la Harris Still Believes in the Doctrine Of Unequal Treatment
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 the deliberate obfuscation its meaning. Kamala Harris reminds us every now and again what it really is.
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. Officials from Florida had to rush to deny this was true to avoid confusion.
Harris made no attempt to mislead, stating on Friday , “It’s our lowest-income communities, and our communities of color, that are most affected by these extreme conditions, and impacted from issues that aren’t their own making.” This is why we need to address it in a way that is based on equity. We must understand that equality is fought for, but also that equity requires us to fight for equity and recognize that not everyone starts at the same place.
She said, “And if people want to be in an equally place, sometimes we must take into consideration those disparities and do that kind of work.”
tweeted immediately to the rapid response director for Governor. Christina Pushaw, Ron DeSantis’s reelection candidate, said that the idea that race would affect how aid was distributed was referred to by Christina Pushaw. “Harris’] rhetoric causes undue panic and should be clarified. All Floridians affected by Hurricane Ian are eligible for FEMA Individual Assistance, regardless of their race or background.
Rick Scott, Florida’s senior senator took to social media as well to clear the air. This is dangerous and wrong. Aid is distributed according to need, period. FL is strong and ready for the long journey of rebuilding. We are all in this together and will not allow politicians like @KamalaHarris to use race to divide us while we rebuild our lives and communities. Even Elon Musk felt the need for justice to be called out,” Tweet Scott.
Indeed, Tesla’s founder had his own comment. Aid, he stated, “should always be according to greatest needs, not race or any other.”
However, the Biden administration has made race-conscious benefits a hallmark of its term even though it is not constitutional. Harris made a sharp distinction last week between equity and the American ideals of equality. “There is a big distinction between equality and equity,” she wrote less than two years ago.
Critical Race Theory holds that aid and benefits should not be limited to means-tested criteria, but should be based on race. CRT’s foundational writings are filled with the promotion and support of racial-conscious policies falling under the umbrella of “equity.”
Kimberle Crenshaw, in a 1988 essay, writes that “this belief in colorblindness is equal protection” doesn’t make sense in a society where identifiable groups have been treated differently historically. These effects continue to the present.
Neil Gotanda gets right to the heart and soul of the CRT argument. He wrote in 1991 that “Colorblindness strikes down Jim Crow Segregation, but offers no vision of attacking less overt forms racial subordination.” The color-blind vision of the future society is dead.
Harris, a CRT enthusiast, has a problem. American society has largely abandoned the notion that government or private companies can give benefits or rights based upon race. Race-conscious policies are highly unpopular . The polling results for university admissions based on racial preferences show that 26% of respondents favor them, 74% against, and many other similar policies being rejected.
Another problem is that policies based upon race are clearly immoral, and violate the Constitution as well as the Civil Rights Act.
Yet, many businesses, schools, and professional associations are falling over themselves to force their members and employees to agree to these ugly and unpopular views. They may do this by, for example, forcing them to sign Diversity Equity and Inclusion statements or face disciplinary actions or worse.
Americans are responding. The American people are responding. Last week, Jonathan Haidt (a liberal professor at New York University) announced that he would resign as a member of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. This is the only professional organization to which he belongs. It has established a requirement that all research presented must explain how it advances “equity and inclusion” and anti-racism goals.
Haidt stated that he found the demands problematic at an academic institution that is supposed to be dedicated to finding truth. Haidt quoted Ibram Kendi’s book, “The only solution to racism is antiracist discrimination.” Present discrimination is the only way to end past discrimination. Future discrimination is the only way to end discrimination in the present.
Haidt wrote that he explained why he thought the claim was wrong from a social science perspective, as there are clearly many other remedies. I also explained why I believed the claim was wrong morally. It requires us to treat people in groups, not individuals, and then to judge how people are treated based on their group membership. This is exactly the opposite of what many of us who grew-up in the late 20th century believed was a settled moral truth.
It takes courage to stand up against the tide of DEI (diversity equity and inclusion). But they shouldn’t be the only ones. 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.
Do you have a comment about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Include the article’s URL or headline, as well as your name and state.
The post Kamala Harris Remains True To Doctrine of Unequal Treatment appeared originally on The Daily Signal.
