Academics and the Abstract

In a recent piece in The Tech, the MIT student newspaper, they note:

Principal Investigator of the Geometric Data Processing Group at MIT, is a prominent member of the Metric Geometry and Gerrymandering Group (MGGG), a cohort of Boston-based computer scientists and mathematicians that are leveraging modern computing power to study the problem of fairness in redistricting with a level of quantitative rigor that has not been possible until recently. “From my perspective, one of the big challenges in redistricting is that we lack clear, quantitative standards for evaluating the fairness of redistricting plans”.... “For that reason, there’s no clear path to a standard that’s easily enforceable and understandable.”... “Our effort, broadly, is… to assemble a clear set of standards and a way to talk about the redistricting problem in a fashion that’s quantitate and that’s fair and easy to apply,” he told The Tech. “That includes a lot of different aspects. Everything from understanding the shape of a district and what bearing it has on the outcome of the vote… to understanding the big space of all the different ways of dividing up a state.”

A laudable goal but it all seems to hinge on the definition of fair. Somehow this group knows what "fair" means and they have some algorithm to ascertain such.  This is akin to defining "justice" an argument that has befuddled philosophers and political and legal scholars for thousands of years. But not to worry, these folks have the answer, just trust the.

Is then no wonder that most people look askance at these "academics". The key reason is that there is a gross lack of reason in my opinion. My fairness most likely is not your fairness. As we see in today's vitriolic politics, fair for me is not fair for you, and whatever!

Words mean something.