Nearly four weeks ago, I finished Heather MacDonald’s latest book, When Race Trumps Merit (which I cannot recommend highly enough), and I have spent this post completion period in reflection of how Critical Theory is poised to destroy every system and institution in America – if we allow it to do so.
In an earlier post on Unlicensed Punditry, I wrote about how Critical Theory and its progeny have permeated every stratum of our society and culture. It is hard to argue that it hasn’t.
That the Supreme Court’s decision in the Harvard/UNC case is a seminal ruling there is no doubt, but in my mind, it was more like the first shot fired at Lexington and Concord – it is just a beginning, and the real fight is coming to us in ways we have yet to conceive. Since two of their prime tenets are the hatred of the Constitution and the drive to find any workaround possible to circumvent it, the racialists in the American left won’t stop because they can’t stop - because if they do, their raison d'être is eliminated.
This ruling by SCOTUS will be no different. President Brandon has already rambled about how “the fight is not over.”
I have noted that there are three a priori assertions, treated as proven fact, that are at the root of every push for Critical Theory (including Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, etc.). They are:
There can only be one real cause of the issue - the favorite these days is racism - that explains everything, and we already know that to be true before we even examine anything.
Everyone subjected to the issue is equal in every way - nobody is smarter, more talented, more prepared, more educated, or better suited to the task at hand than the others and all are equally available in the population. This supports a priori Assertion #1.
Performance is irrelevant because everyone can perform equally, regardless of historical measures or experiences. This supports a priori Assertion #1.
Every single one of these assumptions is patently and provably false and exhibits a form of circular reasoning – and on top of that, these are unproven theories, as indicated in their titles.
Of course, a false premise is a significant problem, but false premises never stopped determined people from acting on them, so let’s look beyond the falsities at the root of this sociopolitical movement du jour and focus on the proposed remedies and their potential outcomes.
Perhaps the most talked about “remedy” for the issues tackled by the various critical theories has been reparations, some form of monetary recompense, landed solutions (the granting of real estate or other property), or opportunity-based offers (free education, etc.).
The idea of reparations is somewhat traditional, it has been done as part of war resolution and it is common in British based law that damaged parties should be compensated as part of the quest for justice, so not totally ridiculous in that sense; however, for something like slavery, an institution ended by a bloody civil war over a century and a half ago, it is ridiculous. Defining the truly harmed parties, calculating the amount and type of reparation, assessing the value of aid given in the interim, and then executing a payout that would demand people whose ancestors had no connection to the slave trade at all must bear the financial burden of payment is unfair and impossible.
Beyond the call for some sort of physical payments or grants, there is another aspect of the reparations strategy that is quite destructive. Emerging over the past couple of years is the idea that of any reparations/affirmative action “remedy” would include the promise of sinecures and stations in society that would be granted absence any evidence of merit or the necessity of being earned.
In medicine and medical research, in the training for highly skilled careers (like airline pilots), in academic research in mathematics, the physical sciences and engineering, even in the arts, crafting a “diversity plan” is now a basic requirement of filing a grant application.
Blind auditions for classical musicians were once held as part of the selection process. The artist performed behind a curtain in anonymity to prevent any bias by the selection committee. Because DEI initiatives have infiltrated even classical music (most of which is alleged to be a product of white supremacy) can no longer do blind auditions because evidence the performer is from an “underrepresented” group must be known and considered as part of the process.
Such a process, at least in the aggregate, would seem to guarantee less skilled doctors, pilots, physicists, engineers, and musicians – and simple common sense indicates one would prefer the best of the best in all these roles, especially when lives are on the line.
Of all the ideas of the reparations movement, the destruction of merit is inarguably the most dangerous.
To assign status based on race alone is the ultimate destruction of merit and meritocracy, but it is happening. We are seeing this now in some of our most critical institutions and careers as we are told we must accept less than the best in the name of the three-headed monster of Diversity, Inclusivity, and Equity (ordered that way because DIE is a more appropriate acronym).
The greatest fallacy in America today is that meritocracy does not exist. Much to the American left’s chagrin, it does exist AND it imparts inherently quantifiable and measurable benefits to society.
Simply granting people stations they are unprepared to assume and execute as a payment for alleged harm that occurred at some point in the distant past will diminish every member or society, including those elevated to positions they did not earn.