My previous post presented the social doctrine of equalism – as distinct from feminism or masculinism. Equalism asserts that all individuals should be treated the same, regardless of their gender or race. However, even this seemingly simple proposition comes in two different flavours. We, as a society, can either strive to provide all with equal opportunities or try to engineer equal results.
The equal opportunities approach (which I personally favour) is very simple to define. All citizens should have equal status when they compete for the social or economic spoils managed by the state. No discrimination or favouritism based on gender or creed is acceptable when assessing one’s suitability for any public position, social function or state contract. All decisions regarding the employment of public servants or allocating social privileges should be made based purely on the suitability of the applicants on the day they apply.
Some would extend the equal opportunities approach to all economic and social activities, not just the state sector. I personally believe that citizens should be able to hire whoever they want and trade with whomever they prefer. Any favouritism based on a racial or gender prejudice leads to economic inefficiencies and will be eliminated by the free market. A company employing say only dark-haired people will miss out on the talent pool of the blondes and will be squeezed out by firms which hire whoever is best for the job.
The equal opportunity approach is delightfully simple, easy to implement and largely self-regulating. The only oversight needed is making sure that the decisions made by the state servants are based purely on the quality of the applicants and not their race or gender. If we end up with 80% of Indians at the medical faculties or 80% of males in the government there is no issue, as long as all other applicants were considered without prejudice and the positions were awarded to the most suitable candidates.
But if something is logical and simple it will never appeal to the Left who prefer tortured solutions. This is why the concept of equal results was invented – to create jobs for otherwise useless graduates of the social sciences and gender studies departments. So, according to the social fiddlers, rather than treating all applicants the same we should tailor the state policies to achieve a required social outcome. For example the objective may be to ensure that 40% of doctors are Black or Hispanic, or that 40% of the government positions are filled by women. To achieve the desired outcome better qualified candidates will be turned down in favour of inferior applicants of the preferred ethnicity or gender. That some Indians will miss out on their dream careers just because of the colour of their skin worries no one because it will happen in the name of social justice.
But how do we work out the ideal ratio of Blacks and Hispanics among the doctors? The trick is we do not need to – the lefty social engineers will do it for us! Having considered the underlying factors like ethnicity, gender and socio-economic background of the applicants they will come up with the formula quantifying the degree of favouritism they deserve when applying for jobs or places at universities courses.
This process is so open to abuse by social activists that I prefer a more transparent equal opportunities approach. This may not be very trendy but what did you expect from someone who also believes that violence towards men is just as abhorrent as violence against women?