Hate crimes in the United States

 The data graphic on hate crimes below is from the NYT editorial (and dates back to 2023).

Antisemitism Is an Urgent Problem. Too Many People Are Making Excuses.
June 14, 2025

 

 

Directed and semi-directed living donation of kidneys: a current debate in Israel and elsewhere

 Israel leads the world in per capita living kidney donation. A good part of that comes from the work of Matnat Chaim (gift of life), an organization of religious Jews, who donate kidneys to people they don't know.  They are "semi-directed" rather than non-directed donors, in that the organization allows them to indicate some criteria they would like their recipients to have.  Sometimes they want their recipients to be fellow Jews, and this has generated some controversy in Israel.

Below is a study of this phenomenon, and in an accompanying editorial, a criticism of it.

Nesher, Eviatar, Rachel Michowiz, and Hagai Boas. "Semidirected Living Donors in Israel: Sociodemographic Profile, Religiosity, and Social Tolerance." American Journal of Transplantation (in press).

Abstract: Living kidney donations in Israel come from 2 sources: family members and individuals who volunteer to donate their kidney to patients with whom they do not have personal acquaintance. We refer to the first group as directed living donors (DLDs) and the second as semidirected living donors (SDLDs). The incidence of SDLD in Israel is ∼60%, the highest in the world. We introduce results of a survey among 749 living donors (349 SDLDs and 400 DLDs). Our data illustrate the sociodemographic profile of the 2 groups and their answers to a series of questions regarding spirituality and social tolerance. We find SDLDs to be sectorial: they are mainly married middle-class religious men who reside in small communities. However, we found no significant difference between SDLDs and DLDs in their social tolerance. Both groups ranked high and expressed tolerance toward different social groups. Semidirected living donation enables donors to express general preferences as to the sociodemographic features of their respected recipients. This stirs a heated debate on the ethics of semidirected living donation. Our study discloses a comprehensive picture of the profile and attitudes of SDLDs in Israel, which adds valuable data to the ongoing debate on the legitimacy of semidirected living donation.

Danovitch, Gabriel. "Living organ donation in polarized societies." American Journal of Transplantation, (Editorial, in press).

"Nesher et al are to be congratulated for reporting on a unique, effective, yet ethically problematic manifestation of living kidney donation in Israel. To summarize, living kidney donation has become “de riguer,” a “mitzvah” (a religiously motivated good deed) among a population of mainly orthodox Jewish men living in religiously homogenous settlements. According to the authors, the donors view themselves as donating altruistically within a larger family. The donations, over 1300 of them, 60% of all living donations in the country, have changed the face of Israeli transplantation, reduced the waiting time for all transplant candidates on the deceased donor waiting list,2 and minimized the temptation of Israeli transplant candidates to engage in “transplant tourism,” a phenomenon that was an unfortunate feature of Israeli transplantation before the passage of the Israeli Transplant Act of 2008 that criminalized organ trading.3

So, what’s the problem? Matnat Chaim (“life-giving”), the organization that facilitates the donations, permits the donors to pick and choose among a list of potential recipients using criteria that according to its own website,4 and as Nesher et al note,1 are not transparent. ... frequently the donors elect to donate to other Jews.  ... " Israel is a country with an 80% Jewish majority; a decision to only donate to other Jews, thereby excluding non-Jews, is a practice that, were it reversed in a Jewish minority country, would likely be labeled antisemitic. Concern that the process encourages racist and nationalistic ideation has been raised in the past6 and only emphasized by the public pronouncement of some media-savvy kidney donors.7

"What lessons does the Israeli experience hold for the US and other countries, faced as all are, with a shortage of organs for transplant? Conditional living donation exists to a limited extent in the US: DOVE is an organization that works to direct living kidney donation to US army veterans9; Renewal is an organization that encourages and facilitates living donation from Jews to other Jews but also to non-Jews10; in the 1990s an organization called “Jesus Christians” made organ donation one of its precepts.11 But in each of these cases, it is a minority group whose interests are being promoted.

...

"What now for Matnat Chaim? Given its prominent impact on Israeli transplantation, its allocation policies must be transparent and subject to public comment. Criteria must be medical in nature and religious or political considerations excluded. Fears that as a result living kidney donation rates will plummet are likely exaggerated. "

########

I can't help reading this discussion while being very aware that Dr. Danovitch is an ardent opponent of compensating kidney donors, for fear that inappropriate transplants would take place if that were allowed.  In much of that discussion, inappropriateness of transplants focuses on possible harm to the (paid) donors, but the donors in the Israeli case are unpaid. Here his concern is that donor autonomy about to whom to give a kidney comes at the expense of physician autonomy in choosing who should receive a transplant, by "medical" criteria. But frequently those criteria have a big component based on waiting time, rather than any special medical considerations. So maybe in general he thinks that privileging the physician's role in this way is worth having fewer organs and consequently more deaths.

Still, I think he has a point about how we perceive what is repugnant. Having minority donors donate to fellow minority recipients seems much less repugnant than having majority donors specify that they aren't interested in donating to minority recipients.

But, speaking of donor autonomy, I'm not sure that there are practical ways around it, since semi-directed donors could always present as fully directed donors to a particular person that some organization had helped them find. So, we may just have to live with the increase in donations and lives saved that donor autonomy can support.

########

Earlier posts:

Thursday, July 27, 2023

Kidney brouhaha in Israel: is a good deed still good when performed by a shmuck?

I ended that post with this:

"I'll give the last word to a Haaretz op-ed, also in English:

 Is It Kosher to Donate Kidneys Only to Other Jews?  A well-known religious journalist in Israel declared the " -only" donation of his kidney. His act is imperfect, but not immoral by Robby Berman"

Monday, July 31, 2023

Altruistic kidney donors in Israel

...

and, here in the U.S.:

Friday, March 12, 2021

Kidneys for Communities

" A new organization, Kidneys for Communities, plans to advocate for living kidney donation by seeking donors who identify with a particular community.  Their come-on is "Put your kidney where your heart is.  Share your spare with someone in your community"

Kidney brouhaha in Israel: is a good deed still good when performed by a shmuck?

 Recently a three way kidney exchange was performed in Israel. This would have been unremarkable under most circumstances: Israel has an active kidney exchange system.  But it caused a strong reaction in the Israeli press, because one of the donors, a  well-known rightwing activist who wanted to donate a kidney so that his brother could receive one, announced that he wanted his kidney to go only to a Jew.

Here's the Ynet story (you can click to render it in English):

 kidney in a transplant marathon: "The condition was - only for a Jew

Here's the Times of Israel (already in English):

Right-wing journalist causes stir by announcing his kidney would go only to a Jew

There were many more, but you get the idea.  Some of the stories point out that the Israeli National Transplantation Center uses an algorithm* that doesn't see the religion of the recipient, so it's not clear that this was a declaration with consequences.  It was meant to provoke, and it did.

But it's a complicated issue.  In the U.S. (and in Israel), donations can be made to a specific individual, but not to a class of individuals.  With living donation, it means that the donor can choose a specific person to donate to, and it isn't an issue how they choose: no one has to donate an organ to anyone, and every donation saves a life (and maybe more than one, particularly since  living donation reduces competition for scarce deceased-donor kidneys). So if this donor had been able to donate to his brother, no one would have thought twice that he was glad to be donating to a fellow Jew.  What made his announcement provocative was that his kidney wasn't going to his brother: his brother was getting a kidney from an anonymous other donor. [Update clarification/correction: this donation was apparently an undirected (except for the 'only' condition) altruistic donation, not part of an exchange involving the donor's brother.]

Among the people I corresponded with about this is Martha Gershun, a kidney donor who thinks and writes clearly, and has given me permission to quote some of what she said.

"I’m wondering if we find the presentation of the story troubling:  “Right-wing journalist and Temple Mount activist causes stir by announcing his kidney would go only to a Jew.”  We would react badly to a story that said:  “Right-wing Trump supporter says he will only give his kidney to a white man.”

"What if instead the stories were:  “Observant Jewish father of 8 wants to donate to a fellow Jew” and “Rural man from West Virginia seeks to help another in his community”?  Would we find those stories more acceptable?"

Part of the feeling that this is a bit complicated has to do with the fact that we don't (and maybe shouldn't) look gift horses in the mouth, i.e. we don't and maybe shouldn't delve deeply into the motivation of altruistic acts that do a lot of good. We should applaud good deeds even if they aren't performed by saints. (I blogged yesterday, about paying it forward, an umbrella term for doing good deeds in a spirit of gratitude for having ourselves benefited  from past good deeds performed by others. We generally don't find it necessary to condition our approval on precisely who receives the forward-paid gifts.)

So, while I'm not sorry to see that this statement by a kidney donor is a much discussed provocation, I'm inclined to think that a good deed remains a mitzvah even if not performed by a tzadik, as we might have said in our New York English when I was growing up.

I'll give the last word to a Haaretz op-ed, also in English:

 Is It Kosher to Donate Kidneys Only to Other Jews?  A well-known religious journalist in Israel declared the " -only" donation of his kidney. His act is imperfect, but not immoral by Robby Berman

+++++++++++++++

*On the algorithm used in Israel and elsewhere, see e.g.

Wednesday, January 15, 2020 Kidney Exchange in Israel (supported by Itai Ashlagi)

and

Friday, October 1, 2021 Stanford celebrates Itai Ashlagi and the UAE-Israel kidney exchange

************

Update: related subsequent post 

Monday, July 31, 2023

Altruistic kidney donors in Israel

Discriminatory quotas in admissions to universities and graduate schools (and some black humor from my father's generation)

 History doesn't exactly repeat itself, but it rhymes. (Mark Twain apparently missed the opportunity often attributed to him of saying that.) Here's a story about the history of ethnic quotas for Jews, as it played out in medicine in the 20th Century. (And at the bottom, some old jokes about coping with it...)

The History of Discriminatory Jewish Quotas in American Medical Education and Orthopaedic Training, by Solasz, Sara J. BA1; Zuckerman, Joseph D. MD1; Egol, Kenneth A. MD1,a, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 105(4):p 325-329, February 15, 2023. | DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.22.00466

"By the early 1920s, formal quota systems were put in place to limit the number of Jewish applicants admitted to many American medical schools. This quota was partly a result of the second wave of Jewish immigration and the subsequent rise in antisemitism in the country. As a sign of the growing antisemitism in America, in 1920, Henry Ford published a weekly series called “The International Jew: The World’s Problem” on the front page of his newspaper, The Dearborn Independent. In this series, which continued for years, Ford fueled antisemitism both at home and abroad. The effect at the time was enormous: the feeling was that if an American icon as rich and powerful as Ford could hold this conviction so strongly, then it must be credible5,6. In addition to the effect on medical school admissions, measures were taken to deny Jewish people access to social institutions, neighborhoods, swimming pools and beaches, and employment.

...

"Harvard was known to have quotas restricting the number of Jewish students admitted to the college under the leadership of Lowell. In a letter to a philosophy professor, Lowell wrote that admitting Jewish students would ruin Harvard, “not because Jews of bad character have come; but the result follows from the coming in large numbers of Jews of any kind, save those few who mingle readily with the rest of the undergraduate body.”8

"It is within this social and political climate that the Jewish quota system appeared in medical schools throughout the U.S. Although medical school officials have always denied the existence of Jewish quotas, records from schools across the country reveal a systematic and intentional anti-Jewish prejudice. The medical historian Henry Sigerist wrote that Jewish students were subject to a “tacit, but nevertheless highly effective, quota system and in most schools the number of Jewish students rarely exceeds 10 per cent.”9 Many mainstream thinkers in higher education argued for further reductions in the acceptance rate for Jewish students, advocating for discrimination against Jews under the guise of keeping the “national ratio correct,” which would bring down the number of accepted students to represent only 3% to 4% of the total class.

...

"The most significant decrease in the number of admitted students occurred at Columbia University, which asked for the applicant’s religion, parents’ birthplaces, racial origin, and mother’s maiden name11. At the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, the rate of enrollment of Jewish students between 1920 and 1940 dropped from 47% to 6%; during the same period, the rate dropped from 40% to 5% at Cornell University Medical College3. Throughout the Northeast, where the concentration of Jewish applicants was the highest, quotas appeared at schools such as Harvard Medical School, Yale School of Medicine, and the Woman’s Medical College of Pennsylvania3.

...

Facing this widespread sentiment, Jewish students hoping to gain admission to medical school were forced to take action—with some even changing their last names to avoid discrimination. Medical schools identified “Jewish names” on applications, especially when the applicants were from areas with large Jewish populations, to indirectly discriminate against Jewish students. Soon, schools expanded applications to require completion of a “change of name” section. *

...

"Prior to the establishment of the current U.S. residency “match” system, each residency position was sought individually with an application and interview and was typically followed by a near-immediate offer of a position. This system certainly provided a biased and unfair method for filling training programs.

...

"In New York State, the Education Practices Act (1948) set a precedent for other states to pass legislation to eliminate discriminatory admissions practices. As the wave of antisemitism began to fade and the need for physicians grew, medical schools and graduate medical education programs started to remove the quota systems, which came to a complete end in the 1970s."

##############

*Black humor was common in my dad's generation, including jokes about name changing (sometimes told in Yiddish). Here are two, approximately remembered.

1. Shmuel and Moshe, friends from Odessa, meet in New York after both have immigrated to America.  Moshe spots him from a distance and rushes over, calling out "Shmuel!"  They embrace, and Shmuel says, "I'm called Sam now, in America.  How about you?"

Moshe says "my American name is Sean Ferguson."  Sam is astonished, and asks "how come?"  "Well," says Moshe/Sean, I had picked out a good American name, but I was so nervous when I got to Ellis Island that I couldn't remember it. So when the immigration officer asked me my name, all I could think of to say was "I've already forgotten/ ikh hab shoyn fargesn, which is what he wrote down."  (איך האב שוין פארגעסן)

2. A few years later, Sean Ferguson goes to court to change his name again, to John McMillan. The judge asks him why he wants to do that.  He says "When I apply for positions, people ask what my name used to be..."

Alcohol and race in Australia

 In the U.S. we certainly have a complicated history around both race and alcohol, but in Australia there may be even more complications, as a recent (limited) ban on alcohol and aborigines is reinstated.

The NY Times has the story

Authorities Reinstate Alcohol Ban for Aboriginal Australians. The reaction to a rise in crime has renewed hard questions about race and control, and about the open wounds of discrimination. By Yan Zhuang

"Mr. Shaw lives in what the government has deemed a “prescribed area,” an Aboriginal town camp where from 2007 until last year it was illegal to possess alcohol, part of a set of extraordinary raced-based interventions into the lives of Indigenous Australians.

"Last July, the Northern Territory let the alcohol ban expire for hundreds of Aboriginal communities, calling it racist. But little had been done in the intervening years to address the communities’ severe underlying disadvantage. Once alcohol flowed again, there was an explosion of crime in Alice Springs widely attributed to Aboriginal people. Local and federal politicians reinstated the ban late last month. 

...

"For those who believe that the country’s largely white leadership should not dictate the decisions of Aboriginal people, the alcohol ban’s return replicates the effects of colonialism and disempowers communities. Others argue that the benefits, like reducing domestic violence and other harms to the most vulnerable, can outweigh the discriminatory effects.

...

"According to the Northern Territory police, commercial breaks-ins, property damage, assaults related to domestic violence and alcohol-related assaults all rose by about or by more than 50 percent from 2021 to 2022. Australia does not break down crime data by race, but politicians and Aboriginal groups themselves have attributed the increase largely to Indigenous people.

"This was a preventable situation,” said Donna Ah Chee, the chief executive of one of these organizations, the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress. “It was Aboriginal women, families and children that were actually paying the price,” she added.

"The organization was among those that called for a resumption of the ban as an immediate step while long-term solutions were developed to address the underlying drivers of destructive drinking. Ms. Ah Chee said she considered the policy to be “positive discrimination” in protecting those most vulnerable."

**********

Of course bans in one jurisdiction can have spillovers into others. Here's a story from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation:

Katherine reports rise in transient visitors since return of Alice Springs alcohol restrictions  By Matt Garrick and Max Rowley

"An outback town struggling with crime and homelessness is seeing an influx of transient visitors, which some believe is a direct impact of new alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs."

Can same sex couples adopt and foster children in need? It's complicated...

 When religion and non-discrimination contest with each other in court, the decisions sometimes rely on the details of the case:

The WSJ has the story:

Supreme Court Exempts Catholic Foster-Care Agency From Nondiscrimination Law. Catholic Social Services is entitled to city contract despite Philadelphia ordinance requiring contractors to treat same-sex couples equally, court rules  By Jess Bravin

"The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that a Catholic social-service agency was entitled to a Philadelphia contract even if its religious views prevented it from compliance with local policies forbidding discrimination against same-sex couples.

"The court’s decision, by Chief Justice John Roberts, was a narrow one, stopping short of fundamentally extending the accommodations for religious exercise that Catholic Social Services—and several conservative justices in concurring opinions—argued the Constitution required.

"The city of Philadelphia contracts with private agencies to screen foster parents for children in need. While a broad nondiscrimination policy is written into its contracts, Chief Justice Roberts observed that the agreements also authorize the city’s human-services department to grant exceptions.

"Catholic Social Services, which for decades has received city contracts, was entitled to such an exception, the chief justice wrote, because the city can grant them for secular reasons. The city’s interest in equal treatment for same-sex couples—and in caring for children in need—wasn’t impaired, the court found, because some 20 other agencies with foster-service contracts are available to work with married LGBT foster parents."

Market design and algorithmic criminal justice--by Jung, Kannan, Lee, Pai, Roth and Vohra

When fairness isn't your only goal, your other goals may help you choose among competing definitions of fairness.

Fair Prediction with Endogenous Behavior
Christopher Jung, Sampath Kannan, Changhwa Lee, Mallesh M. Pai, Aaron Roth,and Rakesh Vohra
February 17, 2020

Abstract: There  is  increasing  regulatory  interest  in  whether  machine  learning  algorithms  deployed  in  consequential domains (e.g.  in criminal justice) treat different demographic groups “fairly.”  However, there are several proposed notions of fairness, typically mutually incompatible.  Using criminal justice as an example,  we study a model in which society chooses an incarceration rule.  Agents of different demographic groups differ in their outside options (e.g.  opportunity for legal employment) and decide whether to commit crimes.  We show that equalizing type I and type II errors across groups is consistent with the goal of minimizing the overall crime rate; other popular notions of fairness are not.
*********

And here's a blog post about the paper by one of the authors:

Fair Prediction with Endogenous Behavior
Can Game Theory Help Us Choose Among Fairness Constraints?

"...The crime-minimizing solution is the one that sets different thresholds on posterior probabilities (i.e. uniform thresholds on signals) so as to equalize false positive rates and false negative rates. In other words, to minimize crime, society should explicitly commit to not conditioning on group membership, even when group membership is statistically informative for the goal of predicting crime.

"Why? Its because although using demographic information is statistically informative for the goal of predicting crime when base rates differ, it is not something that is under the control of individuals --- they can control their own choices, but not what group they were born into. And making decisions about individuals using information that is not under their control has the effect of distorting their dis-incentive to commit crime --- it ends up providing less of a dis-incentive to individuals from the higher crime group (since they are more likely to be wrongly incarcerated even if they don't commit a crime). And because in our model people are rational actors, minimizing crime is all about managing incentives. "

Automatic algorithmic affirmative action, by Ashesh Rambachan and Jonathan Roth

There's been some justified concern that algorithms that make predictions and choices based on previous choices made by humans might replicate the human biases embedded in the historic data.  Below is a paper that points out that the opposite effect could happen as well.

As explained here: "Imagine a college that has historically admitted students using (biased) admissions officers, but switches to an algorithm trained on data for their past students. If the admissions officers unfairly set a higher bar for people from group A, then assuming student performance is fairly measured once students arrive on campus, students from group A will appear to be stronger than students from group B. The learned model will therefore tend to favor students from group A, in effect raising the bar for students from group B."*

Here's the paper itself, and its abstract:

Bias In, Bias Out? Evaluating the Folk Wisdom
Ashesh Rambachan, Jonathan Roth

Abstract: We evaluate the folk wisdom that algorithms trained on data produced by biased human decision-makers necessarily reflect this bias. We consider a setting where training labels are only generated if a biased decision-maker takes a particular action, and so bias arises due to selection into the training data. In our baseline model, the more biased the decision-maker is toward a group, the more the algorithm favors that group. We refer to this phenomenon as "algorithmic affirmative action." We then clarify the conditions that give rise to algorithmic affirmative action. Whether a prediction algorithm reverses or inherits bias depends critically on how the decision-maker affects the training data as well as the label used in training. We illustrate our main theoretical results in a simulation study applied to the New York City Stop, Question and Frisk dataset.
**********

* I'm reminded of the saying "To get the same reward as a man, a woman has to be twice as good.  Fortunately that's not hard..."

De-biasing academic hiring?

This is the season when new Ph.D.'s in Economics are hired as assistant professors. More senior professors are hired throughout the year. A constant source of concern is how to promote a diverse professoriate.  But because academics are very different from one another, we have to get to know potential candidates reasonably well before we hire them. Just for example, they have papers that have to be read, and they typically give a seminar before the whole faculty once they get far enough in the process.

So...along with learning about what they have studied and written about, we also learn their race and gender, and where they studied and with whom, and what the senior scholars in their field think about them, and a host of other things that could influence our collective decision when it comes time to vote who to hire.

Here are two stories, from Britain and Finland, about efforts to design the faculty hiring process to remove "extraneous" considerations.  I am very skeptical that we can learn all that we need to know about candidates without learning extraneous things, so I would be astonished if these proposals gain traction.

Both articles, linked below from Inside Higher Ed,  appeared in Times Higher Education.

From Britain:

Trying to ‘De-Bias’ Faculty Recruiting
Can a shift in the way candidates are evaluated eliminate bias based on gender, race and background?
By John Morgan for Times Higher Education  January 31, 2019

"CVs and interviews are being removed from university hiring processes under a new approach to “de-bias” academic recruitment being pioneered in Britain.

"The Recruiting for Difference approach, billed as an attempt to address biases around gender, ethnicity and university background, is led by the recruitment firm Diversity by Design, co-founded by the writer and broadcaster Simon Fanshawe, former chair of council at the University of Sussex.

"Fanshawe, a founder of the LGBT equality charity Stonewall, said the aim was to “de-bias” to the greatest extent possible, explaining that, under this approach, “what you don’t use in the short-listing process at all is CVs.” He argued that stripping out CVs allowed universities to see the true qualities of the people they were considering for jobs.

"The application process allows applicants to state which journals they have published in and the roles they played in these papers. But candidates’ names do not figure in the short-listing process -- thus their gender and ethnicity are not revealed -- and at no stage of the hiring process is it disclosed at which universities candidates have worked or studied."
****************

From Finland:
U of Helsinki Tries Anonymized Academic Hiring--Pilot project seeks to eliminate bias.
By Rachael Pells for Times Higher Education  December 20, 2018

"Finland’s leading university is trying the use of anonymized applications for academic roles as part of a nationwide push toward greater equality in hiring practices.

"The University of Helsinki confirmed that it was conducting two pilot programs focused on academic recruitment, in which applications were stripped of candidates’ names, dates of birth, ethnicities and genders.

"Universities are increasingly experimenting with name-blind student recruitment, and advocates of its use in the hiring process argue that it could help to limit the impact of unconscious biases that penalize women and minorities.

"However, there are questions over whether it could catch on in academic departments, in which recruitment decisions are closely tied to a researcher’s publication record and scholarly reputation."

Unrecognized Single-Gender Social Organizations (USGSO) at Harvard

Harvard has taken steps to express its repugnance to single-gender social organizations. It is motivated primarily by repugnance to male-only groups, and seeks to recognize that some women-only groups were formed in response to discrimination. Here is their new policy, which is short of a ban on students who participate in such groups, but which imposes sanctions on such students. (The organizations themselves are typically privately owned and outside of Harvard's control).

Unrecognized Single-Gender Social Organization (USGSO) Policy

"Policy: Students matriculating in the fall of 2017 and thereafter who become members of Unrecognized Single-Gender Social Organizations (USGSO) will not be eligible to hold leadership positions in recognized student organizations or on athletic teams. In addition, such students will not be eligible for fellowships administered by the Office of Undergraduate Research and Fellowships. This policy does not apply to students who matriculated prior to fall 2017.
...
"Women’s Organizations: We are committed to treating all organizations that are moving towards gender-inclusivity fairly and to offering them Harvard College resources and assistance regardless of gender. As Dean Khurana noted in an open letter in May 2016, Harvard has a long and complex history of grappling with gender discrimination. The College is deeply committed to gender equity, inclusion, and non-discrimination and to advance women's full participation in Harvard's academic and extracurricular life. To that end, we welcome all organizations, and especially those whose membership is currently restricted to women, to partner with us.  We are excited to announce that Heidi Wickersham, Program Manager at the Harvard College Women’s Center, and staff members in the Office of Student Life will jointly partner with groups wishing to transition from having a women’s exclusive membership while maintaining a women’s-focused mission."

Market for ideas vs travel bans: academic societies and universities react

A large group of scientific societies have signed this Multisociety letter deploring the recent Executive Order regarding travel to the U.S.  (The American Economic Association is represented through its membership in COSSA, the Consortium of Social Sciences Associations.)
http://www.cossa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Multisociety-Letter-on-Immigration-1-31-2017.pdf
"The Executive Order will discourage many of the best and brightest international students, scholars, engineers and scientists from studying and working, attending academic and scientific conferences, or seeking to build new businesses in the United States. Implementation of this policy will compromise the United States’ ability to attract international scientific talent and maintain scientific and economic leadership.
Today, we urge the Administration to rescind the Executive Order and we stand ready to assist you in crafting an immigration and visa policy that advances U.S. prosperity and ensures strong borders while staying true to foundational American principles as a nation of immigrants. "

Below are a variety of other reactions (in no particular order), many of which balance charters which require some scientific societies to be nonpartisan, with the concern that the recent Executive Order negatively affects their core mission.

http://president.mit.edu/speeches-writing/best-serve-nation-and-world

http://www.asanet.org/news-events/asa-news/statement-american-sociological-association-concerning-new-administrations-recent-and-future

AMS Board of Trustees Opposes Executive Order on Immigration 
Monday January 30th 2017

Statement from the International Association for Cryptologic Research (IACR)

Condemning the U.S. President’s 2017-01-27 Executive Order

Barring Entry into the U.S. of Citizens from Seven Muslim-Majority Countries

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/30/higher-education-leaders-denounce-trumps-travel-ban

https://www.macalester.edu/president/writing/statement-january2017executiveorders.pdf
"We are heartbroken and we are angry, but we are not defeated. This is far from the first, and will not be the last, shameful moment in our country’s history. But at every one of those moments, people have arisen to call forth and inspire “the better angels of our nature.”

http://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/28/community-letter-stanford-leadership-immigration/

http://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2017/we-are-all-harvard

************
Update: February 3 letter from American Council on Education, signed by about 600 colleges and universities, to the Secretary of Homeland Security 
http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Letter-From-Institutions-to-DHS-on-Immigration-Executive-Order.pdf

Global Entry: blanket discrimination replaces "extreme vetting"

A number of Iranian scientists received messages yesterday from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. These are long-term American residents who had chosen to go through the personal interview process needed to get into the Global Entry Program, which allows trusted travelers to enter the U.S. in an expedited way.  (I use Global Entry, and it allows me to go to a kiosk which examines my passport and fingerprints, without the necessity of standing in a long line to speak to a border agent.)

Nevertheless, these individuals have been informed that they no longer meet the eligibility requirements. (Here's a screen shot...)

Note that the people who received this message had already passed "a comprehensive background investigation."  Presumably that is what is meant by "extreme vetting."  But now, it seems, a blanket nationality ban is being invoked.

That is, as someone might say, "Sad."

Racial discrimination in Uber and Lyft

Here's an NBER paper that investigates, in connection with Uber and Lyft, some of the issues that crop up in other distributed decision making marketplaces:

Racial and Gender Discrimination in Transportation Network Companies 
Yanbo Ge, Christopher R. Knittel, Don MacKenzie, and Stephen Zoepf
NBER Working Paper No. 22776 October 2016

ABSTRACT Passengers have faced a history of discrimination in transportation systems. Peer transportation companies such as Uber and Lyft present the opportunity to rectify long-standing discrimination or worsen it. We sent passengers in Seattle, WA and Boston, MA to hail nearly 1,500 rides on controlled routes and recorded key performance metrics. Results indicated a pattern of discrimination, which we observed in Seattle through longer waiting times for African American passengers—as much as a 35 percent increase. In Boston, we observed discrimination by Uber drivers via more frequent cancellations against passengers when they used African Americansounding names. Across all trips, the cancellation rate for African American sounding names was more than twice as frequent compared to white sounding names. Male passengers requesting a ride in low-density areas were more than three times as likely to have their trip canceled when they used a African American-sounding name than when they used a white-sounding name. We also find evidence that drivers took female passengers for longer, more expensive, rides in Boston. We observe that removing names from trip booking may alleviate the immediate problem but could introduce other pathways for unequal treatment of passengers.

Yanbo Ge University of Washington Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering yanboge@uw.edu
Christopher R. Knittel MIT Sloan School of Management 100 Main Street, E62-513 Cambridge, MA 02142 and NBER knittel@mit.edu
Don MacKenzie University of Washington Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering dwhm@uw.edu
Stephen Zoepf Stanford University Center for Automotive Research at Stanford (CARS) szoepf@stanford.edu
************

See these posts for a related problem of peer to peer discrimination faced by Airbnb:

Airbnb consider market design changes to reduce discrimination

Airbnb and racial discrimination by hosts

Airbnb consider market design changes to reduce discrimination

The NY Times has the story:
Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts

"Airbnb, based in San Francisco, said that it would institute a new nondiscrimination policy that goes beyond what is outlined in several anti-discrimination laws and that it would ask all users to agree to a “community commitment” starting on Nov. 1. The commitment asks people to work with others who use the service, “regardless of race, religion, national origin, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or age.”

In addition, the company plans to experiment with reducing the prominence of user photos, which have helped signal race and gender. Airbnb said it would also accelerate the use of instant bookings, which lets renters book places immediately without host approval."
**********

There is a strong market design subtext to this story: Peter Coles, Airbnb's (new) chief economist, used to work at Harvard Business School, where some of his former colleagues conducted an experiment that helped focus on the possible discrimination problem.
Here's the current version of that paper:

Racial Discrimination in the Sharing Economy:Evidence from a Field Experiment
 Benjamin Edelman, Michael Luca, and Dan Svirsky
 September 4, 2016

 Abstract
Online marketplaces increasingly choose to reduce the anonymity of buyers and sellers in order to facilitate trust. We demonstrate that this common market design choice results in an important unintended consequence: racial discrimination. In a field experiment on Airbnb, we find that requests from guests with distinctively African-American names are roughly 16% less likely to be accepted than identical guests with distinctively White names. The difference persists whether the host is African-American or White, male or female. The difference also persists whether the host shares the property with the guest or not, and whether the property is cheap or expensive. We validate our findings through observational data on hosts’ recent experiences with African-American guests, finding host behavior consistent with some, though not all, hosts discriminating. Finally, we find that discrimination is costly for hosts who indulge in it: hosts who reject  guests are able to find a replacement guest only 35% of the time. On the whole, our analysis suggests a need for caution: while information can facilitate transactions, it also facilitates discrimination.

Airbnb and racial discrimination by hosts

The NY Times follows the story: Airbnb Vows to Fight Racism, but Its Users Can’t Sue to Prompt Fairness

"SAN FRANCISCO — Brian Chesky, chief executive of Airbnb, made a vow this month to root out bigotry from his business.

His online room-sharing company has recently been grappling with claims of discrimination, with several Airbnb users sharing stories on social media about how they were supposedly denied a booking because of their race. The issue came into the open in December, when a working paper by Harvard University researchers found it was harder for guests with African-American-sounding names to rent rooms through the site.

“This is a huge issue for us,” Mr. Chesky said at a company event in San Francisco in early June. “We will be revisiting the design of our site from end to end to see how we can create a more inclusive platform.”

But even as Mr. Chesky promised to stamp out racism from Airbnb, the company’s class-action litigation policy makes it tough — if not impossible — for customers to push the start-up to make any substantive changes on the issue. Airbnb requires that people agree to waive their right to sue, or to join in any class-action lawsuit or class-action arbitration, to use the service.

That clause, known as a class-action waiver, crops up whenever someone logs into Airbnb’s site. In March, the company updated its terms of service for new users, partly tohighlight that clause. Last month, Airbnb users were unable to log in and use their accounts until they agreed to the updated terms, including the class-action waiver language.

...

"For Airbnb, an effective response to discrimination claims is needed to blunt any fallout on its business. The company, valued at about $25 billion, has hosts in more than 34,000 cities and 191 countries and is positioning itself as an alternative to hotels. Airbnb recently raised $1 billion in debt to help finance its growth, according to a person familiar with the deal who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the transaction is not public. The credit facility wasreported earlier by Bloomberg.

Airbnb’s expansion depends partly on whether people of different nationalities and ethnicities feel welcomed to the platform in the same nondiscriminatory way that they are welcomed at international hotel chains. Two rival room-sharing services, Innclusive and Noirbnb, are now marketing themselves as services that provide inclusive and safe short-term rentals for people of any race or ethnicity.

Ms. Murphy, the Airbnb adviser, said the company recognized that eliminating discrimination was in its best interests. She said Airbnb’s relative youth — the company was founded in 2008 — meant it could deal with the issue in a more agile way than companies with entrenched cultures that may have needed the pressure of litigation to do the right thing.

“Airbnb is part of a new area of commerce, and the conditions for transactions are still developing,” she said. “That’s why it’s important to get it right.”