College is not something to DIE for

Equity and equality nonsense. And more here, including this cartoonish nonsense:

The new mantra for American universities is DIE, or diversity, inclusion and equity (equality?). For a marvelous takedown of this dilemma, see new New College (FL) trustee Christopher Rufo's City Journal piece, "The institutional hostage crisis." See excerpt below, in italics. Yet while promoting this is the critical mission of the university, I doubt that one in twenty students or administrators could provide you with a coherent, meaningful, and valid definition of any of these terms, nor could they provide a reasonable, practical, operational demonstration or solution.

Since signing my oath as one of the newly appointed trustees, I have spent many hours in communication with administrators, faculty, students, and alumni. Many of these people have whispered to me about the “culture problem” at New College. They have described something resembling a hostage situation on campus, in which left-wing activist students have mobilized a grievance narrative and exploited the DEI-style bureaucracy in order to isolate, shame, intimidate, and expel anyone who dissents from the politics of social justice.

The primary focus today will be on the equity/equality dilemma, using the words of a woke author to show just how confused and confusing these terms can be. First, let's dispense with diversity and equity briefly, saving more detailed discussions of these terms for another post, and starting by laying out the questions.

Diversity. Diversity of what? Is it race? Ideas? Age? Ethnicity? Income? Wealth? Here is the iconic example of a word, taken over and twisted, by the institutional mob.Even with its lack of a clear definition, any questioning of its "value" or "essential nature" to the university can bring down wildly harsh critical rhetoric, condemnation and, at times, cancellation. "Diversity," along with equity and inclusion, has been used to revise and re-write the fundamental role of the university and other institutions, to the effect of replacing their core mission with a social engineering experiment, based on problematic values introduced by Critical Race "Theory" and the now debunked Black Lives Matter movement.

Inclusion. Inclusion of all people? Or all "qualified" people? And by "qualified," does that mean those self-identifying as victims? Or perhaps by their demand to be included, otherwise qualified or not? Much of this rhetorical reasoning hinges on this idea that self-identified victims "deserve" to be included in group, organization or institution, regardless of their qualifications to be a member. For example, a poorly academically prepared high school graduate who identifies as a victim "deserves" to be included in the entering class of a college, and to be allowed to enter at a price/tuition they feel that they "deserve" to pay. Students of "privileged" families received bills from the college based on the college's calculation of the Expected Family Contribution, or EFC, a large amount of which is to be used to pay tuition for the 'victims.'

The fundamental problem in all these discussions stems from the term, "social justice," itself a vaguely defined and wholly misunderstood concept. Part of that comes from the word "social," as in 'social distancing.' Isn't all 'justice' social? Isn't 'social distancing' really 'physically distancing'? Isn't 'social distancing' just standing physically -- not socially -- 'distant.' If I am on a Zoom call, am I physically or socially distant from others on the call? Or, as the Wisconsin governor once suggested, need I wear a mask on a Zoom call?

In my leadership and management classes, where 'equality' and 'equity' have pretty clear definitions and meaning, the best way to convey the problem of the 'social justice' assertion is by demonstrating the three 'ways' that social justice -- in terms of fairness and equality -- can be claimed is in inputs (e.g., equal opportunity), the process (i.e., 'due process,' equality in the process that leads to an outcome), and the outcome (i.e., the woke idea of "equity," where everyone receives an equal outcome, meaning that everyone ends up in the same place, regardless of the person's ability, motives, persistence or goals). The in-your-face realization is that 'justice' in the first two phases will inevitably produce potentially massive variation in the resulting outcome. For instance, a thousand students entering college simultaneously, then subjected to the same curriculum, will end up with a wide range of educational outcomes, based on just those factors, i.e., motivation, effort, intelligence.

Treating everybody the same -- that's called fair treatment -- produces a variety of results. To get "equity" -- identical outcomes -- you have to treat people differently and/or start with people with identical opportunity, including their own, individual characteristics. The classic woke demonstration of 'equity' has been illustrated by the cartoon below. Instead, the woke approach allows certain, self-identifying groups to claim a 'right' to special treatment, a level of treatment (usually with someone else's resources) that will allow the victim to reach the same place as the 'privileged' person.

This raises another point, the stark, dichotomous terminology found in racist and ant-racist, fair and unfair, privileged and victim. People and processes get assigned to one of two categories; there is no continuum. It is the proverbial "seeing the world in black and white" dilemma.

As Steve Walters has noted:

So Ibram X. Kendi's view ("the only cure for past discrimination is present discrimination; the only cure for present discrimination is future discrimination") is firmly established as policy in the Ivy League and elsewhere. As is the new definition of "equity" (which asserts that certain groups must received special treatment; they are incapable of achievement without it).

And here is my follow up:

Try telling that to the Asian kids at TJ High School; they won’t even give them their NMS awards, all in the name of equity…for whom? The goal of the left is not to make everyone equal; it’s to make selectively self identified ‘victims’ better off and the accomplished worse off. Orwellian

The Kendi-based graphic canard is dishonest in its supposed leveling. It assumes someone builds different sized boxes. It assumes people will use the boxes. It assumes that a ramp — looks like a staircase to me—wheelchair will provide a stable setting and that someone else will push the person to the top. Worst of all, it assumes that an outfield wall will be built AND that to view without paying for admission is a right, and one that someone else must pay for them — to allow them to cheat.

It’s like the claim that shoplifting is not a crime because the company has insurance. Or that breaking a store window is good for the window business. It’s the perverse reversal of the broken window theory used to reduce crime, not incentivize it.

At its best interpretation, this cartoon creates equal opportunity (to watch the ball game illegally). At its worst, it tells some people that they are victims and that they deserve -- they "have the right" -- to earn the same outcome as a person who may have worked harder -- and legally -- to achieve an outcome that becomes the opportunity for what's really important. That is, every outcome becomes an opportunity; if we "level the playing field" in the name of equity, we negate all individual effort and skill, forsaking facts for feelings, performance for politics, merit for the mob.

Here is the thesis that accompanies this second cartoon. Pay special attention to the bolded sentences, key to the misunderstanding created by such an argument.

Last week’s feature asserted the importance of decentering the normative narrative, but doing so is just part of the ongoing process and work of equity. This week’s feature will focus on understanding the distinction between equity and equality.

First, consider this scenario:

A house is on fire in your neighborhood. You call the fire department. The firefighters pull up and start spraying all the houses on the street at the same time instead of focusing on the one that’s actually on fire. The house burns down because there’s not enough concentrated efforts directed towards putting the fire out.

What just happened?

This scenario is often used to describe the difference between equality, which means that everyone gets the same thing, and equity, which requires that everyone get what they need according to their circumstances.

However, I prefer real life examples:

• All lives matter versus black lives matter.

• Colorblindness versus embracing and celebrating diversity.

• Equal “access” to an exclusive and punitive healthcare system versus tangible and affordable healthcare options, regardless of your background or medical history.

• As Black Lives Matter activist and educator Deray McKesson says, “The difference between equity and equality is that equality is everyone get the same thing and equity is everyone get the things they deserve.”

But for some people who are part of historically marginalized groups, getting the things they deserve takes more work. It takes more voices demanding from those in power to be noticed and heard.

During an AmeriCorps post-grad year of service, I worked at a social and racial justice organization in Ferguson, Missouri. We hosted various church and non-profit groups who wanted to understand what happened in our city in the fall of 2014 after Michael Brown was killed. They would arrive, take a look around, and say, “It just looks like a normal, quiet suburb here. How did it get to the point that we saw on the news – with all the tanks and screaming and burning?”

I would always respond that Ferguson is a place, like many other suburbs and cities throughout our country, where a portion of the residents, namely the black residents, were not getting everything they needed or deserved as citizens for a long time. Black residents who were struggling economically, socially and politically were not being heard by the rest of the normal – white, middle-class – Ferguson residents who just thought they lived in a nice, quiet suburb. So, when Michael Brown was killed by local policeman Darren Wilson and left in the streets for four hours, it was as if the city said to the black residents of Ferguson, “You have been right all along. We don’t care about you, and we don’t care about your children. We don’t care about protecting you, but we will protect the rest of the city, and its normalcy, from you.”

As anyone watching the news back in the fall of 2014 knows, many black residents of Ferguson, St. Louis, and around the country decided they would make it known that they were not getting what they deserved – that they were not being treated equitably.

As previous posts in this series have discussed, social justice work and staying woke involves correcting social and economic inequities. However, pushing for equity in a society that places a high value on meritocracy but a low value on people with marginalized identities is exhausting. It is also necessary.

Perhaps it is the precisely those with the most daunting pre-existing conditions who need the best healthcare options.

Perhaps it is precisely those who are running from violence and terror in their home countries who need the most protection in ours.

Perhaps it is precisely those whose love has been silenced or pushed to the side who need to celebrate their love the most.

Perhaps it is precisely those whose rights have historically been nonexistent who need the most protection of their rights.

Perhaps it is precisely those deemed the most academically or socially challenged who need the most attention and resources in the classroom.

Perhaps it is precisely those who do not see themselves at places of power in the workplace who need the most protection and encouragement to thrive.

None of this is to say that we all don’t deserve all the best healthcare options, protection, love, rights, education, and inclusion in the workplace. It is, rather, to say that some people already have what they deserve while some people still have to demand it.

Working towards equity and not just equality requires acknowledging this discrepancy and seeing another person and their situation clearly enough to understand that what works for one does not work for all. It begins with understanding that there are some in our society who have yet to be seen, and not for lack of trying nor for lack of worth.

As Mary Frances Winters says in We Can’t Talk About That At Work, we need to abide by the Platinum Rule rather than the Golden Rule: instead of treating others how you want to be treated, treat others how they want to be treated.

I am constantly challenged by this rule. It is a daily reminder that equitable systems are built by those who truly listen to one another well and act towards one another accordingly. How we listen to one another’s needs, hopes and fears affects if and how we demand that our institutions and organizations listen as well. It affects whether we notice those who aren’t getting what they deserve. It affects whether we are allies or simply bystanders.

Equity begins by asking yourself: Are you getting the things you deserve, and are you willing to stand with and elevate the voices of those who are not?

Let's take them one at a time.

The firefighters pull up and start spraying all the houses on the street at the same time instead of focusing on the one that’s actually on fire.

This might be a funny metaphor but it is nonetheless wholly irrelevant and ridiculous as an illustration of how the world works.

“The difference between equity and equality is that equality is everyone get the same thing and equity is everyone get the things they deserve.”

Here again our social justice warriors (SJWs) offer confusion and contradiction, not clarity. Most SJWs argue that everyone should get the same outcome -- the same salary, the same healthcare treatment, the the same jail sentence -- and not what each individual thingks they 'deserve.' This is an extension of the perversion of the positive rights theory of justice, where each self-identified as oppressed or victimized person gets to choose a form of reparations, while those identified as privileged are forced to pay for those rights. No SJW ever argues that the victim has any responsibility in creating their own victimhood.

In a late 1980's missive from American bishops, the bishops claimed that people are poor "through no fault of their own," when the truth of the matter is that most poverty can be traced to personal choices, including one or two people having children -- starting a family, with or without marriage -- without the resources to support themselves or their newborn. That is irresponsibility, not faultless behavior. Or those who choose not to attend school or to study and work hard to acquire good grades, skills or knowledge, or those who choose to abuse drugs, forego exercise, eat foolishly, they make choices.

It is a well-established fact that most poverty in American stems from either bringing poor families into the country and from current residents failing to take responsibility for their choices, or the inevitable and often avoidable consequences of those choices. Reinforcing bad behavior by rewarding people for bad choices is a lose-lose proposition.

Equity begins by asking yourself: Are you getting the things you deserve, and are you willing to stand with and elevate the voices of those who are not?

Again, the fatuousness of the positive rights approach emerges as the major point of the SJW movement. The oppressed and their representatives assert aright to "someone else's money," simply by their self-identified victimhood which, distilled to its core, is everyone in the world other than white, "cis"- American male over the age of eighteen.

More here, on the University of Texas.