By: Quod Libet
Equity resides at the heart of the DEI theory. Equity sounds similar to equality and is thus beneficial. But is equity equal to equality, or something altogether different? The simple definition of equity is and always was: fairness, justice according to natural law or right, freedom from bias or favoritism, something that is equitable
The trouble is there are nine words in the definition above that can (and are) interpreted differently (conflictingly) by both the woke and un-woke. Was Marx fair when he dictated that the rich subsidize the poor, or is it fair when everybody gets to keep what they earned? Do straight-A students really need or deserve all that report-card recognition, or would the collective be better served if a few gratuitous A’s were “redistributed” to less industrious and/or less gifted students? What’s fair is fair, but who will be the arbiter of fairness? That’s the operative question. Governments that take from Peter and give to Paul will always have the support of Paul.
If woke DEI is universally adopted, acolytes of Stalin and Mao will decide what fairness is on our behalf. Klaus Schwab, German economist and founder of the World Economic Forum (Dr. Evil in the minds of many) shared his idea of fairness: “By the year 2030, you will own nothing, and you will be happy.” Woke equity is a thinly veiled euphemism for socialism, an aloof system administered by a cadre of self-appointed and unaccountable bureaucrats in which what’s theirs is theirs, and what’s yours is theirs (or somebody else’s). The “committee” decides what’s fair with little regard to your rights or previous common-sense policies. Are you finding that the architects and directors of DEI and their aims are starting to trouble you just a bit? You’d better be.
Affirmative Action is just one of the euphemistic pillars of the DEI franchise. In the name of equity, gifted and industrious white and Asian students who work hard to earn the right to college admission are systematically turned away in favor of students who score lower on college entrance exams. If you’re white or Asian with a score of 1,400, you’re considered less qualified (or less desirable) than another student who scored 1,200. It’s evident that college committees are not so much interested in academic distinction or the students who have
worked hard to gain admission. Transparently, sociopolitical engineering is the woke committee’s top priority.
Creating a diverse student mosaic that woke activists prefer is their fundamental objective, no apologies to the qualified students who were sent packing. Their unjust misfortune in the name of diversity is a trivial price to pay for woke equity in the minds of committee members. Perhaps George Orwell saw this coming when he penned those prophetic words in Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” The primary characteristic of woke equity is not equality, it’s sanctioned discrimination against the so-called privileged class. Sadly, and ironically, inequality is the inevitable byproduct of woke equity. Is woke equity fair, or systematically unfair? The woke always feign good intentions. Their insincerity notwithstanding, maybe we should ask one of those qualified (but unlucky) students who was denied admission in favor of one less qualified, how he feels about equity now. How do you like assuming the role of DEI collateral damage?
The woke fancy themselves as problem-solvers, but their solutions cause new problems. If minority students tend to score lower on college entrance exams, instead of advancing them by some arbitrary golf handicap, has anybody ever considered an added emphasis on K-12 education? Instead of rigging the system at the expense of deserving overachievers, why not address the problem of low minority test scores at the source? If we invest in education, minority scores will trend upward, allowing minority college applicants to compete on a level playing field. Isn’t that the solution that’s fair for everybody? Equity and fairness are not synonymous.
To many observers, it seems that American education has taken a noticeable tilt to the left, and the traditional aims of education have been reordered. One might conclude that social engineering and woke indoctrination are Job 1 and Job 2 now, with academic achievement now coming in a distant third. Before we were “blessed” with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1953, American high school graduates ranked first in the world according to academic achievement. Then in 1980 an offshoot, the Department of Education set up shop in Washington. Test scores began to tumble, and now our graduating high school seniors rank 24th in reading, 25th in science, and 41st in math behind nations like Portugal, Slovenia, and Vietnam. What happened?
First, we educated our children much better without federal “help”, that’s a fact. Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, an educator and author fully documented how American education was essentially sabotaged by misguided forces both national and international. Her theory (backed by voluminous evidence) is that hapless American students have been deliberately dumbed down while their unsuspecting parents sat uninvolved and preoccupied by all manner of distractions. The data reflect a precipitous decline in American academic achievement since the Department of Education was established, bolstering her theory. Is woke equity the remedy for an inherently racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic nation, or a course to the lowest common denominator?
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion serve as both policies and objectives of the woke movement, but not a word about unity, merit, and achievement. Maybe the reason Johnny can’t read is that the library is now used for woke, Drag-queen story hours. The foreign military threat is always looming, but perhaps we ought to redirect our focus to an enemy within. My kids’ high school principal alluded to me that unlike me and my wife, most parents have little or no involvement in their children’s education. When the cat’s away, the rats will play. Wake up. Indifference is no longer an option. Your acquiescence is exactly what they want. Silent objection avails us nothing. It’s way past time to educate yourself about the sorry state of American education and speak up!
George Bush opined on, “The soft bigotry of low expectations.” Equity doesn’t solve that problem, it codifies it and perpetuates it. Advancing persons on the basis of their minority status as opposed to their ability does a disservice to the subject and to the deserving one displaced by woke equity. Surely, the subject (and everyone else) knows that advancement was based on some superficial trait instead of aptitude and competency. Equity reduces the incentive to perform and compete at the highest levels. The message to the subject is that you’re
not really good enough on your own, you need Big Brother to stack the deck in your favor. But should a woke club flush based on a dozen race, gender, and sexual orientation traits beat a legitimate full house? That could only happen in a rigged game. Woke equity plays favorites and unfairly poisons merit-based equality.
Did Tiger Woods and Michael Jackson rise to popularity because of equity? On the contrary, they ascended to the top of their respective fields partly because of intrinsic talent, but mainly due to years of practice, practice, practice. What’s better: a cynical grievance mindset with a chip on your shoulder and a few woke crumbs from the equity table, or a loving stable family, a good education, self-discovery regarding your own abilities, and dedication to cultivate those skills in order to make yourself valuable to others? Why rely on the help (woke manipulation) of others who expect something from you in return, when you can be self-sufficient and achieve it all yourself? The bonus points equity deals out enable you to compete with the best, but wouldn’t you rather be the best, or just as good? It’s much more rewarding to compete and win when the playing field is level.
Years ago, I played high school football on a mixed-race team. In theory, there was no equity on the practice field. Merit (and merit alone) determined who got the starting position and who was left to “ride the pine.” Did I detect an element of racial bias when my black coach replaced me at starting left tackle with a less talented black teammate of mine? Possibly. Did I call a lawyer? Did I chant slogans through a bullhorn? Did I encumber commute traffic in protest? Nope. At practice, I quietly performed in a manner that made it undeniable to my
coach and to the entire team (including my temporary replacement) that I deserved that starting position. I got the job back because I earned it based on my ability and commitment to excellence. Merit won the day over a superficial characteristic. That’s how American justice is served, not by equity or any other DEI contrivance.
