By: Quod Libet
The woke DEI architects could have made “Equality” the cornerstone of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, but they chose “Equity” instead. By their broadest definitions, both words can mean pretty much the same thing, but by redefinition (a common woke practice) and by esoteric implication they become mirror images, juxtaposed one in stark contrast to the other. In present-day parlance, equality means equality of opportunity, and equity means equality of outcome. Although this may all sound like a simple semantic distinction without a real difference, don’t be misled, woke equity and equality are profoundly dissimilar.
During their revolution, the French called for liberté, égalité, and fraternité (liberty, equality, and brotherhood). What did they mean by “equality?” The impoverished French commoners went postal against the aristocracy for their elitism and dismissive condescension. Fredrick Bastiat came along a few years later, and his writings sum up the movement to end the French class system:
“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” Half the United States population shares the same sentiments today. Many of our leaders slyly recommend that we “eat cake” while they shamelessly and unrepentantly enrich themselves and hopelessly mismanage the affairs which they were elected to oversee.
The equality the French revolutionaries sought was equality of opportunity, not unlike the American patriots who fought for their independence a few years later. Yankees back then understood that the proper functions of government were limited to the common defense, standardization, and facilitation of interstate commerce. The government’s charge was to keep the peace and get out of the way, such that Americans of every stripe could live freely and ply their respective trades and skills in the “pursuit of happiness.” By the way, 248 years ago, “happiness” meant good fortune and/or prosperity. “All happiness bechance to thee” (William Shakespeare) And by the way, our rights aren’t in-ay’-lee-en-uh-bul, they are un-uh-leen’-uh-bul. Unalienable is a legal term whose root word is lien. Un-uh-leen’-uh-bul means “can’t be taken away by any legal means.”
Our forefathers fought for freedom and the simple right to try, to strive, to capitalize on opportunity. They fought not for a guaranteed outcome featuring government intervention, let alone a taxpayer-funded handout. Neither of which were wanted or expected. Back then they didn’t feel as entitled as many do now. They sought to win equal opportunity, not equality of outcome. Back then, a freeman understood that he (and he alone) was responsible for his own prosperity. This was years before socialism/communism (same thing) took hold in Europe, before ”a chicken in every pot,” before Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” with dozens of subsequent social safety-nets, before the Obama-phone, and untold government programs and giveaways. The mindset before the advent of government pandering was “Give me a chance and stand back, I’ll make the most of it.”.
Equal opportunity is the basis of the American meritocracy. Admittedly, in years past, the opportunities tended to be reserved for white males. But successful social movements to enable women and minorities have been effective in opening doors previously closed to the second-class citizens of the past. Inarguably, there’s more work to do, but much progress has been made. Opportunities that never existed before, now present themselves to women, minorities, and a host of other formerly downtrodden Americans. It behooves us to open every door to everybody to maximize our talent pool. The woke and un-woke alike are wise to endorse such an arrangement. Hey, I found something we can agree on!
Equality of opportunity fosters healthy competition. Who gets to play center field for the Giants? The guy whose best qualified, that’s who. Is he white, brown, or black? I don’t care if he’s green, if he can catch and has an arm like a cannon and will bat .325, he’s got the job. Professional sports serve as an example of the benefits of equal opportunity. The NBA didn’t set out to replace all the white players with black ones. That was NOT the plan. But the NBA is not run by social engineers. The owners want one thing more than anything else. Al Davis of the Oakland Raiders had this figured out, “Just win baby!” The NFL, Major League Baseball, and the NBA owners all have the same singular priority. Vince Lombardy, coach of the Green Bay Packers said it this way, “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.” Equality of opportunity makes a winning season possible.
Despite the racial discrimination of the 1950s and 60s, black basketball players began to prove themselves on the NBA hardwood. A few short years later, blacks now make up the significant majority in the NBA. Why, because of affirmative action? Oh please. Was it DEI woke equity that affected that change? Nope. It must have been by congressional mandate, right? Wrong again. Black players dominate the NBA because as a group they are exceptionally talented. Black players are stars because of equal opportunity, period, full stop, slam-dunk!
When opportunities are equal, individuals are free to apply their unique abilities and talents in the specific avenue that best suits them. Equality of opportunity is a jump-ball contest that ensures that the right people are in the right seats. Equal opportunity does not guarantee our greatness, but we cannot be great without it. It’s our best chance to be the best we can be. The architects of DEI could have acknowledged this unassailable fact and endorsed it in their mission statement, but they chose not to. Instead, they chose to overlook the known benefits of equality of opportunity in favor of equity (equality of outcome). Equality of outcome is a delusional fiction that engenders consistent mediocrity at best, incompetence and chaos at worst. Equality of outcome is an unnatural theory that cannot be implemented successfully. It overvalues the collective and one’s group identity. It devalues the individual and runs counter to human nature. It’s why communist countries fail.
The only way to equalize outcomes is by way of an enormous government bureaucracy, and even then, it’s both impractical and impossible. People are different with different likes, attitudes, inclinations, and abilities. You can’t make them all equal, and yet the social engineers seek to “equalize” the masses. In the woke theory of equity, every field must reflect the demographic mix of the nation. Equity means a certain percentage of each group (men, women, white, black, brown, yellow, red, gay, straight, trans, etc.). The emphasis is on the externals, and thus one’s group identity. Your woke identity is based on which demographic group you’re assigned to, never mind the characteristics that really make you, you, first and foremost being your character.
Group identity ignores what really counts, things like one’s honesty, integrity, intelligence, wisdom, creativity, toughness, grit, social skills, and physical abilities. Woke equity gives us women bricklayers, handicapped firefighters, trans Boy scout leaders, and male swimmers competing against females. Equity seeks to relocate fish from their natural environment to a locale somewhere “out of water.” But should every institution and field of endeavor be “equalized” according to group identity? Prisons are mostly male, should they be equalized? NBA and NFL players are mostly black, should they be equalized? Would the world be a better place if there were more Asian, women, or Indian (east or west) hockey players? Do women even want to be bricklayers? Not really. And even if they did, most women don’t have the physical attributes and abilities to “get ‘er done.”
The current POTUS sought to nominate a black woman to the SCOTUS. I like most of the black women I know, so I have no problem with appointing one to fill a high-court vacancy. I did notice, however, that there was nary a mention of character, ability, experience, judicial objectivity, or a firm commitment to uphold the Constitution. Ignoring candidates who are the most qualified, in favor of those who check all the DEI boxes is a recipe for failure.
