Product Description

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.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #201004 in Books
• Published on: 2006-04-30
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 384 pages

Review
"As Frederick Schauer argues in his excellent book, though we are right to suspect that all general rules are discriminatory, we are wrong to suppose that it is therefore better to trust individuals. This is because no individual is truly capable of judging each case on its merits; individuals simply bring their own personal generalisations to bear on the cause in question... Schauer suggests that we should all toughen up about stereotyping, accept it as an inevitable fact of life, and instead of trying to avoid it, concentrate on coming up with the best stereotypes we can." - David Runciman, London Review of Books"

Review
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 (20040315)

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 (20040805)

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 (20040601)

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

Rather than indulge recriminations about racism or simple-minded nostrums about public safety, Schauer has shown that a society ruled by laws needs to make generalizations and, yes, create profiles.
--Eli Lehrer (Weekly Standard )

As Frederick Schauer argues in his excellent book, though we are right to suspect that all general rules are discriminatory, we are wrong to suppose that it is therefore better to trust individuals. This is because no individual is truly capable of judging each case on its merits; individuals simply bring their own personal generalisations to bear on the case in question...Schauer suggests that we should all toughen up about stereotyping, accept it as an inevitable fact of life, and instead of trying to avoid it, concentrate on coming up with the best stereotypes we can.
--David Runciman (London Review of Books )

In an era in which profiling, stereotyping, and generalizing are suspect Frederick Schauer's Profiles, Probabilities, and Stereotypes is a frank, in-depth look at the justifications for such practices. Schauer takes an unpopular stance in supporting the use of generalization over particularization, opening the reader's eyes to the fact that society operates on multiple levels by the widespread use of generalization…Schauer addresses the intriguing question of why we find some generalizations acceptable and others morally outrageous…Schauer skillfully develops his thesis that the outcomes of applying general rules are often preferable to those that would result from applying a rule's rationale individually in each case. Profiles, Probabilities, and Stereotypes faces controversial issues with aplomb and will capture any reader interested in how fairness, equality, morality, stability, and community are interrelated.
--Melanie Kilpatrick (Federal Lawyer )

About the Author
Frederick Schauer is David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law.

Customer Reviews

In Defense of Generalities, Light
In parables and aphorisms the author likes to speak. Its title notwithstanding, this book is not an empirical study of statistical probabilities, profiling, or stereotyping. It is a philosophical defense of the use of generalities, painting with broad strokes so to speak, in daily intercourse and social constructs. The defense is of nonspurious, nonuniversal generalizations in lofty, and some not so lofty, decisions all of us make and employ in survival as individuals, as a species, and as a society. But, to appropriate from George Orwell's "Animal Farm," some generalities are more equal than others. Some generalizations are more pernicious than others; so while quite salient, still they must be considered to be exceptions to the general rule that generalizations are socially acceptable, legal, and indeed, just. These exceptions, of course, are race and gender. First the author builds a strong case justifying the use especially of race/ethnicity in generalizing for purposes of distinguishing airline passengers exhibiting terroristic characteristics from those who do not. Examples include the now hackneyed young, middle eastern male, paying cash for his (and everyone else's) one way ticket to Nirvana. But then, possibly as an implicit (certainly in no way explicit) concession to the politically correct faction of society, the author proceeds to tear down his own argument in favor of using race/ethnicity in this particular case to avoid a repeat of the tragedy of 9/11, in favor of eschewing race/ethnicity, because we can just vet everybody at the airport; the only inconvenience being that everybody must arrive 30 minutes earlier. Excuse me! This is a WAR, not a few pounds of pot, we are talking about - a jihad declared not by Western civilization, but on Western civilization, precisely by a specific group of deviants whose race/ethnicity even the author concedes is highly salient to their early identification for purposes of avoiding another 9/11. To employ another aphorism the author blithely ignores -"all's fair in love and war." Why then should we, whose very existence our enemy is trying to obliterate, afford the enemy the aid and comfort of turning a blind eye to their common origins, when declining to do so would save our own hides? To borrow another aphorism I recently read, "the Constitution is not a mutual suicide pact." To blazes with our inconvenience and the enemy's rights; if generalizations are just, as according to the author they are, and if ethnicity is a salient generalization in the case of the profile of middle eastern terrorists, as the author so concedes, let those who meet the profile of the enemy suffer the indignity and inconvenience of being pulled from the passenger line. The author, it must be remembered, is the one who rails in favor of generalization in derrogation of "individuation." So let it be. To coin a final aphorism, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Very good introduction to the how's and why's of profiling
This book is an excellent introduction to the concept and application of profiling based on generalizations. The phrase that the author uses repeatedly throughout the book is "nonspurious nonuniversal generalization." Nonspurious = statistically significant, nonuniveral = not applying to everyone in a group, generalization = self-explanatory. The author uses dog attacks to illustrate this concept. Take the assertion, "Pitbulls are dangerous." Although a small percentage of pitbulls are responsible for attacks on humans (nonuniversal), this percentage is statistically much greater (nonspurious) than for other dogs. Knowing this factual information, are we justified in labeling pitbulls "dangerous." These are the kinds of issues that the author discusses in his book. The topics he covers range from the fairness of forced retirement of pilots at age sixty, the debate over a judge's power over sentencing, and of course, racial profiling. The author does an outstanding job for the most part in discussing these issues and proving his point, but I thought he did not defend his views on racial profiling with respect to airport security very well. I don't think he accurately assessed the potential cost to society in arguing against the inclusion of "Middleeasterness" as part of a larger profile. In other words, are we willing to forgo including "Middleeasterness" as part of a larger profile thereby increasing the potential of not identifying a terrorist? The author's discussion of this point is lengthy, but in summary, he opposes this particular kind of profiling in airports, but I don't think his argument was completely justified (and this is coming from me who was stopped repeatedly after 9/11 because of my Middle Eastern appearance). All in all, this is a great book, and it will certainly get you thinking about some of the most important issues facing the US today.