigate in depth), their intragroup proportion can freeze at a certain (low) point, which we call a “point of recalcitrance” Such points prevent a shift towards a fairer representation of subgroup members. This, does not mean that we are powerless to transform or neutralize the effects of these unjust structures. To be successful in doing so, we need to understand the broader systemic causes and the often unseen microforms of intragroup marginalization and exclusion
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
