Equality of Outcome: The Damaging Impact of Equality Policies

Introduction

In recent years, Western civilization has been grappling with a critical question: how do we balance the pursuit of equality with the foundational principles of meritocracy and individual freedom? The European Union’s decision to implement a mandatory 40% quota for women on company boards serves as a striking example of this ongoing struggle. While the policy aims to address gender disparities in corporate leadership, it has broader implications for society, meritocracy, and the preservation of core Western values.

At the heart of the controversy lies the concern that the quota system prioritizes equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. By setting a predetermined quota, the policy effectively sidelines the importance of individual merit, potentially leading to tokenism and reverse discrimination (Baker et al., 2004; Neckerman & Torche, 2007). This shift from a culture based on merit to one focused on predetermined outcomes marks a dangerous departure from the principles of meritocracy and individual freedom that have long underpinned Western civilization.

Furthermore, the very premise of imposing an equal distribution of different types of people in various positions, based on arbitrarily assigned characteristics, is fundamentally flawed. Individuals with different characteristics may not on average be equally talented or motivated, nor do they necessarily make the same decisions when given freedom (Andersen & Fetner, 2008; Jindra, 2014). By focusing on group identity rather than individual merit, we risk imposing a dogma of equity that does not reflect the true nature of human diversity and freedom.

This warped dogma of equity also manifests itself in the selective and inconsistent application of quotas and other equality policies. While positions of high-skill, wealth, power, and influence are targeted for social engineering, similar legislation for other professions, such as binmen, bricklayers, or oil rig workers, remains conspicuously absent (Schaar, 1964). This selective approach not only undermines the principle of equity supposedly at the heart of such policies, but also reinforces societal divisions and perpetuates stereotypes (Rodrik, 2017; Brown et al., 2022) — resulting in the opposite outcomes from that apparently being pursued.

The consequences of reshaping society to fit the dogma of equity are not only damaging but perverse. As we shoehorn society into a mould that prioritizes equality of outcome, we risk stifling innovation, hampering economic growth, and eroding social cohesion (Inglehart & Norris, 2003; Oboturova, 2021). The pursuit of a well-intentioned ideal may, in fact, lead us down a path of unintended consequences that undermine the very values we seek to uphold.

In summary, the European Union’s mandatory 40% quota for women on company boards represents a critical turning point in the ongoing struggle between the principles of meritocracy and the pursuit of equality. While the policy’s intentions may be noble, its broader implications for Western civilization and the preservation of core values cannot be ignored. Now more than ever, it is crucial that we reaffirm our commitment to individual merit, freedom, and genuine diversity, as these principles have long served as the cornerstones of our society. We must resist the temptation to impose a dogma of equity that threatens to undermine the very foundations upon which Western civilization stands.

From Meritocracy to Equality of Outcome.

The shift towards equality of outcome may be symptomatic of an absolutized literal understanding of equality that has taken hold in the postmodern pluralistic worldview (Oboturova, 2021). This understanding of equality overlooks the importance of individual responsibility and choice (Phillips, 2004). By focusing on predetermined outcomes, we are imposing an artificial and dogmatic notion of equality that does not reflect the true nature of human diversity and freedom.

This emphasis on equality of outcome leads to a decline in public reason and the common good (Reid-Henry, 2015). The discourse surrounding these policies understandably becomes polarized and contentious, making it difficult to engage in meaningful dialogue and find common ground on important issues related to equality. This is division and societal fragmentation by any other name.

The concerns about individual responsibility and choice (Phillips, 2004) further highlight the problematic nature of focusing on equality of outcome. A society that prioritizes equal outcomes over individual achievements may inadvertently create a culture of dependency and entitlement, where people expect success without putting in the necessary effort and hard work.

We must now urgently critically evaluate the concept of affirmative action as a whole; in its attempt to rectify perceived historical injustices and assuage misplaced guilt, it blatantly discriminates against individuals based on their race, gender, and other demographic characteristics, rather than their merits and qualifications (Phillips, 2004). This perverse policy erodes the fundamental principle of fairness and equal treatment under the law. In essence, it perpetuates the same discrimination it claims to fight, creating further division and resentment among different groups in society.

Wage gap legislation, for example, while noble in its intent, fails to account for the myriad of factors that contribute to wage disparities, such as education, experience, and personal choices (Inglehart & Norris, 2003). By simplistically demanding equal pay for equal work, these policies ignore the complexities of the labour market and risk stifling individual ambition and productivity.

The tension between economic equality and diversity is evident worldwide (Jindra, 2014). However, the blind pursuit of equality of outcome through misguided policies such as quotas, affirmative action, and wage gap legislation may ultimately undermine the very foundations upon which a free, diverse, and prosperous society is built. It is essential that we recognize the importance of meritocracy, individual choice, and responsibility while working towards genuine equality.

The Flawed Premise of Equal Distribution

The pursuit of equality is, perhaps, a noble endeavour, but it is crucial to distinguish between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The latter approach overlooks inherent differences in talent, motivation, and decision-making that exist among individuals. For example, as Inglehart et al. (2017) have noted, high levels of economic and physical security can facilitate a shift from materialist to post-materialist values, but this shift does not guarantee uniform outcomes.

Individuals with different characteristics may not be equally talented, motivated, or make the same decisions when given freedom. Indeed, as Kenworthy (1995) has observed, higher levels of equality are associated with stronger productivity growth and trade performance, but this relationship may be compromised if the pursuit of equality is divorced from the recognition of individual merit.

Empirical evidence suggests that talent and motivation can vary across groups, regardless of the arbitrary characteristics used to define them. For instance, Charles and Grusky (2018) found that forces promoting egalitarianism have been resisted in the workplace, indicating that the pursuit of equality may not necessarily align with the distribution of talent and motivation. Similarly, Andersen and Fetner (2008) demonstrated that economic development influences attitudes only for those who benefit most, suggesting that the relationship between economic growth and equality is not uniformly distributed across groups.

The existence of multiple paths to employment success, as identified by Kenworthy (2008), further supports the idea that talent and motivation can vary across groups. By acknowledging and embracing these differences, rather than attempting to homogenize outcomes based on arbitrary characteristics, we can develop more nuanced and effective strategies for promoting inclusivity.

To foster diversity and inclusivity while maintaining merit-based systems, we must develop alternative strategies that recognize and value individual achievements rather than relying on arbitrary group characteristics. In education, for instance, we can implement policies that provide equal access to resources and opportunities while still rewarding students for their individual performance and effort (Davenport, 1997).

In the workplace, we can promote diversity and inclusivity by implementing recruitment and promotion processes that prioritize skills, qualifications, and experience, rather than relying on quotas or other
measures that may inadvertently undermine meritocracy (Charles & Grusky, 2018). This approach can help ensure that the most qualified and motivated individuals are selected for positions, regardless of their background or group identity.

In politics, we can encourage greater representation and inclusivity by supporting candidates who champion policies that address barriers to opportunity without resorting to policies that mandate equal outcomes based on arbitrary characteristics (Rodrik, 2017). By focusing on policies that promote equal opportunity and remove barriers to success, we can create a more level playing field that allows individuals from diverse backgrounds to compete on their own merits.

Inconsistency

The selective implementation of equity policies raises further questions about their fairness and effectiveness. The application of quotas is often limited to positions of wealth, power, and influence, while other professions are left out (Jindra, 2014). This inconsistency suggests that a more comprehensive and thoughtful approach is needed to tackle the root causes of inequality and to ensure equal opportunities for all.

The selective nature of quotas and equality policies can be seen in various contexts, including corporate boardrooms, government positions, and prestigious academic institutions. These policies have been successful in increasing diversity in some areas, but they have not been applied consistently across all sectors of society (Davenport, 1997). This inconsistency highlights the need to reassess the effectiveness of these measures and consider alternative strategies.

The absence of quotas and other policies in professions such as binmen, bricklayers, and oil rig workers exemplifies the inconsistency in the application of equality policies. This selectivity not only undermines the principle of equity itself but also suggests a superficial commitment to equality. If the goal is to truly address inequality, the focus should be on creating policies that provide equal opportunities and support for all individuals, irrespective of their profession (Davenport, 1997).

The selective implementation of quotas and other equity policies undermines the very principle of equity it seeks to promote. Equality should not be confined to specific industries or occupations; it should be a core value that permeates all aspects of society (Baker et al., 2004). The current approach not only perpetuates inequality but also fails to address the issues that contribute to societal disparities.

An egalitarian society should prioritize equal opportunities and access to resources for all individuals, irrespective of their background or occupation (Kenworthy, 1995). By selectively applying quotas and equality policies, we risk fostering a divisive environment that undermines the potential for genuine progress towards a more equitable society.

In these ways, quotas and other equity policies, while well-intentioned, inadvertently exacerbate societal divisions and perpetuate stereotypes (Phillips, 2004). By focusing on outcomes rather than opportunities, these policies create resentment among individuals who are unfairly excluded or disadvantaged by the system. This division further perpetuates stereotypes and misunderstandings between different groups, undermining the ultimate goal of achieving a more equitable society (Brown et al., 2022).

Moreover, the selective application of these policies may reinforce the perception that certain groups are only present in positions of power due to quotas rather than their qualifications or abilities (Schaar, 1964). This can contribute to a negative cycle, where individuals from marginalized groups are constantly scrutinized and questioned about their legitimacy, further exacerbating societal divisions and reinforcing stereotypes (Ehrenreich, 2005).

Consequences

The consequences of these misguided policies, driven by flawed ideology and a somewhat authoritarian approach to governance, are multifaceted and often long-term.

The consequences of equity policies on economic growth are complex. While some studies have found that higher levels of equality are associated with stronger productivity growth and trade performance (Kenworthy, 1995), others have argued that differential rewards provide incentives for individuals to work hard, invest, and innovate (Krueger, 2002). By discouraging innovation and risk-taking, policies that prioritize equality of outcome may ultimately hinder economic growth.

Social cohesion can also be negatively impacted by the implementation of equity policies. As previously mentioned, these policies can create resentment and division between social groups (Brown, Jacoby-Senghor, & Raymundo, 2022), undermining the sense of unity and shared values that are crucial for a cohesive society. Additionally, the focus on equal outcomes can contribute to the erosion of individual freedom, as it may necessitate the imposition of restrictive policies that limit individual choice and autonomy (Phillips, 2004).

Media, education, and corporate culture play significant roles in perpetuating the dogma of equity and its consequences. The media often shapes public discourse on equity and related issues, amplifying certain narratives and perspectives while downplaying or ignoring others (Reid-Henry, 2015). This can contribute to the polarization of public opinion and the entrenchment of the equity dogma in societal consciousness.

Education institutions also play a critical role in shaping societal beliefs and values surrounding equity. The curriculum and pedagogical approaches used in educational settings can either promote a balanced understanding of equality and its implications or inadvertently reinforce the dogma of equity (Oboturova, 2021). For example, an overemphasis on equal outcomes in education can lead to the neglect of individual differences, abilities, and interests, ultimately stifling personal growth and development.

Corporate culture, too, can contribute to the perpetuation of the equity dogma. Organizations that prioritize diversity and inclusion as a means to signal virtue or comply with regulations, rather than genuinely addressing structural inequalities, can exacerbate tokenism and reverse discrimination (Ehrenreich, 2005). Moreover, as corporations increasingly embrace the equity narrative, they can inadvertently stifle innovation and risk-taking, potentially undermining their own long-term growth and competitiveness (Krueger, 2002).

The pursuit of equality of outcome and the dogma of equity can have numerous unintended negative consequences, ranging from tokenism and reverse discrimination to reduced innovation and weakened social cohesion. It is crucial for policymakers, educators, and corporate leaders to recognize these potential pitfalls and strive for a more nuanced understanding of equality that balances the need for fairness and justice with the importance of individual freedom, merit, and innovation.

Conclusion

The belief in the importance of equality is deeply ingrained in Western civilization, and the quest for fairness and justice is an honorable endeavor. However, we must recognize that the blind pursuit of equality of outcome, without consideration for individual merit, freedom, and genuine diversity, can have profoundly negative consequences for society at large.

As we have seen, forcibly restructuring society to fit the equity narrative can have detrimental outcomes. The policies implemented in the name of equality of outcome often lead to perverse consequences, such as tokenism, reverse discrimination, and reduced innovation (Baker et al., 2004; Krueger, 2002; Ehrenreich, 2005). Furthermore, these policies can impede economic growth, undermine social cohesion, and erode individual freedom (Kenworthy, 1995; Reid-Henry, 2015).

We have also explored the role of media, education, and corporate culture in perpetuating the dogma of equity and its consequences. It is clear that these institutions wield significant influence over public opinion and have the potential to either reinforce or challenge the prevailing equity narrative (Oboturova, 2021; Ehrenreich, 2005). The decisions made by these institutions can either promote a more balanced understanding of equality or unwittingly perpetuate the dogma of equity and its negative consequences.

As we consider the future of equality in Western civilization, we must be mindful of the dangers of moving away from meritocracy and equality of opportunity. A society that values merit and individual achievement is one that encourages innovation, fosters economic growth, and recognizes the unique contributions of each individual. Conversely, a society that prioritizes equal outcomes over equal opportunities risks stagnation, mediocrity, and the erosion of the very principles that underpin the core values of our civilization.

It is time for a renewed focus on individual merit, freedom, and genuine diversity. This requires us to critically examine the policies and practices that promote equality of outcome, recognizing that such an approach is fundamentally flawed and ultimately self-defeating. Instead, we must strive to create a society where each person has the opportunity to succeed based on their own talents, hard work, and determination, and where the playing field is level, but the outcomes are not predetermined.

By embracing the principles of meritocracy and equality of opportunity, we can preserve the core values of Western civilization, standards of living and, ultimately, our way of life. This is not an easy task, nor is it one that can be achieved overnight. But it is a challenge that we must undertake if we are to build a world that values fairness, justice, and the unique potential of every individual.

Together, we can work towards a society where the pursuit of equality is grounded in the recognition of individual merit, the protection of individual freedom, and the celebration of genuine diversity — after all, the ultimate minority is the individual. In doing so, we can ensure that the promise of equality is not undermined by the dogma of equity and its unintended consequences but is instead realized in a manner that is both just and sustainable for generations to come.

In the words of the esteemed philosopher John Stuart Mill, “The only freedom deserving the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.” Let us heed this wisdom and strive for a world in which genuine equality is achieved through the recognition of individual merit and the protection of individual freedom rather than through the misguided pursuit of equality of outcome.

References

1. Andersen, R., & Fetner, T. (2008). Economic Inequality and Intolerance: Attitudes toward Homosexuality in 35 Democracies. DOI.
2. Brown, N. D., Jacoby-Senghor, D. S., & Raymundo, I. (2022). If you rise, I fall: Equality is prevented by the misperception that it harms advantaged groups. Science Advances. DOI.
3. Davenport, F. G. (1997). Sex equality policy in Western Europe. DOI.
4. Ehrenreich, N. (2005). Challenging Diversity: Rethinking Equality and the Value of Difference (review). Canadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit et Société. DOI.
5. Jindra, M. (2014). The Dilemma of Equality and Diversity. Current Anthropology. DOI.
6. Kenworthy, L. (1995). Equality and efficiency: The illusory tradeoff. DOI.
7. Kenworthy, L. (2008). Jobs with Equality. DOI.
8. Krueger, A. (2002). Inequality, Too Much of a Good Thing. DOI. PDF.
9. Oboturova, N. (2021). The idea of equality as a double-bind of modern civilization. Ius Publicum et Privatum. DOI. PDF.
10. Phillips, A. (2004). Defending equality of outcome. DOI. PDF.
11. Reid-Henry, S. (2015). The Political Origins of Inequality: Why a More Equal World Is Better for Us All. DOI. PDF.
12. Baker, J., Lynch, K., Cantillon, S., & Walsh, J. (2004). Equality: From Theory to Action.
13. Mikkelson, G. M. (2013). Growth Is the Problem; Equality Is the Solution. DOI.
14. Rodrik, D. (2017). Is Global Equality the Enemy of National Equality? DOI.
15. Schaar, J. (1964). Some Ways of Thinking about Equality. Journal of Politics. DOI.
16. Charles, M., & Grusky, D. (2018). Egalitarianism and Gender Inequality. DOI.
17. Inglehart, R., Ponarin, E., & Inglehart, R. C. (2017). Cultural Change, Slow and Fast: The Distinctive Trajectory of Norms Governing Gender Equality and Sexual Orientation. DOI.
18. Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). Rising Tide: Conclusions: Gender Equality and Cultural Change. DOI.
19. Neckerman, K., & Torche, F. (2007). Inequality: Causes and Consequences. DOI.