By MIKE MANNO
There is a struggle going on in America today that is as old as the republic. It is the clash between freedom and equality, and opinions on either side are gradually ripping apart the fabric of society.
“Why should there be a clash between freedom and equality?” you might ask. “Shouldn’t we be for both?” Well, those are the same questions my political science students would ask. And the answer is both yes and no.
Let me explain: The concept of freedom, as in “freedom of” speech, religion, press, and so on, allows people to follow their dreams and desires without hindrance from the government. Equality, however, subordinates some freedoms for egalitarian reasons.
An example: The concept of total freedom would allow me to do with my property as I see fit without interference. Equality, on the other hand, would place restrictions on how I may use it and to whom I might sell or rent it; thus zoning and open housing laws would curb some of my freedom in the name of equality.
Therefore when we look at these concepts we must recognize that there is a built-in tension between them and an intelligent society will strive for their proper balance, which, if maintained, will promote a healthy climate for all. But when that balance is disturbed and one side is given more weight than the other, the healthy climate we should expect is replaced by public policy that tends to favor one group over another and, if left to fester long enough, will start the tearing of our social fabric.
I think we may be at that point. Numerous examples exist; many have been mentioned in this column in the past. Such as:
Florists, bakers, and photographers forced to participate in same-sex celebrations. While the Supreme Court has put a stop in one such case, there are still hundreds of others where businesses are being fined and hounded out of business because someone’s equality trumps their freedom to act in accordance with their religious beliefs.
Colleges and universities providing different standards for admission depending on the race, ethnicity, or country of origin, often called “set aside programs” or “affirmative action.” These programs elevate race and gender over academic excellence and the freedom to compete fairly for a college seat.
Government programs that allow federal grants to be withdrawn from academic programs where it is determined that there are too few women or minority students. The National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, for example, can pull federal grants from programs for postdoctoral education from institutions lacking a sufficient number of “underrepresented minorities.”
Educational programs in secondary schools that have lowered their disciplinary standards. This was the case at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., where one of the disciplinary problems killed 17 in a school shooting.
The continuing number of cities, towns, and counties that have lowered the requirements for police and fire applicants to achieve a racial or gender balance. This balance does not necessarily comport with applicant qualifications.
And the above list could go on: cheerleaders who form the now non-competitive squad; and applicants for air traffic controllers who find that prior experience in science or as a pilot is now a negative qualification.
What do all these examples have in common? They all in some way handicap some individuals whose ability to compete or join has been compromised by a policy that puts more emphasis on equality and thus lowers quality standards for all and disadvantages those who worked or studied harder in favor of some egalitarian effort to make all persons equal.
In other words, standards have been lowered to accommodate the less prepared. You see, we confuse equality before the law with ability. We are all equal as citizens before our government, just as we are all equal before our God. But we are not all equal in ability and common sense must recognize that fact.
Back in the 1960s, Kurt Vonnegut wrote a satirical short story, Harrison Bergeron, about an America of the future where the law has deemed every American fully equal; all are equal in intelligence, beauty, and skill. In order to maintain that “myth,” the government provides handicaps for those who are too smart, pretty, or skillful.
Overseen by Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, handicaps are provided for those needing them. Those who are too smart have earplugs that pound radio sounds into their heads so they can’t optimize their intelligence; graceful ballerinas are provided foot weights so they can perform no better than average, and the beautiful have masks so as to appear no more beautiful than the ugly or disfigured.
Thus the best, the brightest, and the most intelligent are handicapped to attain the goal of total equality; egalitarianism applied to promote equality.
In the story, Harrison Bergeron sheds his handicaps and dances with a ballerina who has also shed hers. That, of course, violates the law and Handicapper General Glampers is forced to kill them both.
I’m not suggesting that America in 2018 is becoming the story’s America of 2081, but I am suggesting that all throughout society little handicappers general are handicapping too many hard-working, talented individuals in the name of an out-of-balance concept of equality.
That’s not to say that we should bend over backward and elevate freedom above all for that would have similar unintended consequences. What I am suggesting is that one elite school has the right idea.
The Stuyvesant High School in Manhattan requires a test for admittance. The school doesn’t look at any other factor in the student’s background — no sports, music, or any other factor. Only the test score. All applicants are evaluated on the same criteria: the test score, and the test score alone.
That’s true equality.
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, however, wants to change the admission criteria in the interest of “fairness.” The mayor wants to reserve approximately one-fifth of the seats for “underrepresented minorities.”
That isn’t equality of any sort. But I do think he’d make a great handicapper general. Just sayin’.
(You can contact Mike at DeaconMike@q.com.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress