I do not believe in perfect equality. I agree with those who contend that the U.S. was founded on a commitment to equality of opportunity rather than equality of results. Indeed, for opportunity to be meaningful, one would expect to see some inequality of results. Natural endowments are never distributed equally, but whether a society permits its members to do the most with them is the test of its social character, and for a democracy, a test of its legitimacy.
When did you ever think such words would be put into print by a dean at a major university?
Well, the above is an excerpt from an op-ed published in today’s Daily Sun by Cornell’s College of Arts and Sciences Dean Gretchen Ritter ’83 entitled “Democracy & Inequality.”
The title is in reference to an academic panel moderated by President Elizabeth Garret to be held on Friday at 3:00 pm in Bailey Hall that will include Profs. Robert Frank, management and economics; Suzanne Mettler, government; Eswar Prasad, applied economics and management; Nick Salvatore, industrial and labor relations; and Gerald Torres, law.
Ritter’s paragraph so accurately describes the true nature of American equality that is deserves no added explanation, and it was truly refreshing to read because it dared to put into everlasting print ideas that are increasingly controversial and almost disallowed on college campuses as liberal as Cornell’s.
Indeed, to argue that inequality of result is a natural and healthy aspect of a democratic society built on free enterprise is sacrilegious to those who believe in the redistribution of wealth, ability, and opportunity—so long as they are the ones redistributing that which belongs to others, not their own. Yet, redistribution does not foster growth, it reduces the incentives to strive for it. Redistribution does not reinforce rule of law, it replaces it with tribal justice. Redistribution doesn’t inspire great minds, it squashes them.
Despite this, to argue that people and government ought to focus on providing equality of opportunity above equality of outcome is often equated with racism, sexism, and some sort of “privilege”. However, Ritter herself points to Sonia Sotomayor, Ben Carson, Ruth Simmons, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Colin Powell, Viola Davis and Howard Schultz as examples of first-generation success stories whose names we would never have known for not the equality of opportunity this country strives to offer all of its citizens.
When people are given free reign over their lives to improve their economic, social, and spiritual statuses in the way they best see fit free from excessive government interference, the best and most optimal outcomes arise. Social planners and bureaucratic do-gooders cannot be entrusted with the fates and destinies of hundreds of millions of citizens, and it only makes logical and moral sense that the decision-making, to the greatest extent possible, be left in charge of the individual.
Imagine two men at the bottom of two separate deep wells. Both happen to have ladders, but one man’s ladder is shorter than the other’s. We do not know why–perhaps he was given or born with a shorter ladder, perhaps he didn’t work as hard to build a taller one. The taller ladder will allow that man to escape his well, but the other’s is too short. Introduce the redistributor—perhaps a middle-level bureaucrat with no attachment to either men but armed with a mandate. He orders that the taller ladder be sawed down to equal height as the shorter, with a portion of the excess given to the shorter ladder and a portion kept for himself. Now neither ladder is tall enough, and the only one better off is the redistributor, who conveniently remains outside the wells.
Easily, the man with taller ladder could have quickly climbed out and either given his ladder to the other man or helped him build his ladder taller. The injustice, to the redistributor’s mind, is that one man exited the well first.
I am unaware of Dean Ritter’s personal politics, nor do I wish to know. What I do know is that her op-ed was refreshing and reassuring, and one which I wish all Cornell deans—those who manage the colleges where we all strive to improve our economic and social opportunities—share similar sentiments.
Highly amusing to me that your ladder example is actually an instance of inequality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Which side were you on, again?
Perhaps you should read the example again, or update your understanding of equality of opportunity.
Clearly, the two men begin equally–in the hole–and either through hard work or good fortune one obtains a taller ladder. He escapes his hole first and helps the other leave his.
Alternatively, in the world of equality of outcome, both men would be left in the hole because the man whose ladder is tall enough to leave will have his partially cut to give some to the other, leaving each with ladders not tall enough to escape.
Only if your invented world has the tools for ladder-making available in random holes, which seems ridiculous. The two men begin unequal (one has a large ladder, and one does not) and end up with the same outcome (they both make it out of the hole). On the other hand, we could give them equal opportunity by cutting one ladder to give some to the other, leaving each with ladders not tall enough to escape.