Jenn Larson
Commentary on Diversity
March 29, 2004
The Problems with Testing for Genetic Differences between Ethnicities and Genders
History is marred by countless examples of discrimination toward particular groups of
people. Groups have been systematically denied rights and privileges on the basis of arbitrary
characteristics for centuries. Scientific research seeks to show that certain characteristics,
namely intelligence, learning styles, abilities, and so forth are genetic, and moreover are
genetically linked to ethnicity and gender. While American industriousness and curiosity tends
to embrace any and all new scientific findings, confirmed research that acknowledges differences
between ethnicities and genders may jeopardize rights and cater to prejudice.
Prejudice exists because some correlate asserted differences between groups with desert
of treatment. Stereotypes spread on the basis of myths that categorize groups. If science
confirms genetic origins for IQ and abilities on the basis of race or gender, this confirmation
would seem to suggest that difference between groups are genetic. A scientific basis for these
differences is detrimental for numerous reasons.
Genetic differences in behavior and abilities seems to add validity to stereotypes.
Discrimination is broken down by pointing out that asserted differences are just that- asserted.
People that hold discriminatory views could note that the differences they cite are not based on
an arbitrary factor, but on a scientifically sound factor. Such “proof” would dampen efforts to
deconstruct discriminating mindsets.
Genetic differences also pigeon-hold groups into stereotypical roles. For example, if
studies confirm that women have less of an ability to process math-related information, women
will be affected by this finding. A woman who is considering a field of study will discount math,
since she is genetically destined to do poorly in that subject. Likewise, even if she opts to beat
the odds and try, others will expect her to perform poorly as well, which can affect their
treatment, expectations, and even grading of her. Thus, these studies create a self fulfilling
prophecy that track groups to underperform.
The self fulfilling prophecy is particularly harmful because the studies would not predict
the behavior of every member of a group. Even the best genetic data could only show the that
certain characteristics are more likely, or are expressed more commonly within the population.
The data could not show that certain people will have certain characteristics, or even that these
characteristics, if inherited, are unchangeable. Unfortunately, such nuances are unlikely to be
realized by the general public. As a result, the finings are likely to be viewed in an over
generalized form, attributing characteristics to every member of the studied group. Blanket
views of groups are flawed, make the self fulfilling prophecy more disastrous, and uniquely
foster discrimination.
Confirmation of genetic differences would stunt progress in equal rights/ treatment
campaigns. Poor genetic data was used in the early twentieth century to justify exclusionary
education since members of minority groups were seen to be genetically predisposed to learn
less. Decades of campaigns dispelling beliefs that groups were different resulted in more and
more policies of equal treatment, and landmark cases granting equal rights. The feminist
movement has progressed in the same way- feminist leaders embark on campaigns to convince
the public that there are no valid differences between men and women that directly correlate to
gender. In fact, genetic research proving differences is part of what Susan Faludi would label as
the “backlash” against women, a took society uses when the women’s movement has progressed
too far for comfort. Regardless of the motives of the study, “proof” of differences would only
set back the logic of both movements and jeopardize equal rights.
The only reasonable benefits that could be cited as a result of such studies would be that
society can then cater to differences to benefit all groups. This reasoning is flawed for three
reasons. First, there would be no incentive for society to try to bridge whatever gap the research
shows exists between ethnicities or genders, since that gap is a result of genetics. Thus,
beneficial programs are unlikely to result. In fact, genetic differences have historically been used
as justification to terminate such programs. Second, different treatment through programs like
gender or culture-specific education only reinforce the aforementioned problems by codifying
differences. Finally, separate treatment to tailor to genetic differences on the basis of ethnicity or
gender rings too close to the rhetoric of Plessy v Ferguson. As Brown v Board smartly pointed
out, separate but equal is not equal.