Editor's note: This is the second of a multi-part series on the role of DEI in the decline of public education

The ideology alluded to in part one of this series doesn’t accept actual diversity in student achievement. For many reasons originating from their own experiences and resulting emotional states, there are those who don’t just feel it is unfair that some will not do as well as others, they in fact feel deeply emotionally troubled that there are differences in outcomes, standards of living and quality of life.

For most of human history these people had no way to rectify their discomfort and had to simply live with it. But that changed with the civil rights laws of the 1960’s. These laws were indeed benevolent in their intent, aiming to right the wrongs which had been perpetrated on minority communities, particularly African-Americans. Though slavery had been abolished five generations earlier, discrimination based on race had continued in some parts of the U.S. and Americans had decided it was time to ensure this came to an end everywhere. The civil rights laws of the 1960’s intended to guarantee everyone an equal opportunity regardless of race, creed, color or sex.

If they had only had this effect, all would have been well.

Unfortunately there were those who saw this as an opportunity to leverage the law to further their personal ideology. They saw that they could use these laws to not only guarantee equal opportunity, but to force equal outcomes, thus assuaging their personal emotional needs. They would claim that wherever differences appeared in workers’ pay, it was not due to differences in performance of the worker but was rather evidence of discrimination. They would claim that where there were differences in workers’ performance reviews it was not due to differences in performance, but discrimination. And wherever there were differences in students’ grades, this had to be discrimination.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

For a time, they failed when evidence was presented that the pay or the grades were in fact based on objective evidence of differences in effort and performance. But rather than accept that, they set about changing the people who were making those determinations, whether they were employers or teachers. They also set about changing who the judges were who would ultimately decide the inevitable court cases. They first took over the universities and law schools, carefully recruiting like-minded individuals and placing them in positions to indoctrinate impressionable young adults by instructing that the world is only just when everyone enjoys success, regardless of any difference in ability or effort.

These young adults became employers, teachers and judges decades later. They also became parents. This is where we find ourselves today. Though they are a subset of people, their views a minority, they have a presence in both the community as parents and within school administration and staff. They also now have the law on their side, which they continue to change to more quickly serve their ideology anywhere that voters are either apathetic or ideologically aligned with them.

Opposing them is very difficult as they charge any opposition with racism and/or discrimination, which immediately brings about feelings of guilt and can even win in court with scant evidence of any actual discrimination, due to judges whose interpretation of the law and its intent is compromised by their own personal ideology.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

The way this manifests in schools is that students who would have previously failed must be given passing grades. More insidiously, those who previously excelled must be prevented from doing so because their success also creates a contrast. There is actually a movement to eliminate ‘talented and gifted’ school programs. This defies common sense; we all benefit from having the inventors and leaders of tomorrow turbo-charged by being challenged to their potential. But the emotional needs of the ideologues is stronger than their logic: this benefit to all can only be allowed if it occurs within a system where everyone benefits equally at every stage and in every place. That being impossible because people will always be different, excelling will simply not be allowed.

With these systems in place, the desire to work harder and excel is squashed. Why work harder when everyone will get the same grade, and the same pay?


--Bill Dewey

Post Date: 2024-05-20 20:37:16

Last Update: 2024-05-19 13:22:05