Most of us are familiar with the following phrase: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Yes, the issue of slavery in that day makes the statement hypocritical, but that is not what I want to discuss today. With the final debate taken place and the 2012 Presidential election two weeks away, equality and opportunity are two words that should be in the minds of voters. They cover a wide range of issues including education, immigration, and women’s rights. A careful distinction however, needs to be made because I think the two terms are often equated.
Let us first consider equality and the following statement made by Buster Kilrain in Michael Shaara’s, The Killer Angels. For those of you who haven’t read it, it’s a Civil War novel, and this particular discussion between the commanding officer of the 20th Maine Joshua Chamberlain and Buster Kilrain centers around how each feels about African slaves. Chamberlain argues along the line of createdness, but Kilrain disagrees.
“Colonel, you’re a lovely man. I see at last a great difference between us, and yet, I admire ye, lad. You’re an idealist, praise be. The truth is, Colonel, that there is no divine spark, bless you. There’s many a man alive no more value than a dead dog. Equality? Christ in Heaven. What I’m fighting for is the right to prove that I’m a better man than many. Where have you seen this divine spark in action, Colonel? Where have you noted this magnificent equality? The Great White Joker in the Sky dooms us all to stupidity or poverty from birth. No two things on earth are equal or have an equal chance, not a leaf or a tree.”
What Kilrain says appears to be true and critiques the Declaration in that complete equality does not exist even with createdness. Note also that even the Declaration does not say that everything is equal, but that a sense of equality is contingent on the act of creation by a Creator. I will bypass the issue of religion here because it is not the focus of this essay. Rather, I want to bring to attention that disparity will always exist. The problem is how much disparity in the system is acceptable and under what circumstances.
I would argue that true equality is something that we do not want. Why? True equality denies the particularity of individual beings, restricts growth, and makes choice irrelevant. In scientific terms no works gets done under conditions of equilibrium. It’s a zero sum game, that is, an individual is constrained by the set conditions of equality. Thus, when people talk about equality, it is not true equality, but a qualified one. As such however, it still operates under the principles of equality.
Should qualified equality be policy? Fairness dictates yes. Equal qualifications, equal work, should result in equal pay. This…equation comes from the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. More recently, the Lilly Ledbetter Act has gained attention, but from what I have read, the LL Act amends the Equal Pay Act so that gender discriminatory grievances can be brought paycheck to paycheck, not only within 180 days of employment. Thus, it would seem that people have improperly associated women’s equal pay with the LL Act. That said, since it’s enactment in 2009, not much seems to have changed.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/fact-check-obama-and-equal-pay-for-women/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevecooper/2012/10/22/its-about-equal-pay-not-binders-and-opportunity/
But if advocates of equality are serious, even under qualified conditions, then they must also recognize that despite the Equal Pay Act being a woman’s concern, men are also affected. Let us bypass the other hidden cost of hiring SAME sex candidates based on equal qualification and get straight to gender inequality. There is no question that where work and qualifications are equal, pay should be equal. I doubt however that all conditions of equality are met all the time. That is, there is a disparity between a man and woman rationale for work, and the amount of work done over a lifetime. Take this Forbes article, which I can only say makes sense though I am unsure of its veracity since I have not read his book.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/12/women-wage-gap-cx_wf_0512earningmore.html
The article argues that while inequality still exists, under the most equal conditions, women actually make MORE than men. Should this not also be rectified? Furthermore, in the event that a woman makes life choices that reduce working efficiency or output, should not their pay also reflect a reduction when compared to similarly titled employees? Or is the title all that is important in pay grade? Of course this equally applies to the man as well as woman, but IF indeed “flexibility” and life choices are important to women, then women should not be surprised to find disparity in wages where conditions are not equal.
What about equal opportunity? While the title suggests equality, it does not guarantee equality, nor is it adequately enforced. In fact, current education practices in the United States only make one equally opportunistic where one is QUALIFIED. Even then, education alone at times is not enough for a job. To simply state that education gives greater opportunity, while true, understates business hiring practices. Job postings are often times more closed than open, since a candidate has already been chosen and the posting is to conform to the Civil Rights Act. Furthermore, even if a job is desirable and open, a candidate cannot be over qualified, since that would violate equal pay status. It would appear that for some companies and businesses, they do everything possible to skirt equal opportunity. Nevertheless, equal opportunity seems to be the best compromise that retains personal freedom.
Is it up to the government then to impose equality in its many forms? I suppose that someone or thing needs to set the conditions of equality. The rub however, is that people must be willing to accept the consequences as well as benefits. The government however, cannot set different conditions for different parties and then call them equal. Alternatively, it is up to the corporations to act responsibly for its employees, but some have given up on this prospect given the nature of corporate greed. However, the most flexible approach seems to be along the lines of equal opportunity, which in theory for qualified candidates is business decision, not a government one.
Recent Comments