Is social justice really a serious problem in the country?

November 28, 2023

Social justice is an old concept that has become a hot topic lately.

The Britannica website offers this description: “Social justice, in contemporary politics, social science, and political philosophy, the fair treatment and equitable status of all individuals and social groups within a state or society. The term also is used to refer to social, political, and economic institutions, laws, or policies that collectively afford such fairness and equity and is commonly applied to movements that seek fairness, equity, inclusion, self-determination, or other goals for currently or historically oppressed, exploited, or marginalized populations.”

Human Rights Careers online offers the following: “The connection between social justice and human rights has strengthened over the years to the point where many use ‘social justice’ and ‘human rights’ interchangeably.”

And, from Wikipedia: “Social justice is justice in relation to a fair balance in the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society where individuals' rights are recognized and protected.”

While the idea of social justice in America has involved everyone having an equal opportunity to make their own choices about their future, there is a faction that believes that certain groups have been discriminated against, and therefore deserve what the Wikipedia description says: equal distribution of things, not equal opportunity to pursue things.

Yes, discrimination does exist. But is it really a major problem?

A new book analyzes the “social injustice” that many people claim to be rampant in America. Titled “Social Justice Fallacies,” the author is Dr. Thomas Sowell, a Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and a brilliant thinker. 

Comments on the cover of the book say that “The quest for social justice is a powerful crusade of our time, with an appeal to many different people, for many different reasons.”

“’Social Justice Fallacies’ reveals how many things that are thought to be true simply cannot stand up to documented facts, which are often the opposite of what is widely believed.”

“History shows that the social justice agenda has often led in the opposite direction, sometimes with catastrophic consequences.”

Those errors were the result of human fallibility, due to the fervor of the crusader mindset, which often is so strong in its followers that they make serious mistakes in their efforts to correct a problem, including ignoring contrary evidence.

In the book Sowell details the problems with this error-ridden theory.

Addressing the idea that everyone should get the same opportunities, or the same amounts of all things, he notes that people with different backgrounds do not necessarily even have a desire for the same things, and certainly do not want to do whatever may be necessary to achieve them. This may perhaps be the case even if those things are given to them.

An example he cites is that some social justice warriors blame sexual discrimination for the fact that women are statistically under-represented among Silicon Valley employees. But a step further into the data shows that the work done in these companies requires engineering skills, and women receive less than 30 percent of the needed engineering degrees. Why? Because they do not choose to study engineering. 

People are not all the same. There are natural and lifestyle differences that play a part in a person’s capabilities and desires. Geographic areas encourage different lifestyles and behavior. Living in Florida is not like living in Alaska, or Iowa, or West Virginia. Growing up in farm country is different than growing up in a big city.

A person’s family and the family’s experiences most often play a major part in how children develop, and how they pursue life.

Sowell wrote that “children raised where there is only one parent present have been found in a number of studies to have a higher incidence of many social problems.” Boys without fathers have a higher incidence of things like truancy and murder. Girls raised by one parent have a higher incidence of teenage pregnancy. 

So, the question of why Billy made the football team and Joe didn’t; why Mary was the valedictorian and Freda wasn’t; or why Jane got the promotion to sales manager over Frank, probably was not the result of discrimination. There are many factors that may be involved in most outcomes other than race, ethnicity or gender.

In seeking persons to fill advanced medical research positions, Sowell posits, do we want equal numbers from all population groups, and hope for the best? Or will we make sure that we get those from whatever backgrounds who have demonstrated a mastery of medical science?

He wrote, “But neither society nor government comprehends or controls all the many and highly varied circumstances — including a large element of luck — that can influence the fate of individual classes or nations.”

And, “Circumstances beyond our control are major factors in economic and other inequalities. Trying to understand causalities is not necessarily the same as looking for someone to blame.”

Is the alleged “white supremacy” real and the result of racial discrimination? Is it because white people make up 59 percent of the population? Or, is it a false flag promoted for some political purpose?

Sowell shows us that social justice is another politically correct concept that causes more problems than it solves.

Political correctness and such could well be the death of us

February 28, 2023

Colleges and universities are referred to as “higher education.” It is where many people go after they have finished high school to learn about the career they want to pursue. That is the idea, or at least, that was the original idea.

Long ago colleges and universities started sports teams as an activity for those who wanted to play on them, and for students who wanted to watch the games. Those who played on the teams were students first, and athletes second.

Over the last several decades athletics have taken on much greater importance for the institutions, athletes, and audiences. A vast number of Americans in and out of college rank college sports as one of their main interests. 

Colleges and coaches rake in huge amounts of money, and the people that make it possible for them to earn the big bucks get a free or reduced-cost education. 

This heavy influence from the sporting world has so far not affected the role that higher education is supposed to play nearly as much as the encroachment of indoctrination into the curricula.

But things are changing. As of July, 2021, “college athletes can profit from their name, image or likeness (NIL) under National Collegiate Athletic Association rules,” The Wall Street Journal reported. “It’s a new era for the sprawling, multibillion-dollar college sports industry, and in these early days it’s a messy one.” 

Looking at the current college athletics situation, The Hill offered the following: “In addition to debt-free college, which is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, student-athletes receive coaching and counseling that pays off throughout life,” the article said. 

“The economics literature recognizes that even a year of college has measurable benefits. Student-athletes learn the valuable life skills of discipline and teamwork,” The Hill article continued. “They learn to cooperate with people of diverse backgrounds. These activities shape character, with lifetime consequences. In addition, college athletics is a platform connecting students, academics, alums and fans more generally.”

Now there is talk of college athletes being paid outright, as if they have a job. But if you are paid to play a sport, aren’t you a professional athlete? 

Higher education has many problems: politics in the learning environment; very high and rising tuition rates; and also, recently focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

What exactly is DEI? The InclusionHub defines these terms:

Diversity: Acknowledges all the ways people differ: race, sex, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, religious beliefs, and more.

Inclusion: Is about diversity in practice. It’s the act of welcoming, supporting, respecting, and valuing all individuals and groups.

Equity: Is often used interchangeably with equality, but there’s a core difference: Where equality is a system in which each individual is offered the same opportunities regardless of circumstance, equity distributes resources based on needs. We live in a disproportionate society, and equity tries to correct its imbalance by creating more opportunities for people.

The InclusionHub also mentions Belonging and Justice.

Belonging: Infers that an equitable structure is in place and functioning to make all people, no matter their differences, feel welcome. When you reach for equity, you’re striving for a system that benefits everyone, no matter their circumstance. Belonging is when this not only works, but no one feels as if their inclusion is questioned.

Justice: Is the mission of equity, in which an equitable system works so well it eventually eliminates the systemic problems driving the need for the latter. In other words, everything is fairly and evenly distributed to people no matter their race, gender, physical ability, or other personal circumstances.

But how will DEI work as the method for forming teams? If this concept is put into effect in sports at any level, no longer will the 11 best football players, 9 best baseball players, 5 best basketball players, etc., necessarily be who is on the first team. All teams will be formed using the rules of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, balanced by Belonging and Justice.

America has experienced great success because of the idea of being the best you can be, and that the best student, athlete, company, military, or whatever wins. The best earned the prize, which is why they got the prize. They didn’t get the prize because it’s fair and right that everyone gets the same reward, despite how good or bad they are at whatever is being rewarded.

The term that should once again and forever be the focus is: merit! You get the prize because you earned the prize. Not because you entered the contest. You are the valedictorian because you had the highest GPA, not because everyone in the senior class should be valedictorian.

By focusing on everybody getting the same reward, regardless of their ability, there is no longer any reason to try to be better, to be the best you can be.

How long will the United States remain a free country before it is taken over by another country that is determined to rule the world, and focuses on that, rather than DEI?

DEI might not spell doom in small, limited circumstances. But it is the death knell if used throughout an entire country.

Two examples of how higher education is failing the country

Today, higher education has serious problems. Between political correctness, wokeness, equity and diversity issues, there are now many problems in classrooms and administrative offices.

Professors, who are the source of many of the classroom problems, are sometimes on the receiving end of political correctness and wokeness mania. 

One such example involves veteran University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) law professor Jason Kilborn.

Just before the first class on the first day of the spring semester this year, UIC’s administration abruptly suspended Kilborn from teaching. He said the administration would not explain what the basis for the indefinite suspension was when he asked.

“This hits you like a ton of bricks,” he said. “It was totally unexpected. You’re totally isolated.”

When he finally learned the reason behind this extreme administrative action, Kilborn learned that UIC had violated his rights to academic freedom. 

On an exam the preceding semester he had posed a hypothetical matter to which the law students were to respond. That issue set off alarms among some hypersensitive members of a student organization. Without discussing their concerns with their teacher, they complained to the law school dean, the University administration, and the media, calling his use of certain language “inexcusable.”

Just what momentous transgression had Kilborn committed? He had employed a long-used hypothetical issue in the law school exam that contained two redacted slurs. The question about employment discrimination included a female plaintiff being called “a ‘n____’ and ‘b____’” as explosive evidence of the discrimination. But even redacting the terms didn’t save Kilborn from being targeted by his university.

“Undergrad teaches students to think, but law schools, medical schools — they have to teach students how to do,” Kilborn said. As someone who has taught law for 21 years, he understands that concept, and had structured his curriculum to accomplish that goal.

Explaining his technique, he said, “In virtually every one of my law classes, I try to put that scalpel in my students’ hands and ask them: What do you do?”  “These hypotheticals,” he explained, “really force students, future lawyers, to be confronted with the messy reality they’ll be faced with in the outside world.”

Kilborn was eventually reinstated through action by FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), but this occurrence paints a very clear picture of some of what has driven higher education at many institutions in our country from being a valuable asset, to being a politically-driven wasteland.

This is not the only case where a professor has been targeted for controversial expression. FIRE research into the rise in collegiate scholars punished for their constitutionally protected speech reveals that fully 74 percent of targeting incidents are successful. What that means is that the target professor ends up with some type of punishment, such as investigations or suspension. And FIRE noted that one in four targeted scholars lose their job.

Working hard to not upset students while trying to help them learn how to deal with the real world they are preparing to enter has become, in far too many cases, more important than the actual process of preparing them to survive and prosper after college.

Another professor trying to cope with this new upside-down campus environment was not suspended. Instead, he decided he had had enough.

Professor Peter Boghossian had taught philosophy at Portland State University for the last decade. He quit his teaching post, submitting his letter of resignation to the school’s provost, and also publishing that letter.

His problems began, he explained, because he started asking critical questions. “Unlike my colleagues, I asked these questions out loud and in public.” The more he spoke out, the more push-back he got. So, he began publishing articles with two other people demonstrating how critical thinking had gradually faded from importance at Portland.

These articles resulted in him being attacked and verbally harassed by both students and faculty. This harassment included being spit on, and being threatened as he walked to and from classes.

When he went to Portland, he believed he was joining a group of professional people that were committed to growing critical thinkers, not machines. He believed his job was not to tell students what to think, but to teach them how to think, he said. But Portland no longer pursues its original mission.

In his letter to the university’s provost, Boghossian, explained, “But brick by brick, the university has made this kind of intellectual exploration impossible. It has transformed a bastion of free inquiry into a Social Justice factory whose only inputs were race, gender, and victimhood and whose only outputs were grievance and division.”

He continued, “Rather, I sought to create the conditions for rigorous thought; to help them gain the tools to hunt and furrow for their own conclusions” based on rigorous research, critical thinking and listening to diverse voices.

The education and degrees so many have sought and benefitted from for so long have, in many institutions, become little more than a certification of successful adopting of a political attitude that challenges America’s fundamental principles.

Helping young adults grow intellectually and gain needed skills isn’t their goal. Turning America into another socialist failure is their goal. And the movement is expanding.

Shakespeare was right: The past is prologue. We must pay attention.

Many of you will remember Richard (Dick) Lamm as a former Governor of Colorado. He ran for, but did not win, the Reform Party’s presidential nomination in 1996. Back in 2003, Lamm attended and spoke to an overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of America's finest minds and leaders.

Among the other speakers was scholar and historian Victor Davis Hanson, who talked about a book he had written titled Mexifornia, addressing immigration, both legal and illegal.

Following Hanson’s address, Lamm gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"

First, to destroy America, he said, "Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.”

Second, to destroy America, "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences.”

Third, "We could make the United States a 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity.”

"I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50 percent dropout rate from high school."

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and businesses to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.'”

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other — that is, when they are not killing each other.” He said. 

“A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity! Unity is what it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games.”

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits — make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century — that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'x! xenophobes' halt discussion and debate."

"Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

There was no applause. The audience sat in stunned silence. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm had said was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States right then.

As stunned as the audience was in 2003, should we not be more stunned today?

FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) reported that in 2019 there were 14.3 million illegal aliens — the politically correct term for which is “undocumented immigrants” — in the U.S. That is the number of “known” illegals, and it is rising daily. Are these millions all assimilating by learning to speak English and adopting American values?

Has not the focus on diversity taken a big jump, even in the military, where such distractions are a true threat to our national security? Is America not more divided than it has been for many decades?

Are there not far more “racists” in the country day-by-day, as we are told? And victimhood is at an all-time high, as small sub-groups now spurn long-accepted standards and clamor for attention and acceptance?

Have we not noticed our educational standing among nations having dropped over the last several years? The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development rated the U.S. the sixth best education system behind Canada, Japan, Israel, Korea and the United Kingdom.

Do we not see the danger of the anti-testing movement and lowering or eliminating some standards for high school graduation? Oregon has eliminated reading, writing and math requirements to “help” certain student groups?

In a recent poll by Politico’s “Morning Consult,” 61 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. Like George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, Lamm’s speech was prescient.

Some things we do are weird, wrong, foolish, or just plain dumb

America rose to world prominence because of its unique constitutional structure and allegiance to personal freedom. Over recent decades we have watched as those traditional values that evolved out of that unique national structure have gradually been pushed aside. Over the last ten or so years, that devolution has had its accelerator pedal pushed to the floor.

Where once the goal was for everyone to – as the U.S. Army still says – “Be all you can be,” the value of being really good at something is being replaced with the attitude that every time someone wins at something, like a race or being valedictorian of their class, everyone else is a loser, and by golly here in America, that just ain’t fair. That has morphed into the attitude that every social group – based on gender, race, etc. – must be equally represented in every conceivable area of life.

This “identity politics” has already essentially taken over the humanities and social sciences at the college level, says Heather Mac Donald, Manhattan Institute senior fellow. She now says that identity politics waits in the wings, plotting a similar movement in the STEM fields: science, technology, engineering, and math.

For the identity politicians, it is less important that your doctor, lab researcher, building engineer, IT specialist, etc., is highly qualified and truly capable than if his or her sub-group is properly represented within the given field.

Following this line of reasoning to its illogical conclusion, professional sports are in for dramatic identity improvement.

Currently, the racial breakdown percentages of three major sports are: Major League Baseball: white – 60; Hispanic – 29; black – 8; Asian – 3. The National Football League: black – 66; white – 29; Asian – 2; Hispanic – 1. The National Basketball Association: black - 76; white – 20; Hispanic – 3; Asian – 1.

This racial imbalance where such disparity exists – especially for Asians – must not be allowed to stand. This discrimination is un-American.

But this mania is not about athletic diversity imbalance alone; it is about virtually every area of life, soon to include science, technology, engineering and mathematics. So, when you consult the surgeon who is going to remove a small tumor lodged deep in your brain, how well he or she did in medical classes now is less important than his/her race or gender or other irrelevant factor.

At the rate things are changing in our country, before much longer it may be the case that when you need someone to fill some need, like a doctor, that person will no longer be chosen by you, but will be selected for you based not upon your preference or someone’s capabilities, but upon some identity data the goal of which is to make sure all participants receive the same amount of work.

How many of us truly believe this is beneficial?

Then, there’s the case of Paul Manafort, who worked as then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign chairman for about seven weeks in 2016. He was targeted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation seeking to find if there was wrongdoing by those in the campaign. Manafort was reported to be cooperating with the investigation.

Early one morning before daylight, and before Manafort’s family had awakened, the FBI conducted an armed raid and broke into his home, no doubt a frightening event for the Manaforts, and seized personal materials.

What was Manafort suspected of having done justifying such a potentially dangerous event?  When people break into a home, someone often gets shot. If the police break in, they could be shot as well as the occupants, who merely defended themselves.

This raid seems an unnecessary activity by law enforcement, breaking into the home of a cooperative witness who likely would have willingly provided the materials they sought, if only they had the courtesy to ask for them. What was so important about Manafort’s involvement in the campaign that warranted a SWAT-type attack on his home?

The answer: Nothing. Manafort has not been accused of any wrongdoing during the campaign, but was indicted for a crime he allegedly committed several years before, unrelated to the campaign. He has been awaiting trial on house arrest.

And now, Manafort has been charged with witness tampering, reportedly after a 90-second phone call with a prospective witness. Mueller petitioned a federal judge to revoke Manafort’s bail posted for the earlier charges, which the judge did, ordering him to jail.

So Manafort, who has not been charged for any supposed wrongdoing in the campaign, has now been ordered to jail, not for being found guilty of any crimes or confessing to a crime, but is now in jail after merely being charged with a new crime.

In America, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Not anymore, at least if you are Paul Manafort. Onboard a fishing boat as eccentric as the special counsel’s vessel, scalps are a big deal; any scalps. A scalp is a scalp, after all.

Political interests now often take precedence over everything else. And our social and cultural stability are weaker today than at any previous time in decades, and perhaps in our history. The country is indeed at a crisis point.