Equal opportunity in modern political thought is like the taste of food: universally endorsed, with no dissent. However, taking it seriously could lead to the most extreme form of totalitarianism, as achieving equal opportunity would require eradicating all differences arising from genetic endowments and environmental influences. This could entail cloning embryos and establishing baby farms to ensure equal opportunities.
In most countries, including the United States, people now live under bureaucratic dictatorial rule. Dissolving and banning Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) departments within federal institutions is a welcome step towards reducing bureaucratic dictatorship. While some bureaucracy is necessary and commendable, it should not become an excuse for bureaucratic opportunists to expand their influence and power endlessly.
Fundamentally, the entire DEI movement is a sinister endeavor. It presupposes that those who have undergone long-term education ultimately enter the workforce, having spent at least a quarter of their lives in education. Yet, upon completion, they may lack concrete skills or knowledge systems, despite having rich intellectual insights. Such individuals, as Caesar said of Cassius, are dangerous: if they cannot be employed in positions set up by those who claim to be educated, they will appear out of place in society.
Furthermore, the DEI movement shows extreme distrust towards the common people. It assumes that if left to their own devices, individuals will always exhibit the worst prejudices and behaviors, even in the absence of legal barriers to societal progress, such as in the United States, at least two generations ago.
The DEI movement overlooks a glaring fact – within a relatively open society, a community can prosper without government assistance. Even groups facing societal prejudices can thrive in such conditions, albeit increasing or diminishing those prejudices. People do not always rejoice in others’ success.
In the United States and other Western countries, newcomers of Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and Jewish descent quickly attain higher levels of prosperity than other populations. Their prosperity is reflected not only economically but also culturally. While these groups have faced significant biases at times, the elimination of official barriers has enabled their success. Their achievements are self-made, as society allows them to thrive.
However, politicians and bureaucrats fear spontaneity, viewing it as a threat to their privileges. The desire for control among politicians and bureaucrats is nearly Leninist. They believe that without their wise guidance or planning, nothing good can occur in society, under the shallow pretext that their intentions are noble.
There is an assumption that all variations among groups in an open society must be attributed to their treatment, regardless of their ideologies or behaviors. Correcting people’s treatment brings endless work since differences will always exist.
Additionally, countless methods exist to divide or classify individuals into different groups. Ensuring equal outcomes is an eternal task. The novelist L.P. Hartley, renowned for “The Go-Between” (1953), recognized and satirized attempts to eliminate prejudices under the guise of equality in his novel “Facial Justice” (1960). The story depicted a Facial Justice Department trying to standardize all faces to an average appearance through mandatory cosmetic surgeries. This was in 1960, a time when the term “racial justice” was avoided due to associations with the Nazis.
While addressing formal or legal barriers is essential, trying to cultivate completely bias-free thinking through coercive means is doomed to fail. Such efforts may lead to moral degradation and resentments, diverting people’s focus to what they cannot do rather than what they can. Many individuals prefer escaping personal responsibility, viewing it as a burden rather than a source of happiness.
The promised political Utopia by the DEI movement is unattainable and can induce harmful fatalism. While not all fatalistic attitudes are detrimental, accepting life’s imperfections can alleviate the pain caused by its existence. Embracing one’s fate can reduce or eliminate suffering, whereas resenting fate can lead to a mixture of dishonest anger and self-destruction in thoughts.
In the long run, resisting the DEI movement can benefit people’s welfare, provided that it does not resurface in retaliation over time.
—
This is based on the translation of the news article provided.