↓
 
Home » Orwellian “equity”

Orwellian “equity”

The New Neo Posted on by

Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is a work of genius. But I think its greatest element of genius lies in Orwell’s basic insight about the left’s use of language as a tool for leading the public to believe a very bad thing is its opposite and a good thing. Language can’t fool all of the people all of the time, but it can go far, especially when it is wielded by a compliant media well-versed in propaganda and willing to employ it.

That’s the situation we have today with our left. The word “equity” is a shining example:

…[T]he new president is so determined to sell us “equity” that he sometimes can’t get the buzz word off the teleprompter fast enough. One day in his second week in office, Biden misspoke and almost said “equality,” but then backed up and repeated the new magic word: equity.

Why was he so punctilious? Why equity and not equality? Because the difference has become enormous under the Biden administration.

No; it’s been enormous for a long time. Biden (or his handlers) did not invent this.

More:

“Equity” may sound like equality, but in the hands of Biden, his team, and the professoriate dictating the terms from the faculty lounge, it has become its functional opposite. This drives a dagger into any hope of unifying around the foundational principle of equality.

Equality calls for government to treat Americans equally, a standard that, when aspired to, has solved many vicissitudes, but when ignored has led to calamity. Equity, under the corrupted new meaning, calls for government to dispense unequal treatment in order to achieve equal outcomes.

But courts have been dispensing this sort of logic for decades under the principle of “disparate impact.” Remember the old right/left divide between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome? That’s more or less what we’re talking about here. Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, for example, disparate impact became part of anti-discrimination law:

A violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class. Therefore, the disparate impact theory under Title VII prohibits employers “from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class. A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its application or effect.” Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination unless the defendant employer demonstrates that the practice or policy in question has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job in question. This is the “business necessity” defense.

Much more at the link.

I’m not sure when the word “equity” came into play, but it’s certainly not a new principle.

[NOTE: Thomas Sowell’s wonderful book The Quest For Cosmic Justice contains an analysis of the problems with the attempt to arrive at equality of outcome. Highly recommended book.]

Comments

Orwellian “equity” — 36 Comments

  1. Sowell’s book is indeed wonderful, although A Conflict of Visions, addressing some of the same philosophical questions, is perhaps his masterpiece. On the topic of “disparate impact”, Griggs v Duke Power (1971) was, without question, one of the worst decisions ever from SCOTUS. It is also irrefutably true that whoever controls the terms of discourse controls the argument; until conservatives can find some way to delegitimize the fraudulent use of “equity” by “progressives”, they stand little chance of winning a debate in which, on matters of reasonable policy and on what is feasible through the implementation of such, they, unlike leftists, can argue, not from emotion, but from facts and from empirical induction.

  2. I sometimes wonder whether the Supreme Court decision from 2003 (I always forget the name) written by Sandra Day O’Conner is one of the factors stimulating all this recent hysteria over racism and equity. (I think racism’s potency as a political weapon is probably the most important factor.)

    My limited understanding is that it was only O’Conner’s suggestion that the unconstitutional creation of “protected classes” should expire by the year 2028. While that year isn’t just around the corner, it’s not too far away. I’d surmise that such an expiration would be unthinkable today, let alone thinkable in 2028.

  4. Watched the Oprah Harry and Meghan interview and it was race race race. If they never said anything about Meghan being biracial almost no one would think it. Looks more Spanish, Mexican … but not black.

  5. “Equity” is just “equality” applied later in the process. “Equality” as we’ve been using it hitherto is equality of process.

    The stereotypical illustration going around about people needing to see a game over a fence and the tall person doesn’t need a box, and the short person needs two…

    The “equal” part is that they are equally able to see the game.

    Ok, but what if the “equal” part is that they should be just as comfortable as the people who paid for seats? What if it’s they should equally get to play, or play preferred position, or get paid for playing? People are going to land in very different places depending on what’s the thing that comes out equal and some times there are logical contradictions if “equitable” outcomes are assumed (i. e. everyone gets to play shortstop and no one plays catcher, so it’s no longer baseball).

    What they are trying to do is set up a system whereby they use one word to justify any sort of intervention to achieve any sort of outcome.

    “Equality” isn’t able to handle that kind of load, because “equal” things are inherently assumed comparable. “Equity” is able to handle confiscating apples from some and granting positions managing orange orchards to others.

  6. This is just a legal dodge around certain SCOTUS decisions. It also sounds nice.

  7. Does “equity” mean that the Bidens have to return all that cash to China and Khazakstan, etc.?

    Didn’t think so…
    (…since “equity” means “what I want it to mean”.)

    To paraphrase (in honor of that most recent convocation of victimhood): “All victims are equal, but some victims are more equal than others.”

  8. In addition to Newspeak, Orwell’s understanding about controlling the historical record (rewriting history) is also prescient.

  9. The people who are devising these propaganda tools are very clever. They know precisely what they are doing and what they aim to achieve in doing it. If you think their agenda is benevolent – you are naïve. If their motives were kind – they would not need to fool people with slick propaganda.

  10. They know half of what they’re doing. What they don’t grasp is that from the other side it’s operant conditioning… and not the kind they’d be looking to burn into our EPROMs if they had half a clue. More and more people are developing an automatic turned past 10 Red Mist Response upon encountering this leftist cant.

    You may say I’m a Dreamer… but I’m not a #@$%ing Aztec from Chiapas, so die Rainbow Scum! Hmm… seem to have an issue with my lyrics chip… Hmmm…

  11. As chance would have it, I’m reading 1984 for an OLLI class I took with some trepidation, fearing — as has been the case — that the fellow classmates would view it as an allegory about Trump. But I hadn’t remembered from my several former readings (including a high school one, where, being then a leftist, I naturally thought it about Nixon) that Orwell ascribes the rise of the Party to the preservation of social class in an age where technology could produce plenty for everybody, and riches would lose their distinction.

    “Thus the Party rejects and vilifies every principle for which the Socialist movement originally stood, and it chooses to do this in the name of Socialism. It preaches a contempt for the working classes unexampled for centuries past, and it dresses its members in a uniform that was at one time peculiar to manual workers and was adopted for that reason. It systematically undermines the solidarity of the family, and it calls its leader by a name which is a direct appeal to the sentiment of family loyalty…If human equality is to be forever averted — if the High, as we have called them, are to keep their places permanently — then the prevailing mental condition must be controlled insanity.”

  12. “Watched the Oprah Harry and Meghan interview and it was race race race. “

    Simple genetics. Since the darker genes are dominant, and Megan is phenotypically white, any progeny between her and Uber white Harry will be white looking.

  13. “Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is a work of genius. But I think its greatest element of genius lies in Orwell’s basic insight about the left’s use of language as a tool for leading the public to believe a very bad thing is its opposite and a good thing. Language can’t fool all of the people all of the time, but it can go far, especially when it is wielded by a compliant media well-versed in propaganda and willing to employ it.” neo

    That’s true, so long as reality can be held at bay. Implementing “very bad things” inevitably has grave consequences. There’s nothing as effective as grinding people’s faces into a brutal reality to banish illusions generated by propaganda.

    Count on it, the hard left has just begun to grind American’s faces into the brutal reality that Venezuela has demonstrated.

    But the right is armed with many having military training. Nor will the left ever succeed in confiscating the majority of those arms. In addition and by the left’s own calculations… 80% of the US Military are ‘disloyal’.

    Our political ‘masters’ know that they are courting a terrible reckoning and that is why they have ringed in the capitol they have seized through fraud with razor wire and thousands upon thousands of ‘disloyal’ troops.

    They justify it by asserting a non-existent domestic terrorist threat. Which as it fails to appear, speaks volumes about their deep fear of those they seek to rule.

  14. @Avi:

    I guess that makes him a Quadroon. I’m a huge fan of John Derbyshire’s habit of reviving the old classifications. If they want to obsess about Race, happy to play along!

  15. Zaphod’s response calls up the old proverb, “Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.”
    That is: since the penalty or a small offense is the same as for the larger one, then go for the one with the higher payoff when you aren’t caught (and be careful not to get caught).

    Those people who perhaps might commit inconsiderate but not ill-intentioned “offenses” (you all know why that word is in quotes) are now being hammered as hard as the most hard-bitten white supremacist (a few do exist in the wild) deliberately engaged in belligerent liberal bashing.
    How long before most of us quit being as polite and well-spoken as we are?

    Curiously, it’s the reverse of a trend on the other side of the coin: the military academies some years ago down-graded their disciplinary codes so that “lying, cheating, or stealing” no longer meant instant dismissal, but some punishment less absolute. The result is that some cadets literally (not figuratively) can’t do anything bad enough to get cashiered.
    And we know that an arsonist in Portland has less to fear from the law & courts than an unarmed observer of the Capitol incursion.

    Cue the Steyn Maxim, which I have quoted on more than one of Neo’s threads:

    The political class has refined Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death my right not to have to listen to you say it.
    ….
    If the political culture forbids respectable politicians from raising certain issues, then the electorate will turn to unrespectable ones.

    Th source is here if you choose to get past the registration wall:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3607274/The-lunatic-mainstream-had-better-start-worrying-fast.html

    Related posts:
    https://nypost.com/2021/01/18/telling-the-deplorables-to-shut-up-only-feeds-extremism/

    https://www.bookwormroom.com/2020/11/18/censorship-cancel-culture/

  16. “As chance would have it, I’m reading 1984 for an OLLI class I took with some trepidation, fearing — as has been the case — that the fellow classmates would view it as an allegory about Trump. But I hadn’t remembered from my several former readings (including a high school one, where, being then a leftist, I naturally thought it about Nixon) that Orwell ascribes the rise of the Party to the preservation of social class in an age where technology could produce plenty for everybody, and riches would lose their distinction.” – Nancy B

    “Nineteen-eighty-four” seems to have predicted our current age very well.
    As Neo said on another thread, the failure to stop the Gramscian March in its first furlongs was a major existential error.
    But, at the time, it would have seemed like over-reaction (“why do you hate choose-your-own-adjective people?”). See the Goldwater item below.
    I am increasingly convinced that Barry Goldwater was right to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act for precisely the reasons he gave – parts of it were unconstitutional. I don’t think he would agree with what applying that law has given rise to, either.

    https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/126630
    (NOTE that the author of this piece, in his view, is NOT complimenting Goldwater and Bozell).

    What made The Conscience of a Conservative both a best seller and a kind of bible to the growing cadres of the conservative rank and file was its winning combination of hard-nosed policy language (Goldwater) and high-minded justification (Bozell) for such toughness. So, while the book predictably blasted the welfare state and the entire notion of a government-mandated social safety net, it did so in a high-minded language of moral rectitude: “Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man’s nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic creature but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. . . . Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man’s spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand—in the name of a concern for ‘human beings’—regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society.” Here was a neat reversal of conventional wisdom.

    Since the New Deal, conservatives had typically attacked the growing welfare state as an infringement on the rights of property holders and as an un-American sort of class warfare. Liberals responded by lambasting conservatives as cold-hearted bastards only interested in protecting the rich. Goldwater, with more than a little help from Bozell, turned the tables. Liberals, he said, are the hard-hearted materialists. They care little, if at all, for the dignity and spiritual life of the less well-off. It is conservatives who safeguard the moral character and long-term happiness of their fellow citizens.

    Again and again, Goldwater (and Bozell) makes such morally-charged or philosophically-based arguments: “It so happens that I am in agreement with the [anti-racial segregation] objectives of the Supreme Court as stated in the Brown decision,” writes Goldwater. “I am not prepared, however, to impose that judgment of mine on the people of Mississippi or South Carolina. . . . That is their business, not mine. I believe that the problem of race relations, like all social and cultural problems, is best handled by the people directly concerned . . . [and] should not be effected by engines of national power.” Here, Goldwater forthrightly disavows ugly racism even as he makes the philosophical case that racial justice solutions must not be imposed from above by federal governmental fiat. In the American federalist system, local authority must be respected, Goldwater argues, even when local authorities see issues in a vexing manner.

    The people advocating for Sanctuary Cities are Goldwaterites.

    The man in his own words (the 1:10 clip is too short for his full explanation, however)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacJtYPHKiE

  17. Avi:

    But skin color inheritance is not at all simple. It’s controlled by multiple genes with mixed dominance.

    That said, since both of Archie’s parents are quite light-skinned, he would also be likely to be quite light-skinned.

  18. In support of my assertion above I offer…

    “Fox News reports that Honoré’s task force made a series of recommendations, including “an increased National Guard presence,” “stocking up on mobile fencing,” and hiring nearly 1,000 additional USCP officers. They add that a “quick reaction force” – or QRF – is recommended, and “would be manned 24/7, 365 days a year, and cost taxpayers between $40 and $130 million annually.” [my emphasis]

    https://libertyunyielding.com/2021/03/08/pelosis-riot-task-force-recommends-24-7-year-round-quick-reaction-force-to-protect-capitol/

  19. Oh… General Candomblé again. I keep forgetting this guy is still in his trance.

    A Sacrificed Chicken in Every Pot, I tell you!

  21. ^^^ Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin, Bill Kristol, and Mona Charen.

    Hmmm… Nothing to see here… Move along, Deplorables!

    I for one welcome our new Head Wiggling Dot Indian OverGolems!

    Bethesda Maryland (Jaysus Wept, can’t we just nuke the place?) Resident, ‘Retired Attorney’ Paul Mirengoff (Dartmouth + Stanford) is ‘Surprised’. Actually he’s not. He’s just pretending to be surprised.

    And the Swampy Beat Rolls On.

  22. No, actually, Mirengoff IS surprised. Truly.

    He may have his “issues” (and perhaps should stick to his sports columns); but he’s a voice of sanity when compared to those others—all proud, honorable members of the Insanity ‘R Us crowd….(Conservatism with a twisted face?)

    The real problem, it would appear, is that he IS surprised but shouldn’t be. (Of course, he may well be writing a polemic in an effort to shame them back into some semblance of reason; but the chances of that happening would seem to lie somewhere between zero and nil.)

    (Actually, the real problem is this benighted DOJ candidate…though she is appropriate for the evil times in which we live.)

    File under: The Lincolnesque Project

  23. It is Bizarre and one wonders whether an ‘Elite’ comprised thusly deserves to survive. OK, I’ve finished wondering: it does not.

    I agree that the Dot Indian Sell-out Leftwards Always (but I repeat myself) Harpy being proposed for a judicial leg up is a problem, but the likes of her wouldn’t be a problem if the USA in particular and West in general hadn’t suffered a total loss of nerve. It’s impossible to bell the multiple cats in play here without destroying oneself in public life. Ergo there is no walking back from this. It will go on until things break down.

  24. One wonders what the reaction will be. And when.

    (The Democrats appear to know the answer, which is why DC has been turned into a no-go zone and will remain so for the foreseeable future…and also why “DPUSA-for-Eternity” “legislation”—AKA “boot stamping on America’s face, forever”—is being rammed through Congress. Well, they can certainly hope so, anyway.)

    Which makes one wonder… Maybe I’m naive, but surely SOME of the elite (and/or SOME of those who played a supporting role in the Greatest Heist in American History) must be feeling a tad uneasy.

    Yes, I’m probably naive…
    File under: BUILD UP THIS WALL!

  25. We will all be serfs as Hayek envisioned with the growth of the state. The history of Rome is a guide to our destruction, which is presently on course.

  27. Equity (AKA “No wonder Schumer is smiling…”):
    https://nypost.com/2021/03/08/schumer-federal-pandemic-relief-eliminates-nys-deficit/

    We’re taking bets on who’ll be next! California? Illinois? (Minnesota’ll probably have to wait until after the Twin Cities are more thoroughly devastated, so patience there is advised for now. Please bear with us…)

    And no doubt, no doubt, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona are all deserving for their stellar performances last November. Odds are certainly ON Nevada…and Georgia, too. Who could ever forget Georgia’s heroic contribution to America’s destruction?

    Equity! (And it’s all LEGAL…not to mention the epitome of morality and good governance. Decent governance. Democratic Party governance!)

  28. Gottfried Dietze predicted in 1968 that the country would regret dispensing with conventional notions of civil rights and freedom of contract. His exposition at the time was somewhat bloodless, but he’s been proven right.

    Another thing that gets you is that the judiciary and the bar generally disregard statutory language in favor of their class-bound prejudices. One reason we cannot have a just regime which includes anti-discrimination laws is that our courts have proved unwilling and incapable of enforcing such law as written.

  29. “We will all be serfs as Hayek envisioned…”a

    Not necessarily. There will be pushback.

    When and what form it will take is not clear, but it will happen.

    We cannot know the future. We can only do our best to make it.

    And the Lord (Lords for some; Gaia for others? History? Fate? Karma?), as has been shown time and time again, works in truly mysterious, unfathomable ways.

    Put another way: Those clowns will screw up eventually. The only questions are when, and how much damage and destruction they will succeed in wreaking in the interim.

  31. Or there’s this from Reason.com on the Dr. Seuss hysteria. Up is down and down is up. I hope Dr Seuss would get the irony.

    “Learning for Justice, an outgrowth of the undeservedly well-regarded Southern Poverty Law Center, cited the report as evidence that it had misjudged The Sneetches, a Seuss story about a group of birds—some with stars on their bellies, some without—who eventually come to realize that their superficial physical differences don’t matter at all:

    At Teaching Tolerance, we’ve even featured anti-racist activities built around the Dr. Seuss book The Sneetches. But when we re-evaluated, we found that the story is actually not as “anti-racist” as we once thought. …

    The solution to the story’s conflict is that the Plain-Belly Sneetches and Star-Bellied Sneetches simply get confused as to who is oppressed. As a result, they accept one another. This message of “acceptance” does not acknowledge structural power imbalances. It doesn’t address the idea that historical narratives impact present-day power structures. And instead of encouraging young readers to recognize and take action against injustice, the story promotes a race-neutral approach.

    They actually had it right the first time. But nonracism—the idea that skin color should be overlooked—has lost popularity among progressive activists, and anti-racism—the idea that skin color matters a great deal—is in vogue.”

    https://reason.com/2021/03/08/dr-seuss-defend-cancel-culture-toronto-books-censorship/

  32. Positive Polly,

    It’s a wonder these people don’t laser holes in their navels, they spend so much time gazing into them.

    Funny thing is, in all these recent critiques of the Sneetches I haven’t seen any one even notice the very strong, anti-capitalism message that runs throughout the work. I’m sure they’d be very supportive of that. Good thing they’re too dense to pick up on the not so subtle intent of a book written for 5 year olds.

  33. We are supposed to overlook things that people are born with and can’t help…like skin-color and race and height and sex and religion and IQ and age….and give these folks equal opportunity. This is believed to be fair.

    We are supposed to see that opportunity offered from the state for all these folks with things that they can’t help is the same. Fair enough. [So, hmmm, gender, which they can now define themselves, can have totally different blessings or discriminants given by the state? And, if we can find some way to measure the content of their character, it’s OK to treat them differently? That’s what MLK said.]

    Now, they would like us to have the results of this equality of opportunity to produce people who are equal in some “outcome”…. I guess this means in total income? Or business success. Or could it be wealth? Or attractiveness? Or athletic ability? Or story-telling prowess? Or Darwin’s number of surviving of fittest children criterion?

    So, the effort that a state-subsidized Harvard puts into an autistic kid should be equal to that effort put into a young Robert Oppenheimer?

    And they should keep putting effort into the autistic kid and the short basketball player, year after year, until some equality with Oppenheimer emerges?

    Both ideas: “equality of opportunity” and “equal outcomes” are not rational. But, at least when pragmatic, real-world cases come up, it is possible to try to treat all people under the law with equal opportunity for awhile. So, this idea wins in a crude rough way.

  34. “Not necessarily. There will be pushback.
    When and what form it will take is not clear, but it will happen.”

    Which is why they will be coming for all the guns. But that could be the tripwire that sets off widespread defiance.

  35. BTW Neo, you should start using links to Barnes and Noble or Better World Books rather than Amazon, unless of course you have a financial arrangement with Amazon, which is fine with me since I’m an unrepentant capitalist. But if you’re not making money off of them…

    this is not a criticism only a suggestion…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑