The Myth of Equality

By:  Selwyn Duke

Lady JusticeSeeking equality is a lot like seeking perfection — just without the perfection. In a speech recently, Al Sharpton emphasized that the left’s white whale, equality, still eludes us. Martin Luther King’s dream “was not to put one black family in the White House,” said he; “The dream was to make everything equal in everybody’s house.” Ah, the profundity. Now, it could be pointed out that your house will likely never measure up to Tawana Al’s, even if you do manage to mainline government hand-outs. Not everyone is a reverend without a congregation who possesses a collection plate the size of Louis Farrakhan’s “Mother Ship” flying saucer. As to this, it could also be pointed out that if “Big collection, No Parishioners” didn’t find new mountains of white sheets to climb, he’d be out of a “job” — in a quote-unquote manner of speaking.

Yet, for every Tawana Al, Jena Jesse and X-Files Farrakhan, there are millions of moderns who sincerely believe that equality is the greatest good, even if they can’t make millions peddling it. It’s one of those assumptions people just don’t question.

Regardless, I am firm in my conviction that the term “equality” should be reserved for mathematics. Don’t I believe in equality, you ask? Well, my first answer is “insufficient data.” What do you mean by “equality”? Is it that everyone should have equal rights? Is it that everyone should have equal opportunities? Is it that we should strive for equal outcomes? All of these propositions, and others, have been offered as definitions of equality.

The truth is that, like “education,” “progress” and “liberty,” “equality” has become a shape-shifting buzzword. Yet one thing is for certain: As the reproval of Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder, James Watson and Larry Summers demonstrated, today’s equality dogma states that we must view all groups as identically gifted in every worldly sense. And it is this belief that justifies many civilization-rending social schemes, from efforts to eliminate the male-female wage gap to racial quotas to Title IX dictates.

Of course, the thinking isn’t hard to understand. If groups were identically gifted in terms of worldly abilities, performance differences could be caused by only one factor, discrimination — either the direct variety or the kind leading to unequal opportunity. This justifies social engineering on steroids to eliminate this discrimination that just must exist. Embracing lies has consequences.  

When warning of these dangers, Russian defector Yuri Bezmenov once pointed out that you will find calls for equality in no great, time-tested work, be it the Bible or anything else. But not only is the principle ahistorical, it’s also un-American. Sure, the Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “all men are created equal . . .,” but they qualified it with “. . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . .” Since the founders descended from a class-oriented civilization (Europe) in which people often couldn’t break the shackles of caste and station regardless of their talents, they took pains to emphasize that everyone, from prince to pauper, was entitled to certain rights. They well knew, however, that individuals and groups had characteristic strengths and weaknesses. And they would have recoiled at the proposition that the power of the state should be used to achieve equal outcomes.

Since fallacious theories don’t work — and because the left operates based on that ever-changing master called emotion — Equality Dogma is courted by only unfaithful suitors. For example, it is contradicted by another object of the left’s lust, Diversity Doctrine. After all, we ever hear that “Our strength lies in our diversity,” but this can only be true if different groups bring things to the table others don’t, if they possess characteristic strengths others lack. The left has a way of getting around this contradiction, however: They simply say whatever feels right at the moment.

Yet there is a deeper factor here. Question: On what basis do you measure people’s worth? Well, if you accept the Judeo-Christian conception of God, you believe that every person is equally valuable — whether it’s Terry Shiavo lying helpless in a hospital bed or an undeveloped baby in the womb — because he is made in His image. You understand that, since holiness (doing God’s will) is the true measure of success, the celebrity, billionaire or genius may be found more wanting than a less serendipitous Forrest Gump.

But what if you perceive nothing beyond this fold that could supersede what lies within it? The things of this world then become the most important things in this world to you. This helps explain not only the atheistic left’s preoccupation with worldly abilities, worldly success and equalizing worldly outcomes, but also their fanatical insistence that no one even allude to worldly differences among groups. You see, in order for them to value all groups equally, they must maintain the illusion that their only measure of worth, the worldly, finds all groups equal. And since leftists — at least at this moment — have convinced themselves that a good person views everyone as equal, they fear and revile anything threatening that illusion.

And the left has always been concerned about stamping out inequality. Many years ago its minions not only perceived differences among groups, they claimed the differences were so darn intractable that the only way to deal with the “inferior” was to eliminate them from society. Thus did they give us the science of eugenics.

In the early 1900s, eugenics was all the rage among the left. It was “science” bellowed with a capital S, a “thinking man’s” pursuit. It was the stuff of the enlightened, only opposed by religious zealots stuck in the Middle Ages. And who were these bold authors of the brave new world? John Ray at mentions a handful, citing the following passage: "A significant number of Progressives -- including David Starr Jordan, Robert Latham Owen, William Allen Wilson, Harry Emerson Fosdick, Robert Latou Dickinson, Katherine Bement Davis, and Virginia Gildersleeve--were deeply involved with the eugenics movement."

Then there were the more prominent figures, such as Bertrand Russell; George Bernard Shaw; and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, who was a member of both the Eugenics Society in Britain and the American Eugenics Society.

Of course, their thinking made sense as far as its shallow analysis went. To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton, if we were not created equal, we were certainly evolved unequal. So the left figured this: We evolved, and unequal evolution is the cause of our woes. This problem is exacerbated because modern science and convenience enable the weak to reproduce, thereby counteracting the survival-of-the-fittest factor. Thus, to purge inequality from the gene pool, evolution must be helped along — by those enlightened enough to recognize life unworthy of life.

So leftists have always cared about equality. And maybe, someday, they’ll start caring about people, too.

Selwyn DukeSelwyn Duke is a columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, at, in American Conservative magazine, is a contributor to and appears regularly as a guest on the award-winning, nationally-syndicated Michael Savage Show. Visit his Website.

The JBS Weekly Member Update offers activism tips, new educational tools, upcoming events, and JBS perspective. Every Monday this e-newsletter will keep you informed on current action projects and offer insight into news events you won't hear from the mainstream media.
JBS Facebook JBS Twitter JBS YouTube JBS RSS Feed