Month: June 2023

An Affirmative Reaction

Standard

The Supreme Court has finally ruled against the practice of blatant racial discrimination in university admissions.  This, after Harvard and other schools, in pursuit of filling quotas, would find means to select against qualified Asians to meet an ideal for diversity based on skin color.

The Affirmation Fairy… 

African Americans, at least as a collective whole, have suffered disproportionately and this is a historical injustice that is not easily solved.  Much of our success later in life has to do with the homes and communities that we were born into.  The values we receive via our culture make a huge difference so far as outcomes.

I remember a viral video, a few years back, that lines up a bunch of young people on a grassy field.  The announcer asked various questions, such as “Take two steps forward if both of your parents are still married,” and those who could answer yes advanced.  The results of this survey were framed as ‘white privilege’ and yet none of the statements had anything to do with race.

Social inequality is certainly not a black-and-white issue, many children of European and Asian ancestry lacked a father in the home, worried about fitting in, did not feel safe at night in their neighborhood, worried about having enough to eat, and lacked access to private education or tutors.  I once begged my mother to take me out of public school after a rough patch.  I changed my hairstyle as a response to classmates who made note of my ‘Mennonite’ side part.  I decided to quit college rather than go deep into debt.  

Am I underprivileged?

Exactly how much am I disadvantaged as a learning-disabled child of two high school dropouts, with a father who had to be away all week to support our family?

There problem with all “affirmative action” is that it is a vast oversimplification of a very complex and multi-layered problem that may be more about culture than color.  We simply cannot account for every factor or rate every single subcategory of ethnicity and culture for statistical disadvantage.  For example, do we know the college graduation rates of Americans of German ancestry or Irish and Italian?  Are a proportional amount of these ethnic groups represented?

Furthermore, our own disadvantages can be advantages, in that they can provide u much-needed motivation.  Sure, having money may mean a trip to Harvard and a certain level of success.  However, the same is true of those who are tall and athletic.  Jeff Bezos, at 5′-7″ tall, may have benefitted from having some ‘short man syndrome’ or that extreme desire some have to compensate for the discrimination they faced for physical characteristics that were beyond their control.

Affirmative action is wrong in that there is no way to rank hardships.  It is wrong because it isn’t addressing the root causes of social inequalities, even as defined by the privilege police, in that we’re not talking about things like fatherless homes or inner-city violence and cultural forces that discourage the behaviors that aid in academic achievement.  You can’t wait until a person is eighteen, then wave a wand of university education and credentials as a solution to these underlying issues.

Asterisk Graduates…

The true underlying message of affirmative action was that minorities, specifically those of African descent, couldn’t be successful without the help of the government.  As liberal arts universities continue to seek to fulfill a narrow color-obsessed definition of diversity, using quotas rather than qualifications, they unintentionally degrade all of their minority graduates—even those equal in merit to the non-minority graduates.

The idea of a “diversity hire” or a person not equally qualified to others who applied and yet are given preference only because of their special category of race or gender, is a direct consequence of discriminatory affirmative action programs.  People know how to read between the lines (albeit often unfairly) and will diminish accomplishments that weren’t actually earned or can be perceived as being unearned.  It is why we do not see the work of those ‘born into wealth’ as being equal to that of those who are self-made.

A classic example of the patronizing white saviorism that is lurking behind divisive equity campaigns.

Just as a university degree would lose value if everyone were simply given a diploma for breathing, admitting some primarily on the basis of skin color devalues the effort even in the eyes of those who benefit.  It only serves to feed an idea of black inferiority, that they need a ‘white savior‘ to swoop in and rescue them from their plight, and is grossly unfair to all who were truly qualified on the basis of merit—but will still deal with the asterisk due to systemic compensatory color preferences or racially discriminatory quotas.

The hate crimes against Asians, like the murder of Yao Pan Ma, rarely receive coverage as other racially involved crimes.
The hate crimes against Asians, like the murder of Yao Pan Ma, rarely receive coverage as other racially involved crimes.

You cannot defeat unfair discrimination with a new kind of unfair discrimination.  It is not right that overqualified Asian students were being overlooked because of their race or on some kind of subjective basis that the worth of their own “lived experience” is less than a person of African origin.  Many Asians have overcome extreme hardship, faced intense pressure at home and hate crimes (often underreported for going against the typical racial narrative), yet won’t ever express this due to cultural reserve—why should they be punished for the success of their peers?

Two-tiered or lower standards for some will never achieve the goal of equal outcomes.

Favouritism Forbidden…

We’re living in a time of moral inversion, a time when those who lived a life of crime and abuse are treated as victims simply on the basis of their outward appearance.  It is as wrong as the favoritism of preferring the wealthy over the poor for the potential benefits:

Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

Leviticus 19:15 NIV

The problem was favoritism, preferring one party based on who they are (what they can provide for us) rather than the actual merit of the case.  Fairness of judgment, not equality of outcome, is the goal.

Christians were told not to judge by a person’s outward appearance:

My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

James 2:2-4 NIV

Many, trying to make a show of their own righteousness, take a Scripture like that above and turn it into a call for social justice or a special preference for the poor or otherwise disenfranchised.  However, this kind of reverse favoritism totally misses the point.  Trading one kind of perverse judgment for another is not a virtue.  No, it is a virtue signal and something people do for the social benefit of merely appearing to be an advocate for those recognized as being disadvantaged.  Even if sincere, this is a misguided approach that goes against the instruction not to show favoritism.

Affirmative action, in the end, is just a new form of white supremacy that is expressed as patronization.  It frames differences in outcomes solely in terms of identity groups while neglecting to correct the factors causing the inequal results or truly helping people to cross over these unhelpful, artificial, and arbitrary divisions.  Jesus taught more of a gracious meritocracy, where our behavior did matter and we would ultimately be judged on how we treat other people irrespective of their deserving or appearance.  In this regard, our equality comes only in repentance and our obedience to the law of Christ—not by force of courts or legislation.

We do not save the world by trying to force others into compliance or control outcomes. Rather we change ourselves and become an example of impartiality and love to all people. Honest and fair equal opportunity is having the same requirements for all and not preferences tailored to some at the expense of others. You cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. We shouldn’t love bomb some, even to make them feel better about themselves, by removing opportunities for those who truly have earned their place.

Making Impossible Possible

Standard

It was impossible for me to find romantic success in the religious community that I had been born into and I would most definitely have remained single if I refused to adapt. My only regret is not having realized this (along with many of the many other fatal flaws in this system) much earlier.

The most excruciating part of this ordeal was that it always seemed that victory over this adversary was right at my fingertips. But, as the expression goes, to miss by an inch is to miss by a mile. And it seems that both friends and church leaders were never that serious about help. None were willing to lift a finger to relieve this burden of so many in their churches.

It was a systemic problem that required a systemic change that would not come. Women were ruined by their own idealistic purity culture standards and not taking the opportunities available, and men by being rejected every time they tried and were reduced to simps—rendered themselves completely unattractive for their doting ‘desperate’ attention to females.

What makes me curious is what truly was so different about my own experience in a fundamentalist sect and that of those in an old-order setting where pairing up does happen. Surely young people in those settings have ideals as well and yet they appear more willing to risk relationships than my former peers. It is as if they are programmed to be more realistic or unafraid.

The thing is, the next generation probably isn’t experiencing what I did. It was just a perfect storm of frauds, like Bill Gothard or Joshua Harris, that fed female fears of being ‘defiled’ for merely having a real conversation with a male member of their group. Mixed with the already existing cultural reserve and perfectionism. A moment of hesitation is very costly, approach anxiety increased tenfold with the raised stakes, and thus failure resulted.

If only there were more fathers and responsible adult figures saying “Relax, talk to each other, and take some risks, it isn’t like you need to marry after the first date.” If only there were some pushback to this notion that independence (having things our way, going out to see the world, and the postponement of marriage) is an indication of a greater commitment to Christ. Being picky doesn’t make you St Paul or Florence Nightingale.

Instead, the trends within the conservative Mennonite churches very closely align with general cultural trends where traditional courtship has fallen out of favor. Sure, in this version the attractive men get their sexual gratification. However, women never get the kind of commitment from these men suitable for raising children, and often choose careers and European vacations instead. More average men, who would be devoted, are simply shut out and ignored for not meeting the impossible female criteria.

I’m happy to have found my ‘hack’ and finally was able to get around the broken system that put my life on indefinite hold. I would’ve done things much differently if I had a chance to do it all over again. Firstly, I would’ve been less sensitive, more assertive, and never got mired in doubt of my own value. Second, I would not be concerned in the least about pleasing a standard that didn’t actually matter.

The successful never followed the onerous rules of those moral busybodies. A man should not ask permission, he simply needs to take the initiative and get what he wants. Too many times my own indecision on what was the ‘right way’ kept me from ever taking the opportunities as they were presented. Luckily, for me, because of my failure, I have found something much better than I could ever have found in the midst of the entitled mentality and demanding confines of my past life.

The wonderful woman I have found would’ve been impossible to marry when I was still bound to their standards. I could never have had a relationship with someone as intelligent and ambitious, let alone beautiful in appearance, had I remained. The impossibility remains impossible. But the impossible has been made possible by my willingness to change the rules of the game.

Who Are Our Kin?

Standard

The book of Ruth is a nice little oasis in the midst of dry and tedious reading.  Up to this point the Bible isn’t all that relatable.  It has some highlights, interesting characters, but is stories of ethnic cleansing, description of weird sacrificial rites, polygamous patriarchs and stonings for picking up sticks, violence and laws, it is cumbersome.  

And then you get this:

But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me.” When Naomi realized that Ruth was determined to go with her, she stopped urging her. So the two women went on until they came to Bethlehem. When they arrived in Bethlehem, the whole town was stirred because of them, and the women exclaimed, “Can this be Naomi?”

Ruth 1:16‭-‬19 NIV

What a contrast to the storytelling prior, all of the resistance to racial mixing as well, here a Moabite woman would rather remain with her Israelite mother-in-law than stay with her own people.  It’s personal.  And the romance that follows, while very foreign and featuring many practices which are weird to our own ears, shows a more compassionate side of the legal system instituted by Moses.  Boaz acted both out of love and duty as guardian-redeemer.  Starting with his genuine concern for her safety:

So Boaz said to Ruth, “My daughter, listen to me. Don’t go and glean in another field and don’t go away from here. Stay here with the women who work for me. Watch the field where the men are harvesting, and follow along after the women. I have told the men not to lay a hand on you. And whenever you are thirsty, go and get a drink from the water jars the men have filled.”

Ruth 2:8‭-‬9 NIV

This paternalistic care a sharp contrast to an episode in the book of Judges when a Levite and his host offered their innocent women to please the perverse desires of the men in the local community:

While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.” The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.” But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

Judges 19:22‭-‬28 NIV

While the brutal rape and murder of this poor concubine was later avenged, it is quite clear that the two men were more concerned with saving their own skin than protecting those whom were entrusted to them.  Not saying it would be easy to know what to do in those circumstances.  It isn’t like there was 911 to call or semiautomatic weapons to hold back the lascivious mob.  Still, Boaz stood ready to protect Ruth, a foreign woman, from the other men who would very likely have taken advantage.  How easily we can take our own law and order for granted.

Where the men made the woman vulnerable for exploitation in the book of Judges and in other parts of the Bible, like Abraham claiming his wife was his sister or Jacob putting his family in the front, in Ruth it is the women putting themselves in a vulnerable place to capture the attention of the good man:

One day Ruth’s mother-in-law Naomi said to her, “My daughter, I must find a home for you, where you will be well provided for. Now Boaz, with whose women you have worked, is a relative of ours. Tonight he will be winnowing barley on the threshing floor. Wash, put on perfume, and get dressed in your best clothes. Then go down to the threshing floor, but don’t let him know you are there until he has finished eating and drinking. When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what to do.”

Ruth 3:1‭-‬4 NIV

I’m not sure if the description of Ruth acting out on her mother-in-law’s bold plan to lay at the feet of Boaz is euphemistic language.  Seems risky to be that intimate with a man who was drinking and “in good spirits” as the text tells us.  But, that said, whatever transpired that night, we know that he took responsibility for Ruth and also the welfare of Naomi.  And, in this regard, the guardian-redeemer system worked as designed.  But mostly because of Boaz having genuine care in his heart.  Ruth, for her part, was his equal in that she was loyal to her mother-in-law to the point of leaving her own homeland.

This is a story exceptional in a good way and likely part of the Biblical canon so far as has to do with the lineage of King David.  It also brings us to Bethlehem, where Jesus (of the line of David via his mother) was born.  That both Ruth and Boaz stand out as characters for their abiding love is significant.  In a time when woman were treated as if property or merely objects for male pleasure, we have honorable and caring men.  Boaz took Ruth under his wing in the same way his grandson longed to love his people:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.

Matthew 23:37 NIV

In this account there is a clear precedent for a family relationship that goes beyond only our biological relatives.  The law of the kinsman or guardian-redeemer, through Naomi, was also applied to Ruth.  And, likewise, through adoption we become sons and daughters of Abraham by our faith (Galatians 3:6-14) and true children unlike those blood relatives of the Patriarch who rejected their Salvation.  Our real kin are those who fulfill the role they have and love in the manner of Boaz or Ruth.