, , , , , , , , ,

Cover of "Animal Farm: Centennial Edition...

Cover of Animal Farm: Centennial Edition

“ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS“, so goes the line in chapter ten from George Orwell’s, Animal Farm.

While the book was political satire aimed at communism, some aspects of the story and the problem can be seen in our own, democratic, free, nation; now and in its past.

Slavery and then the Jim Crow era can most certainly be defined as the above, singular, final “commandment” from Animal Farm.

Similarly too, affirmative action, a scheme to atone for and undo slavery and segregation, ironically is merely reverse segregation – after a kind – and thus can also fit the above definition/commandment.

When you are given preferential treatment not based upon merit or experience, while at the same time all applicants are said to be on the same playing field of no discrimination based upon sex, age, race, etc., there is in fact discrimination.  Affirmative action is a form of racial segregation, that some would even argue does more harm than good for those it’s supposed to help – disaffected, downtrodden blacks caught in vicious cycles of poverty and self-destructive behaviors that aren’t providing them with opportunities to succeed in what is supposed to be a level, equal, environment.

Unions too, to a degree, also fall under the same category of “more equal”.

Is it any wonder why some often ask what their motivation is to do their very best, if their efforts and merit are going to be passed over in favor of your race or affiliation.

And so, we now come to the latest phase in the newest form of “more equal”, but this time it has nothing to do with race or affiliation, but instead, sexual orientation.  If you are not heterosexual in this country, you are becoming a privileged class.

Just as America sought to atone for its sins against blacks by legalizing a self-defeating, unconstitutional practice, we are now as a nation, by hook or crook, being forced to atone for the marginalization and maligning of any and all who are not heterosexuals in feeling or practice.

The latest example of this is Elmhurst College in Illinois, which has recently decided to add a new optional question to their application form.  The question asks the prospective student about their sexual orientation.

At first glance, one might think, “It’s none of their business” and then wonder what, if any, reason there is to ask such a thing.

Elmhurst College is overseen by the United Church of Christ.  The UCC as a denomination has a very liberal social and theological outlook.

Here’s the answer to the question, why:

Answers to the question, which the university said will not be a determining factor in admissions, will be used to help determine eligibility for institutional “enrichment” scholarships given to applicants from underrepresented groups. By adding the question, LGBT students will now be considered among other groups of underrepresented students for the financial award, which covers up to one third of the cost of tuition.

Gary Rold, dean of admissions, told the Chicago Sun-Times that the question was also added as a way to ensure that the university is providing a welcoming and accepting environment for all students. “We try really hard to take good care of students, have them graduate and be successful citizens in the world,” he said. “The only way to do that is to meet people where they really are.”

The question is to enable particular students an opportunity to get a scholarship for being non-heterosexual. Frankly, if an individual or board wants to give students money for tuition for being homosexual, more power to them.  It is up to the student and the fund to find each other, maybe even with a collegiate counselor’s help.  It is something else entirely for a college to promote a cheaper pass for certain students because of their sexual choices.

The college wants to “meet people where they are” and make sure they’re open and as diverse as possible.  That sounds nice on the surface, but theory and practice don’t always work out the way people assume they should.  Life and reality have a funny way of showing the errors and flaws in theories, especially when they come from ideological extremes.

Elmhurst is supposed to be a Christian college – they are administered by a “Christian” organization.  “Meeting people where they are”, is a noble and Christian attitude, but can be and is being twisted in this instance.  We are also as Christians charged to “be in the world but not of it”.  We are to love all people and accept all people equally for the sinners we all are, but that does not mean we give tacit approval or a pass for their sin.

The UCC, in an effort to preach the Gospel to the world, has opened their arms to the world.  In doing so, they instead have muddied the Gospel and closed their heart – as a denomination – to Christ.  The UCC is trying so hard to be loving and focus purely on grace that they’ve warped the justice of God that they purport to support through equality.  They’ve supplanted the firm Rock of absolute truth with the shifting sands of moral relativism and thus are preaching a false gospel.  It does not surprise me then that the UCC and thus Elmhurst college would add this question to their application, in tacit approval of a lifestyle that is sinful.

Perhaps Elmhurst needs to add another question to their application:  Do you consider yourself a glutton?  Yes or No.  And make efforts to create a scholarship, all in the name of inclusion and diversity.  Or, how about a question concerning a physical feature – which you were most certainly born with and thus had zero way of externally affecting – that will not negatively affect one’s academic performance?  Do you consider yourself ugly?  Do you have a large nose?  Yes or No.  We have a scholarship just for you!  Absurd?  Sure.  So is the sexual orientation question.  Worry about merit, about accepting the best students for their abilities and thus producing the best graduates because of their accomplishments, and don’t worry about statistics and trying to please any or all facets of our culture.

The variant forms of affirmative action, whether actual or perceived, just as unions and even the theory of communism, all at their heart have good intentions.  To right wrongs, to lift up those who are oppressed, to put people on a more equitable footing.

The only problem is that true equality will never, ever happen by the powers of man because we are all fallible.  Instead, equality balances with liberty.  Increasing one will necessarily decrease the other.  Furthermore, instances such as affirmative action which seek to increase equality, actually stifle equality as they decrease liberty.  It is cutting off your nose to spite your face.  There will always be some form of discrimination, whether intentional or accidental.

Because of this, unions have become just as corrupt and problematic as the businessmen and “robber” barons they first formed to fight against.  Similarly, communism in practice showed the gaping flaws in Marx’s logic and philosophy, with tragic results.  And then, with affirmative action, in self-loathing we flagellate ourselves in penance, only to subjugate ourselves and never properly implement in practice what we theoretically hope.

I read about Elmhurst’s application and I wondered how long it’ll take for some enterprising young heterosexuals to game and abuse them?  All it’ll take is for some student who doesn’t mind lying or being considered a homosexual for a few years – nor mind the potential future fallout of the label always being on their record.  Here is an opportunity to get 1/3 of the tuition shaved off – if accepted to receive the gay scholarship – just for claiming to be a homosexual, bi, lesbian, etc.  How would Elmhurst or the fund which provides the scholarship prove the applicant is lying, and would it be worth it publicly for them to do so?  It wouldn’t come across as very inclusive, friendly and open.

Furthermore, in Elmhurst’s effort to be more inclusive, this could backfire on them and instead make them the place to go if you’re a non-heterosexual desiring higher education.  So that, instead of raising the statistics of sexual minorities just a little bit, they may find that many heterosexuals would instead prefer not to attend Elmhurst and more homosexuals would prefer it.  As one person noted, high school students aren’t dumb.  They can read between the lines.  The questions on an application  “clearly signal(sic) what kind of environment they want to create, and what kind of students they want.”

Just more proof of the continuing slide our nation is taking down the slippery slope.