Thought of the Day “Social Justice: Its Effect on Education, Politics and Us” Sydney Wlliams
Social justice is generally thought of as being fair and just relations between an individual and society. But to understand it, we must first consider its antithesis, justice, as expressed in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and as it was historically understood. Justice is freedom from encroachment on our rights to speak, to assemble, to own property. Justice reflects our inalienable rights that will not be denied. Social justice, in contrast, involves positive rights – the right to food, shelter, education, healthcare, etc. Justice allows for the precepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Social justice involves the provisioning of things. Since governments have no resources other than that which they take, social justice is, as the Libertarian Leonard Read put it, “robbing the selected Peter to pay for the collective Paul.”
Social justice warriors would have us believe government has the virtues of individuals – a moral sense that invokes empathy, mercy, love and concern for the less fortunate. But governments have no feelings. Men and women do. It is justice, not social justice, that is the purpose of a democracy. Politicians, advocating for social justice, have joined their cause with emotion. They argue that only the state has the means to gather and equitably distribute wealth in the amounts required. However, Father Martin Rhonheimer, president of the Austrian Institute of Economics and Social Philosophy in Vienna, wrote that as “…social justice is essentially a moral virtue, it applies to all other actions of human beings, insofar as they relate to the common good.” It is a Christian teaching. Father Rhonheimer went on: “Social justice in this sense applies to the actions of capitalists, investors and entrepreneurs, and also to citizens feeling responsible for persons in need and for the poor.” In other words, social justice can be accomplished by individuals and eleemosynary institutions as wells as by government – and it is in many places.
Words are cheap and some who promote social justice are distinguished by hypocrisy. Cuba’s dictator Fidel Castro impoverished his people materially, spiritually and democratically, yet he once spoke of his goal, as being “… not Communism or Marxism but representative democracy and social justice in a well-planned economy.” He could not provide his people a basic subsistence, and he certainly could not or would not give them justice. When trust is placed in the state as arbiter and promoter of the common good, abuses of power may be seized by elected legislators and unelected bureaucrats What is lost, in a clamor for social justice, is the justice inherent in free markets, derived from a free people making millions of individual decisions, operating under the rule of law.
Our schools and colleges have become incubators for social justice warriors. In an op-ed in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal, Judge José A. Cabranes, a former general counsel and trustee of Yale University, wrote that “colleges and universities have subordinated their historic mission of free inquiry to a new pursuit of social justice.” He used, as an example, the change in the first sentence of Yale’s new mission statement, which before 2016 read: “Like all great universities, Yale has a tripartite mission: to create, preserve, and disseminate knowledge.” That sentence now reads: “Yale is committed to improving the world today and for future generations through outstanding research and scholarship, education, preservation, and practice.” In their desire to be woke, the word knowledge disappeared from the Yale mission statement. Despite claims of equitable treatment for all, due process for faculty and students disappeared. Despite assertions of inclusion, conservative ideas are condemned and treated as hate speech. Recently a Harvard student, protesting a representative of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency on campus to be interviewed by The Crimson, explained: “My feelings are more important than freedom of the press.”
Socrates is credited with saying that the mind is not a vase to be filled, but a fire to be lit. It is the purpose of education to keep those fires burning, to read and understand history, to incite curiosity, to debate issues, to think. Universities should recognize we never stop learning. Eric Hoffer once wrote that the central task of education is to “produce not learned but learning people.” Martin Luther King wrote that “The function of education is to think intensively and to think critically.” A university has a captive audience. When it is used to inculcate propaganda and discourage dissent, it is an injustice, not just to students but to society. Judge Cabranes wrote that faculties today play almost no role in the admissions process. That job has been assumed by “specialized” admissions departments, individuals who are less interested in intellectual curiosity and accomplishment, and more in “activism,” “social entrepreneurs,” or “overcoming adversity.” He added that “it has become common for applicants to claim to have ‘founded’ at [age] 17 some shiny-sounding non-profit devoted to beneficent acts.” (Surely, most such nonprofit foundations are founded and funded by wealthy parents.) Nevertheless, those are all good qualities that should not be dismissed. Promoting good citizenship is as critical to a democracy, as is creating a skilled, career-ready workforce to a job’s market. But first we should assure that our universities provide rigorous academic instruction, instill a love of learning, instruct on virtues and promote tolerance, all while encouraging a diversity of opinion.
For generations our nation has been blessed with great schools and universities, which have produced scientists, engineers, artists, writers, philosophers, doctors, teachers, politicians and entrepreneurs. With a Constitution of laws that protect private property and free speech, our Country has grown wealthy. Yet, today’s graduates have little understanding of how the promotion of social justice, definitionally, retards an historic understanding of justice. Free and open debate would allow students to better understand exactly how much freedom will have to be given up, in order to accomplish the social justice of their dreams.
It is in the political realm where social justice can cause the most damage. Social justice, we should never forget, entails injustice to those from whom something has been taken – even given that it is a price willingly paid by most for living in this nation. Government already provides much – defense, law enforcement, diplomacy, the promotion of interstate commerce, a public-school education, a network of highways, bridges and tunnels, healthcare for the elderly and indigent, and a retirement income for seniors. As the Country has matured, so have its commitments to its citizens. Social justice has become a buzz phrase (and Socialism is its inevitable destination) that is used by the Left to attract voters. Democrat candidates outdo one another in terms of promises made – promises which can only be realized by denying justice to the few who must bear the cost in dollars even as all must bear the costs in freedoms foregone.
While I believe we have a responsibility, individually and collectively, to care for those unable to care for themselves, we must identify and understand the costs incurred when government assumes responsibility – costs in terms of a demeaning culture of dependency and victimhood, along with freedoms lost and dollars spent. One is reminded of Margaret Thatcher’s famous aphorism that “the problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of someone else’s money.” But it is Friedrich Hayek’s question at the top of this essay that needs be answered by each of us, individually: “what exactly are your principles?”
Comments are closed.
