We Are the Losers, My Friend

After he admitted that the endless billions spent via welfare and other programs for 60 years have not led to social progress, he asked me what should be done. It would be in the interest of the United States to reduce poverty and have more effective and prosperous citizens. I agreed with him on this point and told him that Americans are good-hearted people. They want everyone to succeed and do not see their personal success or wealth as an impediment to others doing well. I told him that the only solution was taking the finger off of the scales and letting things fall where they may. Let’s look at an example.

When Harvard was dragged into court over its anti-Asian policies, it had to provide some of its great secrets from the office of admissions. One of the revelations was that if Harvard simply accepted black candidates based on merit, their acceptance rate would be less than 1 percent of the incoming class. Since the university has claimed to want a class reflective of the larger U.S. society, it boosts black acceptance to around 13 percent, similar to their percentage in the U.S. population. How does Harvard perform this Houdini-like task? Twofold. It lowers the standards of blacks for acceptance, and it sticks it to others, often Asian or Jews, who have the profile to be accepted but are rejected. It came out during the trial that in order to reject a Chinese-American kid with perfect grades, perfect scores, and endless extracurricular activities, Harvard relies on the mandatory interview in order to say that the applicant was dull or boring. Affirmative action was supposed to have died with the Supreme Court ruling in the case, but schools like Harvard have found new things to bend in order to achieve their social and racial engineering goals.

The only solution is to let things play out as they do and not favor one group over another. Look again at Harvard. It chose a president because she was a black woman. They chose her because her leftist ideology mirrored that of school leadership. She had few papers; she was accused of plagiarism; she was not nationally known for her oratory or thinking skills. And when times got tough, her complete incompetence was on full display. In front of the U.S. Congress and beamed throughout the land, she said that demanding a Jewish genocide may not be harassment at Harvard, depending on the context. Let’s move over to Cambridge University, where a young black professor is also accused of lifting others’ work. Are there no white plagiarists? Of course there are. But the bottom line with affirmative action and similar programs is that people who should not be in positions of authority and responsibility find themselves there, and when push comes to shove, they often crumble under the weight of their own inability and ill-preparedness. When we look at Kamala Harris, vice president of the greatest country in the world, we cannot understand how she got so far but could not say a simple sentence without committing a crime against the English language. She is not bright, and for all of her résumé accomplishments, she has not made this world safer or better. If she runs again for president, what will be the signature accomplishment that she will use to boost her candidacy? I don’t know either.

The obvious risk of not making different scales for different people is that yes, some people will be left behind. If an elite unit in the armed forces has one standard for men and women, maybe only a few women will ever enter its ranks. But at least we’d be certain that they deserved to be there. If, on the other hand, they lower their physical standards for women applicants, they’ll have plenty of women members, but when the mortars arrive, will the ladies be able to pick up their wounded male comrades and move them to safety? Blacks accepted to Harvard because of their accomplishments deserve every success they encounter. They will hopefully bring up children with similar values and respect for performance. As we lower requirements, we begin to hate those who actually are very good. Look at the hatred shown toward top white WNBA players. As Caitlin Clark is one of the best players in the league, she should be celebrated. But she is white, got where she did without any favors, and is squeaky clean. She is also a piñata for other players to bash around. And this is always the problem: when you favor one group over another, you tend to hate those who don’t need the discounts. There has been a new liberal talking point about Elon Musk not being anything special or not having accomplished much. But they can’t offer details because Musk is successful and he has done much that others never even dared to try.

The desire to help others is a good one, but real help is counterintuitive. Instead of lowering standards and putting people into positions for which they are not equipped to succeed, we should enforce the standards and encourage people to reach them. This has been the general outcome with charter schools, where students often read at a much higher level than their counterparts at public schools. By demanding the best in performance, those who can will succeed, and their success will be real and lead to further successes. Those who don’t succeed will at least know what they need to do if they really want to move forward. It’s like if everyone were a millionaire, then being a millionaire would be meaningless. Real success means that some get ahead and others don’t. The desire to make everyone get ahead ultimately means that society gets left behind.

I have seen several short clips from WNBA games. It would appear that making a layup is beyond the ability of some players. Traveling and double-dribbling apparently are not forbidden but rather accepted customs in the league. One fellow is offering $10 million if the 2025 league champions can beat a high school boys team of his choosing. Remember the thrashing of the U.S. women’s soccer team by under-15 boys? There is no crime in being different, and not everybody has to be a Harvard Yard Braniac. But by pushing up the undeserving and beating down the successful and bright, we are destroying the future of our society. Why should I succeed if they are going to attack me? Why should I study hard if I’ll get into Harvard anyway? We are creating perverse incentives at both ends of society. Those who can build and contribute will wonder if it’s worth the hatred, while those who make little effort to improve will continue on this path.

Meritocracy risks leaving people behind. Affirmative action risks elevating the undeserving and pushing down the deserving. No system is perfect, but meritocracy has built the country we have and enjoy. Nobody who is capable should be denied because of his skin color; on the other hand, nobody should be given a college slot or job due his skin color. Set and keep even standards for the success of our shared future.