Profiles, Probabilities, and Stereotypes

This book is a joy to read. Schauer makes an important argument with real brio, and uses wonderful examples. The book is a ringing and, I believe, wholly successful attack on those who are suspicious of generalizations and who therefore call for ever-greater 'individualized,' highly contextual decision-making. -- Sanford Levinson, University of Texas, Austin Schauer argues convincingly that generalizations are pervasive in judgment, among other things connecting the subject of generalizations to reliance on probabilistic data in civil trials. He does an excellent job of showing why many generalizations create no problem of injustice (including some that are claimed to be unjust) and of explaining why a limited number of nonspurious generalizations might nevertheless be thought unjust and should be avoided. -- Kent Greenawalt, Columbia University With admirable clarity and fair-mindedness, Frederick Schauer tackles timely issues of racial profiling, minimum voting and drinking ages, mandatory retirement, military exclusions based on gender and sexual orientation, and sentencing guidelines. He demonstrates that nothing less than social justice and stability is at stake in our ability to distinguish between different kinds of legal generalities. Profiles, Probabilities, and Stereotypes is full of intriguing examples and illuminating arguments, which together will make it a most welcome guide for concerned lawmakers and citizens alike. -- Amy Gutmann, author of Identity in Democracy If you've asked yourself whether it is fair to single out ethnic groups for profiling at airports, whether it's right to retire pilots just because they turn 60, or whether it's ever fair to bar women from certain professions, Frederick Schauer's book will be essential reading. It is a profound and incisive guide to the contested zone of public policy where justice, fairness, and equality conflict. -- Michael Ignatieff, Carr Professor of Human Rights Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, author of The Lessor Evil

When the law makes decisions about groups based on averages, the public benefit can be enormous. On the other hand, profiling and stereotyping may lead to injustice. As Schauer argues, there is good profiling and bad profiling. If we can effectively determine which is which, we stand to gain, not lose, a measure of justice.

This book employs a careful, rigorous, yet lively approach to the timely question of whether we can justly generalize about members of a group on the basis of statistical tendencies of that group. For instance, should a military academy exclude women because, on average, women are more sensitive to hazing than men? Should airlines force all pilots to retire at age sixty, even though most pilots at that age have excellent vision? Can all pit bulls be banned because of the aggressive characteristics of the breed? And, most controversially, should government and law enforcement use racial and ethnic profiling as a tool to fight crime and terrorism?

Frederick Schauer strives to analyze and resolve these prickly questions. When the law “thinks like an actuary”—makes decisions about groups based on averages—the public benefit can be enormous. On the other hand, profiling and stereotyping may lead to injustice. And many stereotypes are self-fulfilling, while others are simply spurious. How, then, can we decide which stereotypes are accurate, which are distortions, which can be applied fairly, and which will result in unfair stigmatization?

These decisions must rely not only on statistical and empirical accuracy, but also on morality. Even statistically sound generalizations may sometimes have to yield to the demands of justice. But broad judgments are not always or even usually immoral, and we should not always dismiss them because of an instinctive aversion to stereotypes. As Schauer argues, there is good profiling and bad profiling. If we can effectively determine which is which, we stand to gain, not lose, a measure of justice.