Has equality lost to equity?

One could, and many likely do, easily assume that the promotion of equity, which is commonplace across multiple institutions, ensures America's lifelong pledge of equality under the law.  However, one would be mistaken.  Equity, as defined by the Marxist left, purposely rejects and seeks to eliminate our nation's bedrock principle of equality under the law.  Rather than being judged on merit, equity demands that individuals become nameless, faceless members of predetermined identity groups.

To quote Race Marxism author James Lindsay, equity arose from what is known as "social equity theory," an attempt to engineer equality of outcome.  Moreover, where equality means that John and James are treated equally under the law, equity means "synthetically" rectifying these disparities in the form of preferential hiring, purging standardized tests, and even openly discriminating against "dominant" groups.  In order for the equity agenda to materialize, some identity groups, often described as "marginalized groups," are to be provided privileges in order to ameliorate irregularity due to historical and modern circumstances.  Moreover, Lindsay states, "Equity is, in some sense, a perpetual demand for more reparation, either in opportunities, power, or direct payments, none of which will ever be good enough.  So Equity understood Critically is a clumsy tool for a power grab."

Equity is chiefly concerned with positions of influence that reflect power with the intent to re-engineer the structures of society.  Equity is intended to cure "perceived power dynamics," which are said to be solely responsible for all disparities within society.  According to Lindsay:

All imbalances of representation in desirable areas of work are held to be caused by these perceived power dynamics. Equity is the intended remedy to this problem, and it is made applicable only (and especially) to positions of status and influence. For example, there is no equity program that attempts to increase the number of female sanitation workers, though there are equity programs that seek to increase the number of female doctors and politicians, and these endure even in high-status positions that employ more women than men. Of particular concern are positions that have influence where power is concerned, including in terms of shaping the discourses of society.

Correspondingly, to the great pleasure of the Marxist left, any equitable agenda implementation would fall to an all-power federal leviathan — an intrusive, unelected bureaucracy.  Only a bloated government, and increasingly powerful three-letter agencies, could compel an equity agenda suitable for all constituents.  By this reveal, equity would appear to take the shape of socialism.  

Ibram X. Kendi, director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, lays out in How to Be an Antiracist the need for discrimination to ensure equity: "The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity.  If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist."  To his credit, Kendi is unabashedly saying the "quiet part out loud," admitting that equity requires discrimination, relying on the use of identity-based quotas and aggressive social manufacturing.  This notion that discrimination is a requirement to ensure equity has become universally accepted.

It is worth mentioning that the idea of "economic class," which Victor Davis Hanson has mentioned countless times, is absent from any discussion pertaining to equity.  As a fictional example, Jon Jones is an African-American male, currently enrolled at Harvard Law School, whose parents are both prestigious doctors.  On the other hand, Jon Johnson, a Caucasian male from rural West Virginia, withdrew from high school at the tender age of fourteen in order to care for his infant sister, Sarah, after their mother passed away from a heroin overdose.  Johnson never met his father.  Honest reporting from an economic or class interpretation would suggest that if we sought to make Jones and Johnson "equal," we would have to provide Johnson "privileges."  However, within the social justice paradigm, we are to redistribute shares to correct for "groups" (not "individuals") who have been discriminated against due to race, sex, or sexuality.  As such, according to the law of "equity," Jones would receive special accommodations, not Johnson.

According to WSJ contributor Tunku Varadarajan, "equality has lost to equity."

J.B. Cohle is a graduate student.

Image: JustGrimes.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com