Most of us want to be fair, in the sense of treating everyone equally.

We want laws to be applied the same to everyone.

We want educational, economic or other criteria for rewards to be the same as well.

But this concept of fairness is not only different from prevailing ideas of fairness among many

of the intelligentsia, it contradicts their idea of fairness.

People like philosopher John Rawls call treating everyone alike merely “formal” fairness.

Professor Rawls advocated “a conception of justice that nullifies the accidents of

natural endowment and the contingencies of social circumstances.”

He called for a society which “arranges” end-results, rather than simply treating everyone

the same and letting the chips fall where they may.

This more hands-on concept of fairness gives third parties a much bigger role to play.

But whether any human being has ever had the omniscience to determine and undo the many

differences among people born into different families and cultures—with different priorities,

attitudes and behavior—is a very big question.

And to concentrate the vast amount of power needed to carry out that sweeping agenda is

a dangerous gamble, whose actual consequences have too often been written on the pages of

history in blood.

There is no question that the accident of birth is a huge factor in the fate of people.

What is a very serious question is how much anyone can do about that without creating

other, and often worse, problems.

Providing free public education, scholarships to colleges and other opportunities for achievement

are fine as far as they go, but there should be no illusion that they can undo all the

differences in priorities, attitudes and efforts among different individuals and groups.

Trying to change whole cultures and subcultures in which different individuals are raised

would be a staggering task.

But the ideology of multiculturalism, which pronounces all cultures to be equally valid,

puts that task off limits.

This paints people into whatever corner the accident of birth has put them.

Under these severe constraints, all that is left is to blame others when the outcomes

are different for different individuals and groups.

Apparently those who are lagging are to continue to think and act as they have in the past—and

yet somehow have better outcomes in the future.

And, if they don’t get the same outcomes as others, then according to this way of seeing

the world, it is society’s fault!

Society may lavish thousands of dollars per year on schooling for a youngster who does

not bother to study, and yet when he or she emerges as a semi-literate adult, it is considered

to be society’s fault if such youngsters cannot get the same kinds of jobs and incomes

as other youngsters who studied conscientiously during their years in school.

It is certainly a great misfortune to be born into families or communities whose values

make educational or economic success less likely.

But to have intellectuals and others come along and misstate the problem does not help

to produce better results, even if it produces a better image.

Political correctness may make it hard for anyone to challenge the image of helpless

victims of an evil society.

But those who are lagging do not need a better public relations image.

They need the ability to produce better results for themselves—and a romantic image is an

obstacle to directing their efforts toward developing that ability.

Tests and other criteria which convey the realities of their existing capabilities,

compared to that of others, can have what is called a “disparate impact,” and are

condemned not only in editorial offices but also in courts of law.

But criteria exist precisely to have a disparate impact on those who do not have what these

criteria exist to measure.

Track meets discriminate against those who are slow afoot.

Tests in school discriminate against students who did not study.

Disregarding criteria in the interest of “fairness”—in the sense of outcomes independent of inputs—adds

to the handicaps of those who already have other handicaps, by lying to them about the

reasons for their situation and the things they need to do to make their situation better.