An explanation by James Lindsay that goes to the heart of the matter in less than three and one half minutes.
I add the following which is an excerpt from my Substack article, Critical Race Theory Attracts the Uncritical.
A key word in the CRT arsenal is 'equity.'
'Equity' sounds good and so people are thoughtlessly for it. It is like 'social justice' in this respect. They don't realize that leftists, semantic distortionists nonpareil, have hijacked a legitimate word so as to make it refer to equality of outcome. Being uncritical, people don't appreciate that there is an important difference between equality in its formal senses -- equality before the law, equality of opportunity, equality in respect of political/civil rights, etc. -- and equality of outcome or result. Formal equality is an attainable good. Material equality is unattainable because of group differences. To achieve material or non-formal equality, equality of outcome, the means employed would be worse than the supposed cure.
Given undeniable group differences, 'equity' does not naturally arise; hence the only way to achieve 'equity' is by unjustly taking from the productive and giving to the unproductive. The levelers would divest the makers of what is rightfully theirs to benefit the undeserving takers. 'Equity' is unjust! It is unjust to deny a super-smart Asian or Jew a place in an MIT engineering program because of a racial/ethnic quota. Judging candidates by merit and achievement, however, naturally leads to the disproportional representation of Asians and Jews in such programs. That is a consequence that must be accepted. Candidates must be judged as individuals and not as members of groups. Indeed, the superior black must take precedence over the inferior Asian or white, but not because he is black, but because he is superior.
Recent Comments