When the left goes too far — the dangerous doctrine of equity

National Post ^ | May 10, 2019 | Jordan Peterson

[rickmichaels]

The mantra of Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity (DIE) perhaps constitutes the primary identifying factor of the tiny minority of radical collectivist ideologues that nonetheless have come to dominate the humanities and social sciences in Western universities (and, increasingly, the HR departments of corporations). Of these three, equity is the most egregious, self-righteous, historically-ignorant and dangerous. “Equity” is a term designed to signal “equality,” in some manner, and is a term designed to appeal to the natural human tendency toward fairness, but it does not mean the classic equality of the West, which is equality before the law and equality of opportunity.

Equality before the law means that each citizen will be treated fairly by the criminal justice and judicial systems regardless of their status — and that the state recognizes that each individual has an intrinsic value which serves as a limit to state power, and which the polity must respect. There is likely no more fundamental presumption grounding our culture.

Equality of opportunity is a doctrine of openness predicated on the fact that talent is widely distributed although comparatively rare. This should come as no surprise to anyone, given that some people are much better at doing a given task than others and, because of that, it is in everyone’s selfish interest to allow such talent to come to the fore so that we can all benefit. This means that no one should be arbitrarily denied the possibility of their contribution for reasons unrelated to the task at hand. This is also a fundamental principle of Western culture, particularly in its free-market guise.

Equity is a whole different ballgame. It is based on the idea that the only certain measure of “equality” is outcome—educational, social, and occupational.

[TheZMan]

Guess he’s settled that this is the line.

[JamesP81]

I think he’s right.

[SMARTY]

The discussion isn't new. The ‘egalitarian’ agenda began centuries ago... in the age of ‘Romanticism’. (The ultimate and crowning ‘touchy-feely’ mentality that leads NOWHERE)

The French revolutionaries successfully drugged the public with their egalitarian horse s*&t, then proceeded to impose a government (and many successive ‘governments’) which were more corrupt, greedy and inhumane than any Monarchy they ever had.

Be very careful what you ask for.

BTW-The numberless myriad of rights and freedoms enjoyed by Americans far exceeds ANY available to ‘citizens’ of countries anywhere else on earth. What is this mindless, gratuitous drive to f*&k up our society in order to ‘achieve’ rights and freedoms we ALREADY possess?

Has language, and the basic capacity of listeners to comprehend it, been SO compromised that EVERY Liberal fraud takes on the appearance of a self-evident truth?

[ArtDodger]

Very good article, and timely.
This very morning, my local paper is touting the county’s ‘educational equity’ agent. She is spewing the usual pastel pablum. Taking nothing from anyone, only giving to those in need, as if her salary isn’t coming from ‘anyone’.
Once her bureaucracy is firmly entrenched, the screws will tighten.

[PGalt]

DIEquity doctrine=EGADS EgregiousGeneralAnxietyDisorderSyndrome.

Very good article by Jordan Peterson. Thanks for posting.

[sphinx]

For later

[aquila48]

Bookmark

[ClearCase_guy]

Peterson is always worth the read. His concerns about Equality of Outcome are right on.

Our current culture tries to tell us that Equal Outcomes are “fair” and “noble” and “good” Something we should all support, right? The reality is that it is an evil goal. It should be rejected as unnatural, impossible and unfair.

[aquila48]

Even equality of opportunity is fraught with danger.

There is no real way to “level the playing field” for everyone, whatever that means, nor is there a need for it.

One can think of opportunity as a an advertised job opening. The person or company wanting to fill that position will naturally want to get the best person for the job, so he may advertise it broadly to get the widest exposure, or he may go to a job fair, or school recruitment center and interview potential candidates.

The person or company doing the interviewing will have no incentive to discrimate on any basis other than ability. If he does his competitors will sooner or later eat his lunch.

So the problem of finding the best talent for a job doesn’t require society to do anything to expose a job seeker to an opportunity. Both the company and the individuals with the talent will be naturally motivated to seek each other out without the state having to get involved.