Print 
PDF
Washington State Patrol has reassigned its staff psychologist of nearly 30 years, hiring an outside contractor to conduct evaluations for new troopers amid pressure from Gov. Jay Inslee to diversify the hiring process despite law enforcement staffing shortages across the state.
The new psychologist has been contracted through June 2022.
Is the role of government to mandate "equity" or keep the peace and the public safe?
The Seattle Times is suggesting the state government may be doing neither.
Does enforcing "equity" really produce "equality?"
Let's take a closer look at equity and equality.
Be informed, not misled.
The Seattle Times says, "Bowing to criticism about its hiring process, the Washington State Patrol has temporarily replaced its long-time staff psychologist with an outside contractor to screen trooper candidates.
Chief John Batiste, himself a black man, had previously resisted calls for outsourcing the evaluations, despite concerns expressed by the governor---"But in recent weeks," the Times says, "Gov. Inslee and key legislators applied pressure to make changes towards diversifying the WSP. As of last year, WSP troopers were 87% white and 90% male"---percentages that haven't changed in 20 years.
A number of state Democrat legislators are joining the governor in calling for more diversity, which is essentially "equity" according to the leftist progressive mind.
I don't know if Daniel Clark, who has been the staff psychologist for the Washington State Patrol for the past nearly 30 years is racist or not---that's basically the bottom line. He says he is not, nor does he believe he has ever been racist or biased in his evaluations.
It's likely that the Governor and the Democrat legislators are not really seeking fairness or equality---or even the absence of bias, but equity of outcome, which is very different than equality.
"There's a big difference between equality and equity."
Their answers have been as confused as the administration appears most of the time.
Some of the following are taken from an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton raised the question explicitly in confirmation hearings. Attorney General-designate Merrick Garland responded: "I think discrimination is morally wrong. Absolutely."
Marcia Fudge, slated to run Housing and Urban Development, gave a much different answer. Cotton responded, "Just to be clear, it sounds like racial equity means treating people differently based on their race. Is that correct?"
Fudge responded: "Not based on race, but it could be based on economics, it could be based on the history of discrimination that has existed for a long time."
This tracks with a tweet and video posted by Kamala Harris just before the election and viewed by 6.4 million viewers: "There's a big difference between equality and equity."
She and Ms. Fudge are right. There is a big difference. It's the difference between equal treatment and equal outcomes.
Equality means equal treatment, unbiased competition, and impartially judged outcomes. Equity means equal outcomes, achieved if necessary by unequal treatment, biased competition, and preferential judging.
Those who advocate for "equity"---whether Joe Biden or Jay Inslee, hide these differences under a cloak of virtue, but it isn't a virtue. It's deceptive and misleading.
And there's a reason why they hide the differences.
"Equity" challenges the very bedrock principle of our country.
Our Founders drew on the principles of the Bible. They were enlightened by God's Truth of equal treatment for individuals of different stations of life. This is why they wrote in the Declaration that it was "self-evident" that "all men are created equal."
The claim of equal treatment is deeply rooted in America, which causes those who seek to "remake" America to hide the difference between equality and equity deeply in social justice and compassion.
Also hidden are the extensive measures that would be needed to achieve equal outcomes. Only a powerful central government could impose the intensive---and expensive programs of social intervention, ideological re-education, and economic redistribution.
The whole idea of "equity" is based first and foremost on deception---counting on citizens to believe equity and equality are the same.
Now we are now seeing the claim that the unfair treatment of previous generations or perhaps a disadvantaged childhood entitles one to special consideration today as an adult.
Most Americans are generous and compassionate and long-suffering, but this isn't about that. It's about a power structure, not to help the needy and downtrodden---Oh, no, it's about creating large entitlement programs that transfer more and more power into the hands of fewer and fewer people.
This agenda is so unpopular, the so-called progressives have renamed the programs. "Quotas" are now called "affirmative action". Equality was deceptively exchanged for "equity," etc.
Instead of making their case openly and honestly, leftist advocates of "equity" twist and turn to avoid revealing their radical goal of re-engineering American society through coercion. If their efforts fail, they double down on the deception and demand more money, more rules, and more indoctrination.
And package it as equity, compassion, and social justice.
Since these efforts are all directed to "equal outcomes" the picture becomes abundantly clear.
This isn't equality or even equity. It's the oldest method of achieving equal outcomes.
Most of us know it as socialism. The gateway to Communism.
And American citizens are beginning to awaken to what these folks are up to because "equity" is a mandate to discriminate.
Jesus taught equal opportunity, not equity.
One of Jesus' best-known parables is the parable of the talents. The religious left is obsessed with always trying to cast Jesus as a socialist, recasting Him in the image of Karl Marx.
The whole parable story is based on personal ownership and merit-based equal opportunity.
While each servant was given a different amount to manage according to their ability, the outcome was in their hands, not the government or even the businessman.
The businessman in Jesus' story did not reward or subsidize irresponsibility.
Progressives and the religious Left demand equal outcomes, but Jesus taught the opposite.
There is no breath in this story of equality of outcome as any kind of operating principle. It's the reverse.
What Jesus taught was that the redistribution of wealth is entirely voluntary, motivated by personal generosity and compassion directed to the worthy poor. There is no hint of it in Christianity or any kind of support for the involuntary transfer of wealth through government coercion.
Jesus teaches achievement rather than mere effort is rewarded.
Progressive radicals say the moral rule is "from" each according to his ability. Jesus says "to" each according to his ability.
Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Bold. Be Prayerful.