The Doctrine of Equality and the Debates on Reverse Discrimination
“The defect of equality is that we only desire it with our superiors.”– Henry Becque
Equality has long been a cornerstone of societal and political discourse, but its interpretation and application often remain contentious. The modern concept of equality is derived from the theory of rights and is embedded in the ideals of social justice. As expressed in the French Declaration of 1789: “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be based only upon public utility.”
Equality demands a progressive reduction of inequalities where they are deemed unreasonable. It does not imply literal equalization but rather the restructuring of social relations to align with justice. As Matthew Arnold aptly observed:
“Inequality has the natural effect of materializing our upper class, vulgarizing our middle class, and brutalizing our lower class.”
With advancements in science and technology, previously immutable inequalities are now alterable and increasingly perceived as unjust. The question then arises: how do we address these inequalities without compromising individual dignity and societal progress?
Equality of Opportunity vs. Equality of Outcome
A. Equality of Opportunity
This principle is a pillar of egalitarianism, asserting that all human beings deserve equal social and political rights. It emphasizes fairness in public policy and access to resources, as articulated by John F. Kennedy:
“All of us don’t have equal talent, but all of us should have an equal opportunity to develop our talents.”
B. Equality of Outcome
Hardcore egalitarians advocate for equality of outcome, which seeks the equal distribution of rewards such as income and wealth. However, critics argue that such measures can erode incentives and lead to injustice. Milton Friedman cautioned:
“A society that puts equality – in the sense of equality of outcome – ahead of freedom, will end up with neither equality nor freedom.”
Equality of outcome is often deemed unattainable except in hypothetical communist societies. Modern democracies prioritize equality of opportunity as a pathway to social justice, recognizing that equal opportunities rarely translate into equal outcomes.
R. H. Tawney highlights a critical nuance in the debate:
“Opponents of equality contradict a view of equality not maintained by its defenders. They are bombarding a position which no one occupies.”
Debates on Reverse Discrimination
While equality necessitates the recognition of social distinctions and the provision of support for vulnerable groups, this approach has sparked debates over reverse discrimination. Affirmative action policies, though well-intentioned, have drawn criticism on several fronts:
- Neo-Conservatism: Equality is best applied in the realm of opportunity, not outcome. Efforts to enforce outcome equality may undermine merit and respect for authority.
- Procedural Justice: Affirmative action often clashes with the principles of fairness and impartiality.
- Generational Justice: Critics argue that the current generation should not bear the burden of rectifying historical injustices inflicted on past generations.
- Psychological Impact: Preferential treatment can harm self-esteem if beneficiaries perceive their success as unearned. This undermines the core egalitarian ideal of personal dignity.
The 1992 Indra Sawhney Judgment by the Supreme Court of India addressed some of these issues:
- The ‘creamy layer’ among backward classes was excluded from affirmative action benefits.
- Total reservations were capped at 50% to maintain a balance.
The Interplay of Equality and Justice
Those who oppose changes to entrenched inequalities often do so to preserve existing power structures. However, the modern consciousness rejects the dichotomy between equality and justice. True equality cannot exist without justice; otherwise, it risks becoming an instrument of oppression.
As L. T. Hobhouse observed:
“Justice is a name to which every knee will bow. Equality is a word which many fear and detest.”
The path forward demands a nuanced understanding of equality that balances opportunity and outcome, respects individual dignity, and advances the collective good. Only then can we reconcile the ideals of equality and justice, creating a society where both flourish harmoniously.