Escaping the Impossibility of Fairness: From Formal to Substantive
  Algorithmic Fairness
  As governments embrace algorithms, the burgeoning field of algorithmic
fairness provides an influential methodology for promoting equality-enhancing
reforms. However, even algorithms that satisfy mathematical fairness standards
can exacerbate oppression, causing critics to call for the field to shift its
focus from "fairness" to "justice." Yet any efforts to achieve algorithmic
justice in practice are constrained by a fundamental technical limitation: the
"impossibility of fairness" (an incompatibility between mathematical
definitions of fairness). The impossibility of fairness thus raises a central
question about algorithmic fairness: How can computer scientists support
equitable policy reforms with algorithms? In this article, I argue that
promoting justice with algorithms requires reforming the methodology of
algorithmic fairness. First, I diagnose why the current methodology for
algorithmic fairness--which I call "formal algorithmic fairness"--is flawed. I
demonstrate that the problems of algorithmic fairness--including the
impossibility of fairness--result from the methodology of the field, which
restricts analysis to isolated decision-making procedures. Second, I draw on
theories of substantive equality from law and philosophy to propose an
alternative methodology: "substantive algorithmic fairness." Because
substantive algorithmic fairness takes a more expansive scope to fairness, it
enables an escape from the impossibility of fairness and provides a rigorous
guide for alleviating injustice with algorithms. In sum, substantive
algorithmic fairness presents a new direction for algorithmic fairness: away
from formal mathematical models of "fairness" and toward substantive
evaluations of how algorithms can (and cannot) promote justice.
