How is it possible that equity, a doctrine telling government and the private sector to treat Americans differently based on their race, is so prevalent in the Land of the Free.
One reason is that it is deliberately obscured. Kamala Harris is a good reminder every so often.
The Veep displayed her inerrant tin ears and poor timing to claim that aid would be distributed based on race, despite the destruction caused by Hurricane Ian. Florida officials had no choice but to deny that this was true, lest the already terrible conditions get worsened by confusion.
Harris did not leave much room for misunderstanding. saying on Friday that, “It is our lowest-income communities and our communities of color that are most impacted by these extreme conditions and impacted by issues that are not of their own making. And so we have to address this in a way that is about giving resources based on equity, understanding that we fight for equality, but we also need to fight for equity, understanding not everyone starts out at the same place.”
She added, “And if we want people to be in an equal place, sometimes we have to take into account those disparities and do that work.”
“This is false,” tweetedThe Gov.’s rapid response director was immediately appointed. Ron DeSantis’s reelection campaign, Christina Pushaw, referring to the idea that race would play a role on how aid was handed out. “[Harris’]The rhetoric is causing panic and must be clarified. FEMA Individual Assistance is already available to all Floridians impacted by Hurricane Ian, regardless of race or background.”
Florida’s senior senator, Rick Scott, also took to social media to clear the air. “This is wrong and dangerous. Aid is distributed according the need. FL is strong, and ready to embark on the long journey towards rebuilding. We are in this together, and won’t let politicians like @KamalaHarrisAs we seek to rebuild our lives and communities, we shouldn’t allow race to divide us. Even Elon Musk felt the need to call out the injustice included,” tweeted Scott.
Indeed, Tesla’s founder had his own comment. said, “should be according to greatest need, not race or anything else.”
The Biden administration, however, has made race-conscious benefit the hallmark of its term. This is despite it being unconstitutional. Harris made a sharp distinction between equity, and the American ideals for equality last week. “There is a big difference between equality and equity,” she wroteIt was less than two years ago.
Critical Race Theory believes that because of racial disparities, aid and benefits should always be based on race and not be restricted to means-tested criteria. The foundational writings of CRT are filled with the promotion of racial-conscious policies that fall under the umbrella label of “equity.”
“This belief in color-blindness and equal protection,” writes Kimberle Crenshaw in a 1988 essay, “…make no sense at all in a society in which identifiable groups have been treated differently historically and which the effects of this difference in treatment continued to the present.”
Neil Gotanda takes the CRT argument to its heart when he writes in 1991, “Color-blindness strikes down Jim Crow segregation but offers no vision for attacking less overt forms of racial subordination. The color-blind idea of the future society has been exhausted.”
Harris, like many CRT enthusiasts, is concerned that the United States has abandoned the practice of having government or private businesses give benefits or rights to race-based individuals. Race-conscious policies are dismally unpopularWith racial preferences university admissions polling at 26% versus 74% for and other similar policies largely rejected,
Another problem is that policies based upon race are clearly immoral, and violate the Constitution as well as the Civil Rights Act.
Yet, businesses, schools and professional organizations are falling over themselves to force their members and employees into this unpopular view. This could include forcing them to sign Diversity and Equity and Inclusion statements or facing disciplinary action or worse.
Americans are fighting back. Jonathan Haidt, a liberal and professor at New York University, was last week. announced he would resign from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the only professional organization he belongs to, because it has instituted a requirement that everyone presenting research explain how their work advances “equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals.”
Haidt wrote that he found it difficult to find truth in an academic institution that was supposed to be dedicated seeking truth. He quoted a well known passage from a book by Ibram Kendi, who earns a great deal of money from training Americans on equity activities: “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. Present discrimination is the only way to end past discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
Haidt wrote, “I explained why I thought the claim was incorrect from a social science perspective because there are obviously many other remedies. I also explained why the claim was morally incorrect. It requires that we treat people as members of groups and not as individuals. Then, we must treat people well or poorly based on their group affiliation. That’s exactly the opposite of what most of us who grew up in the late 20th century thought was a settled moral fact.”
It takes courage for Americans to buck the tide of DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), but they shouldn’t be alone. The 50 states should pass bills that make it clear that discrimination and forcing belief on discrimination are illegal until the federal government has other powers.
We can always rely on Harris to remind and remind us of equity from time to time, and why it should be opposed.
Are you a fan of this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Please include the article’s URL, headline, and your name.e.
