Putting a finger on the scale obviously tips the scale. When one side starts out with more, however, the scales won’t balance. And there’s nothing neutral about that.

There’s a vision of neutrality we run around with that pins our attention to what that finger is doing. We think that applying that finger to a scale ever is picking sides. Even when it serves to balance the scales.

Meanwhile, fingers are loading one side of the scale with resources. None of this, on the other hand, is neutral. But these aren’t the fingers we’re debating about. Conveniently.

Only, they actually are. And we also never seem to debate them.

Inequality is not inevitable.

It’s the product of choices and patterns. Choices made in specific moments and about which moments matter. About what patterns matter. Who gets justice. And how to ensure justice is served.

Affirmative Action

We may choose to see affirmative action as a finger on the scale and not an expression of neutrality. But if we do, we’re also rejecting other neutralities. Not just neutrality of outcome or purpose, but practice.

Neutralities of resources and backgrounds.

We already pick and choose what weights matter for the scale. Weights based on resources certain people already have. Setting the scale to measure the benefits of where one is from and the education level of the parents.

Rejecting affirmative action isn’t neutral.

It’s choosing sides. On purpose.

Neutral, true neutral, doesn’t stem from ignoring realities, or choosing which parts count. An outcome, itself, predicated on its own kind of affirmative action. Choosing to prefer certain persons, backgrounds, and systems of education.

All things built by putting a finger on the scale for the dominant racial groups.

The Supreme Court has made a dangerous decision about affirmative action. It is not in service of neutrality. But as a certain rejection of it. Because our systems are built on picking and choosing. Even to grant the right to lie or no right to freedom.

And they have chosen one particular thing (race) is not allowed to matter in that decision. Which places an invisible finger on the scale to benefit mediocre white people. Because picking and choosing is the nature of the game.

In short, we may be worried about affecting outcomes—our not encouraging neutrality. When the systems themselves are built without neutrality.