Equality/Inequality
We need to have a serious conversation about the meaning of those terms. Are we striving for equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? Modern democratic societies tend to have some of each, but we should be setting a goal that prioritizes one or the other. Our founding documents and the practice of capitalism aim for the former. Our new crop of socialists aim for the latter. As a practical matter, outcomes are not usually equal in a socialist system. The regulators, and those who work the regulations, usually do a lot better than the regulated, but that problem is theoretically amenable to solution.
If you favor limited government, a color blind social order, and a fair shot at the pursuit of happiness for all members of the society, I recommend consideration of one statement and one practice. The statement: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” The practice is followed in auditions by some symphony orchestras. Musicians are tested behind a curtain so that those deciding who joins the orchestra can focus solely on the quality of the music, not the appearance of the musician.
One major enemy of equal opportunity is the pernicious triad of diversity, affirmative action and disparate outcomes.
Disparate outcomes works this way. Car dealers price auto loans based on the credit rating of the prospective borrowers. Higher interest is paid by those with poor credit to cover the higher risk of default. CFPB decided that the outcome was unfair. With no evidence of discriminatory behavior on the part of the dealers, and no actual knowledge of the race or ethnicity of borrowers, they levied fines on the dealers based on a survey of zip codes and surnames. Meaning that the dealers violated a regulation they didn’t know existed and with no evidence that they actually engaged in any discriminatory behavior. The regulators simply objected to the outcome.
Affirmative action is even worse. It actually provides rational basis for racism. Say you are a racist cop who took the sargent's exam and did not make the cut. If all those promoted had higher grades on the exam, your only rational recourse is to study harder before taking the test again. If promotions were awarded to some who had scores lower than yours due to their race or ethnicity, you can rationally conclude that you were robbed and race is at fault.
Those seeking diversity through affirmative action will cite redress of past discrimination. There may have been discrimination in the past, but the people being shoved aside to make room for minorities are not those who were at fault. They are enduring group punishment, no different in concept than any other kind of caste system or apartheid.
Selective colleges justify lower admission standards for minorities citing the need for diversity (a virtue with zero ethical underpinning) and unequal preparation of minority students. The result is that the institution must either lower its standards in order to allow the affirmative action students to graduate or flunk out those who can’t cut it. Neither is a good outcome. To solve the preparation program, elite schools could set up primary and secondary schools in the nation’s ghettos and barrios for high achieving students. It would be a good use of their overflowing endowments and a great fund raising hook. The goal should be great music, not colorful musicians.
The goal of equal opportunity will generate unequal outcomes, because some people are smarter or shrewder or harder working. Some folks have specialized talents. No matter how hard I work, I will never get paid millions to hit three-pointers. As long as we provide basic support for those unable to support themselves through no fault of their own, we can have a society that maximizes its potential and treats everyone fairly. Our regulatory focus should be laser focused on creating a genuinely level playing field and judging everyone by the content of their character.
