I’ve been musing on critical race theory and how fast it has taken hold of schools, corporations, the media, the masses, etc. In CA, Prop 16 will remove the following lines from the California Constitution:
“The state cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.”
You’re probably thinking, “hey, that’s a pretty good rule.” But, the intent of Prop 16 is to bring back affirmative action, which is inherently—dare I say—racist and/or sexist. The aim of California State Legislators is to fight discrimination with discrimination. Smart.
I graduated (a long time ago in a galaxy far away) from UC Irvine. UCI. The running joke in the ‘90s was that UCI stood for “University of Chinese Immigrants.” This nickname was introduced to me by a Korean guy named Johnny—political correctness and cancel culture wasn’t much of a thing back then.
Today, Asian-Americans make up 36% of the student body at UCI—they would be the greatest identity group affected by Prop 16, followed by Hispanics (who make up 26% of the student body).
Okay, so what’s the point? One major premise of affirmative action is to lessen “white privilege.” As you can gather from those basic stats, there ain’t much white privilege happening at UC Irvine, nor the entire University of California system. But let’s move on and look at some other absurdities regarding identity and discrimination.
New York Times critic Anthony Tommasini recently posited that orchestras should remove blind auditions to make them more diverse.
“If ensembles are to reflect the communities they serve, the audition process should take into account race, gender and other factors.”
Anthony Tommasini
I get it; he believes that an orchestra in the Bronx should maybe have more Puerto Ricans, more Blacks in Chicago, more Latinos in Los Angeles, etc. But how would that have any effect on the sound of the music?
I get it; he believes that an orchestra in the Bronx should maybe have more Puerto Ricans, more Blacks in Chicago, more Latinos in Los Angeles, etc. But how would that have any effect on the sound of the music? Here’s the thing. I mean, the truth. Blind auditions have proved to enhance diversity. Even Harvard says so:
“Blind orchestra auditions reduce sex-based hiring and increase the number of female musicians.”
Harvard Kennedy School: Women and Public Policy Program
Look at that, would ya’?
“…the transition to blind auditions from 1970 to the 1990s can explain 30 percent of the increase in the proportion female among new hires and possibly 25 percent increase in the percentage female in the orchestra.”
Harvard Kennedy School: Women and Public Policy
One can easily argue that this only accounts for the gap between women and men. Okay. Fine. I get that. What it proves, however, is that the job was given to the person who performed the best, regardless of what they looked like or the chromosome makeup.
Today, racial diversity is becoming a mandate everywhere. Everywhere but one profession: sports. The 2018/2019 combined season team revenues were around $9 billion. No one can argue that the NBA, for example, is one of the most powerful organizations in media. No one can argue, too, that it lacks racial diversity.
There are no complaints that 80% of players are Black and less than 20% are white. Hockey is the opposite. Around 90% are white. Where are the protests? Where are the riots? Where are the affirmative action laws that would make NBA teams adhere to a strict diversity rule? Should we have them? Why everywhere else, but not in sports?
Here’s the deal—we view sports as a “game,” and therefore, only the best people, based on merit alone, should be on a court at that professional level. Here’s a crazy thought though, if you’re willing to be open to crazy thoughts: What if all of life were a game?
Let’s look at the NBA again. Why are we in awe when a Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant or Allen Iverson comes on the scene? Simply, they defy the laws of imagination, creativity and sportsmanship while maintaining a strict adherence to the rules of the game.
Those who want the prize of being among those elite few to play the game at that level must work their asses off, fail, fall, endure pain, struggle disappointment and keep pushing on. Maybe they do it for fame; maybe money; maybe they love the game; maybe that’s the only damn thing they’re good at. They bust their ass to not just get better, but to be the best.
One commentator said that Michael Jordan was the best person to ever hold that position in that job. Yeah, he called it a job. That’s what it is. Players (employees) show up on time, put in hard work, get paid for their efforts. And they get bonuses for reaching the playoffs and/or winning championships.
I used to love watching Allen Iverson play; he was 6 inches below the league average and has broken more ankles than the Bones Brigade—he has, to this day, the best crossover in the game. The league didn’t change the rules because he’s shorter. He likely fought to be the best while being vertically challenged. Want a fun few minutes, watch 5 minutes of Allen Iverson crossovers on YouTube. Get ready to have your mind blown.
So, what about this game of life? What if we dedicated our efforts toward life the same way these elite players dedicate their lives to the game?
“Life is just like a game, first you have to learn the rules of the game, and then play it better than anyone else.”
Albert Einstein
This quote drives it home:
“Chess is not a game. It is a way of life.”
Unknown
Garry Kasparov became the best chess player, not because he could move his pawns three spaces, or his bishops horizontally. He adhered to the strict set of rules defined by the game of chess. Change the rules and you’re no longer playing chess.
One could argue that Garry and his opponents all started at the same place with the same tools, and in life, that’s not the case. And I get that. We do and we don’t. Most of us all have two eyes, two ears, two legs, two arms, etc. While we may all start in different places, were born into different families, we all start with the same pieces.
And that’s where we start. The beginning. No matter how slow, the person running will always lap the person on the couch. Life is game. There are rules. Comprehend the rules. Be the best within the confines of the rules.
This. Applies. To. Everything.
Moral universalism states that we all adhere to the same rules—the same, limited box.
Moral relativism, where society has taken a hard-left turn, states we have different rules based on some other defining factor: race, religion, culture, etc.
Would basketball be as exciting if Allen Iverson were allowed to carry or take three steps instead of two because he was shorter? Would Michael Jordan’s jaw-dropping dunks be as awe-inspiring if all players were mandated to move when he came careening down the lane?
No.
Miles Davis, Jimi Hendrix, Mozart, Chopin—the greatest musicians—all played with the same 12 notes. And they made magic. Could it be their unique starting points in life and their own personal experiences helped them see the world differently, and interact with those 12 simple notes in a way most of us can’t?
Simply put, the best creative works comes from from constraints, not freedom; that freedom comes from tyrannical discipline and adherence to the rules, ironic, as that sounds.
Maybe we stick the rules; really dive into them, examine them, adhere to them, and focus our efforts on improving the tools (also known as skills).
Let’s start there. For those who don’t have the tools, let’s lend a hand in helping those less fortunate acquire them. No, this is in advocacy of more social programs. Individuals needs to rise up and teach those under us; not mandated empathy, but real, heartfelt benevolence.
If we continue down the path our society is headed, we will fall deeper into moral relativism to the point where we exist in moral anarchy. And I know we’re better than that.
Thanks for reading.
Godspeed.
