Chapter 1: The Metaphor of Rock Walls

Imagine a collection of rocks, all similar in density and strength but differing in color: red, yellow, and blue. If you were to construct a wall and notice it leans heavily towards the blue and yellow hues, you might conclude that more red rocks are needed. Thus, you would sift through the pile to select red rocks that possess the appropriate shape and density.

If the rocks are indeed equal in quality, any irregular distribution could simply be an anomaly. By sorting the rocks by size and density, over time, the colors in the wall should naturally equalize.

However, should you prioritize selecting red rocks first, followed by sorting by size and density, you would be addressing the color disparity more efficiently. In cases where the average red rock is smaller or less dense, it would be wiser to first sort by size and density, and then find a red rock within that subset.

This reasoning is predicated on the assumption that the initial imbalance was merely a random occurrence. But what if the rocks were chosen with intention? If an imbalance exists due to selection bias, it may suggest a lack of neutral judgment regarding colors. Perhaps the red rocks were overlooked because they were perceived as weaker or smaller, or due to a preference for the other colors.

This concept implies that if the rocks are indeed equal, one could sort either by size/density or color and achieve similar outcomes. However, if there's been prior selection bias, and there’s no reason to believe those who influenced past choices are no longer active, one must consider that the original bias still influences current selections.

Would those who made the original decisions openly admit their belief in the inequality of red rocks? Likely not. They may be unaware of their biases or justify their choices, believing that red rocks simply chose not to be part of the wall.

In truth, if they believe that red rocks are generally smaller or weaker, they may not admit this openly. Many would likely claim to be unaware of the color distribution or assume that the red rocks had different preferences.

The belief that sorting first by "red" will yield inferior results suggests an inherent difference, which they may not be willing to acknowledge. A blind selection process might eventually lead to a balanced wall, though this could take generations, provided there are no deliberate preferences for blue and yellow rocks.

If it is plausible to think that the imbalance stems from conscious bias, then only intentional actions can rectify it. Recognizing that there is an imbalance compared to the initial rock pile indicates that someone must have consciously or unconsciously dismissed the red rocks. This rejection often manifests in arguments against their inclusion.

Chapter 2: Confirmation Hearings and Societal Structures

The analogy of the rock wall serves as a lens through which to examine Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Those who maintain that the current racial and gender composition of the bench accurately reflects the talent pool tend to employ a consistent set of arguments to defend their status.

Regardless of how they articulate their beliefs, they cannot genuinely advocate for equality while simultaneously upholding their privilege. Some may even believe they are unaware of the implications of their stance.

Could they genuinely believe in equality while still favoring their own advantages? At least this viewpoint is honest, as it acknowledges the unequal benefits they receive, which they are reluctant to relinquish.

Those who believe in equality recognize the challenges faced and understand that selecting a member from a historically excluded group necessitates finding someone who is exceptionally qualified. The idea that one must be "twice as good to get half as far" starkly contrasts the notion that individuals from that group possess inherent advantages.

Anecdotes about individual experiences of exclusion do not capture the broader systemic issues. If someone believes that occasionally an individual from group X is favored, they should also consider that nearly every individual from group X has faced similar challenges.

In reality, there are three primary perspectives on this issue, though only two are commonly discussed:

1. Group Y is superior to group X.
2. Groups Y and X are equal, but circumstances have skewed the outcomes.
3. Group X may actually be superior to group Y, yet historical factors have obscured this reality.

It seems that group Y is striving to maintain power through manipulation and populism, resisting any efforts to create a level playing field. Those who sincerely believe in equality embrace a fair deal for all, while others, driven by a sense of superiority, may react with fear.

As someone aligned with the belief in equality, I assume that selecting a member from a disadvantaged group would lead to the pursuit of higher qualifications, given the heightened scrutiny such candidates face. They will need to meet exceptionally high standards to be considered on par with their peers.

Individuals from both sides of the argument may present similar viewpoints but for different underlying reasons. It’s essential to listen attentively and discern the philosophies that inform their arguments.

Ultimately, it’s crucial to determine which side of history you wish to align with. As demographic shifts occur, the opportunity to influence the standards by which future generations are judged may dwindle.

The narrative will inevitably change, and past actions will be mirrored by those who once faced oppression. If one does not believe in equality, the future may seem daunting.

As for me, my concern lies not in the potential actions of others, but in the destructive nature of fear on the human spirit.

Namaste

Steve

www.lifewritingpodcast.com

Explore the enigma of a mysterious undocumented rock wall and its implications.

Delve into the secrets surrounding the St. Stephens Park rock wall mystery and what it reveals about societal biases.