By Tim Tapp
In recent years we have found ourselves having to ask the question, "Why have the political left stopped fighting for "equality" and began the pursuit of "equity"? The answer, of course, is the same as it always is when the political left can't win an argument; they must change the language. I am confident that part of the change in word usage is because very few conservatives - if any - disagree with the idea of equality for all. There is also the fact that the political left prefers to have issues to run campaigns on rather than offer solutions to problems. (You see, solutions are more challenging than just pointing at problems, perceived or real. And often implementing a solution would require admitting that leftist policies don't work.) However, a closer look at the meanings of equity and equality - as used by the left - should be taken before going any further.
Equity, as it relates to racial and social justice, means allocating resources and opportunities to create equal outcomes for all. I would be remiss if I did not point out that no method exists that is capable of producing "equal outcomes" other than misery. There are factors that contribute to personal outcomes under our current system, like time and effort a person puts into a pursuit, education acquired, blind luck, and yes, resources available before beginning a pursuit. So the only way to create "equal outcomes" is to forcibly take resources from those who have them and deny educational opportunities to those who would maximize them. (And there is no way to account for the "pure luck" part of the equation.) In taking these things from some to give to others, you are only reducing everyone's standard of living without guaranteeing any increase of success for those who receive the resources or opportunities given. If someone isn't prepared to make the most of what they have, they are likely to squander it. Just give someone something they have never had and did not earn; they are likely to lose it. The left will deny this last statement, but they also have no explanation of how previously poor lottery winners who hit multi-million-dollar jackpots can be broke within a few years.
Equality, again related to racial and social justice, means each individual or group of people is given the same opportunities, regardless of their starting circumstances. This is the idea that the American Civil Rights movement was based upon. The view so eloquently expressed by Martin Luther King Jr. of people being judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. This idea is often paired with the idea that if a person earns something, they should decide how it is used, not some outside entity like the government. In a world that will never be entirely fair - whatever you may believe that to mean - equality is the closest to fair that anyone should reasonably expect.
I point out the difference in meanings because some on the left are now using their idea of equity as the basis to steal the hearts and minds of our most valuable asset, our children. In a column that I first thought to be in the vein of Jonathan Swift, Joe Mathews - a leftist California politico who serves as co-president of the Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy - made the case that "equity" demands parents give up their children to the state. Mathews was challenging a comment by Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett about abortion. Justice Barrett stated that "safe haven" laws exist in every state, and these laws invalidate the "burdens of parenthood" that played a significant role in the decisions of both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Mathews, for the sake of his "proposal," defined equity to be the goal of creating a just society completely free from bias and then attacked what he called "the power of parents" over children versus the ability of the state to influence children. He dabbled in a bit of class warfare and even made reference to Plato and Socrates to add gravitas to his modest proposal.
If you wonder if handing your kids over to the state might be a good idea, you don't need to look any further than the Boston Public School system's current policy of keeping classroom windows open 4 inches to mitigate the spread of Covid. Out of fear of the Omicron variant, the school system is requiring all classrooms to keep their windows open in the middle of a Massachusetts winter. The teachers having no say in the matter are forced to follow the orders from the bureaucrats. Does this sound like the state is capable of making the best decisions for the children? (And don't get me started on the whole Loudoun County Virginia School board fiasco.)
Yes, at first, I thought Mathews' article must be satire until I saw who he really is and what he is working to achieve. The leftists in this country are angry that too many of us are still teaching our children traditional, conservative values. They can't stand that there are still people who question them or point out their failures in logic, or worse still, their hypocrisy. The left is growing impatient, and Mathews is just another leftist who is done with incrementalism and saying the quiet part aloud. Listen when they speak (or write) they mean what they are saying.
In recent years we have found ourselves having to ask the question, "Why have the political left stopped fighting for "equality" and began the pursuit of "equity"? The answer, of course, is the same as it always is when the political left can't win an argument; they must change the language. I am confident that part of the change in word usage is because very few conservatives - if any - disagree with the idea of equality for all. There is also the fact that the political left prefers to have issues to run campaigns on rather than offer solutions to problems. (You see, solutions are more challenging than just pointing at problems, perceived or real. And often implementing a solution would require admitting that leftist policies don't work.) However, a closer look at the meanings of equity and equality - as used by the left - should be taken before going any further.
Equity, as it relates to racial and social justice, means allocating resources and opportunities to create equal outcomes for all. I would be remiss if I did not point out that no method exists that is capable of producing "equal outcomes" other than misery. There are factors that contribute to personal outcomes under our current system, like time and effort a person puts into a pursuit, education acquired, blind luck, and yes, resources available before beginning a pursuit. So the only way to create "equal outcomes" is to forcibly take resources from those who have them and deny educational opportunities to those who would maximize them. (And there is no way to account for the "pure luck" part of the equation.) In taking these things from some to give to others, you are only reducing everyone's standard of living without guaranteeing any increase of success for those who receive the resources or opportunities given. If someone isn't prepared to make the most of what they have, they are likely to squander it. Just give someone something they have never had and did not earn; they are likely to lose it. The left will deny this last statement, but they also have no explanation of how previously poor lottery winners who hit multi-million-dollar jackpots can be broke within a few years.
Equality, again related to racial and social justice, means each individual or group of people is given the same opportunities, regardless of their starting circumstances. This is the idea that the American Civil Rights movement was based upon. The view so eloquently expressed by Martin Luther King Jr. of people being judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. This idea is often paired with the idea that if a person earns something, they should decide how it is used, not some outside entity like the government. In a world that will never be entirely fair - whatever you may believe that to mean - equality is the closest to fair that anyone should reasonably expect.
I point out the difference in meanings because some on the left are now using their idea of equity as the basis to steal the hearts and minds of our most valuable asset, our children. In a column that I first thought to be in the vein of Jonathan Swift, Joe Mathews - a leftist California politico who serves as co-president of the Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy - made the case that "equity" demands parents give up their children to the state. Mathews was challenging a comment by Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett about abortion. Justice Barrett stated that "safe haven" laws exist in every state, and these laws invalidate the "burdens of parenthood" that played a significant role in the decisions of both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Mathews, for the sake of his "proposal," defined equity to be the goal of creating a just society completely free from bias and then attacked what he called "the power of parents" over children versus the ability of the state to influence children. He dabbled in a bit of class warfare and even made reference to Plato and Socrates to add gravitas to his modest proposal.
If you wonder if handing your kids over to the state might be a good idea, you don't need to look any further than the Boston Public School system's current policy of keeping classroom windows open 4 inches to mitigate the spread of Covid. Out of fear of the Omicron variant, the school system is requiring all classrooms to keep their windows open in the middle of a Massachusetts winter. The teachers having no say in the matter are forced to follow the orders from the bureaucrats. Does this sound like the state is capable of making the best decisions for the children? (And don't get me started on the whole Loudoun County Virginia School board fiasco.)
Yes, at first, I thought Mathews' article must be satire until I saw who he really is and what he is working to achieve. The leftists in this country are angry that too many of us are still teaching our children traditional, conservative values. They can't stand that there are still people who question them or point out their failures in logic, or worse still, their hypocrisy. The left is growing impatient, and Mathews is just another leftist who is done with incrementalism and saying the quiet part aloud. Listen when they speak (or write) they mean what they are saying.
RSS Feed