The Social Justice Scam

The self-congratulatory strain in contemporary liberalism is boundless.  Many of its adherents actually believe themselves exempt from criticism because their moral rectitude is beyond question.  This is so because they think of themselves as “social justice” warriors.

Nonetheless, there is a problem with this outlook.  In part, this is because these folks are not as pure as they imagine and, in part, because of the flaws inherent in social justice.  The objective they are promoting is not nearly as honorable as they imagine.

Social justice, you see, is often at odds with individual justice.  In attempting to do right by groups, individuals are regularly injured.  Rather than personal merits being acknowledged and advanced, these are submerged in a sea of impersonal posturing.

The Declaration of Independence told us that all men (and women) are created equal; that they are endowed with an array of inalienable rights.  It did not say that groups are created equal or that they have immutable rights.  In other words, the nation’s founders were concerned with personal liberty, not group entitlements.

Yet liberals think in terms of groups.  They are obsessed with the injustices done to collections of invidivials.  Central to their concerns are the biases visited on blacks, women, and gays.  It is these evils they wish to undo.

Who can doubt the historic wrongs done to slaves or their descendants?  Who can question whether women or gays have often been treated unfairly.  But are group remedies the way to correct group wounds?  Might it not be better to switch to an individualist mindset.

Once many Jews were denied entrance to Harvard because they were Jews.  The college set a quota based on religious affiliation.  Now, despite affirmations to the contrary, it has a quota for accepting African-Americans.  They are not excluded, but rather recruited, because of their race.

Is this fair?  In setting race over merit, doesn’t it diminish the value of personal accomplishment?  Praising the virtues of diversity does not refute this truth.  Nor does it undo the damage done by rewarding a biological condition instead of ability or effort. 

If our society is to thrive, if its members are to perform at their best, what people do, as opposed to the status of groups to which they belong, must claim priority.  If not, then inherited standing takes precedence over personal deeds.  This, however, would be as socially sclerotic as favoring elites just because they have always been favored.

My mother used to tell me that two wrongs do not make a right.  Creating new injustices does not rectify past injustices.  If we are ever to be color blind, we must treat minorities by the same standards as everyone else.  The same goes for women and gays. 

Genuine fairness does not ask people about their group connections.  It assesses them according to who they are and what they have done.  Their personal opportunities are neither restricted, nor elevated, by a relationship outside their control.  They, not their parents or grandparents, must be the measure of their virtue.

Imagine, if you will, that I graded my students at Kennesaw State University on the basis of group inclusion.  Suppose that before I assigned a score, I put their tests onto separate piles based on race and gender.  Suppose further that I employed different criteria for each stack.  Would this be justice?

Why then is it justice when we expand this procedure to society at large?  Using the phase “social justice” as a mantra should not obscure the immorality of treating people differently because of accidents of birth.  Yes, blacks, women, and gays deserve a fair shot at success.  But this ought not imply socially enforced equalities.

If people differ—as they always do—shouldn’t these differences be recognized and evaluated for what they are?  While people must be afforded an opportunity to improve themselves, these advances ought to be acknowledged.  If not, this contradicts the notion of opportunity.

“Social justice” is a scam intended to elicit votes based on group membership.  It is not a moral “get out of jail” card.  Liberals who believe this makes them exceedinglly ethical are fooling themselves.  To the contrary, it feeds a phony self-righteousness that ought not be honored.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University