I think candy analogies were somewhat destroyed by Eric Trump in the presidential campaign. At any rate, as you say below, you yourself don't find it very useful. So perhaps in the next draft you could save the space and use it wisely for something else.

Perhaps it would make sense to talk about revolutionary and ameliorist flavors of equality, in which the ultimate demands of the idea are either taken seriously, or defused for the value of present effect in incremental change. Obviously, Jefferson understands both that equality is ultimately inconsistent with slavery, and that a definition of equality requiring abolition will not be accepted as a basis for colonial solidarity against the King. Are we not observing in your draft the consequences of that uneasy distinction?

The spiritual outcome of the draft may be its purpose, in which case it would be a good idea, I think, to signal that to the reader at the outset. Or it may be that the more analytic first part of the draft is where you meant the weight of the reader's attention to fall. Either way, the path to a better next draft seems to me to lie through sorting out what is primary from what is secondary, and reorganizing somewhat accordingly. You want to state your main idea in the introduction, so that the reader can follow your thought without losing her way, or being disoriented in her travel by the discontinuity between the beginning and the end.

Equality

The Definition

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

Over 240 years later, equality is still sacred. At the time of drafting, “all men” excluded slaves and women, but today, at least for most students at a law school like Columbia, equality includes everyone.

We rarely consider the depth of this belief. We fail to consider what “all men are created equal” looks like, and we fail to compare it with our reality.

It goes without saying that equality for human beings does not mean the same.

One may be tempted to use an analogy like this one: there is a large jar of candy for sale, and each piece is $1. Regardless of what color the candy is, each piece is $1, so they are all equal. But are they? There are always popular colors and flavors, even if there are no empirical reasons to support a certain flavor’s popularity.

And as intuitive as that candy analogy may be, the way human beings operate is a more complicated and repulsive matter than that of different candies selling for the same price. Unlike candies, human beings are not priced the same—and this is evident in how much we are paid, which lives are saved, and which lives are extinguished with no fanfare. The boy who sews blouses in China will never be a lawyer at Cravath, no matter how hard he works. A life extinguished in New York City means more to the world than the hundreds in North Korea.

The Effect

The greatest harm that occurs from our love of equality is when we strive for an equality that is harmful. This is the equality that is comfortable, that requires no sacrifice. The type of equality that allows a travel ban of majority Muslim countries, or the type of equality that demands that extraneous effort on the part of the disadvantaged instead of the advantaged. We speak of hurdles for people to overcome instead of hurdles for the privileged to tear down.

A consequence of this is that people will focus on those who are disadvantaged instead of those who have power. We rush to the symptoms of the problem, hastily putting band aids on the oozing wounds instead of addressing the source.

This is why people will spend thousands of dollars to fly to Mexico to build houses, but still support the building of a wall that will separate the nations. This is why instead of saying, “he raped her,” we like to say “she was raped.” We immediately want to know what the victim was wearing or doing—the focus is on the weak instead of the strong.

By focusing on the victims of inequality, and by perpetuating the idea to others and ourselves that we are helping the victims, we believe we are fighting against equality when we are slowly destroying it. We assuage our guilt of being born in the better circumstances this way.

A secondary harm from a shallow understanding of equality is complacency. There is a false, shallow concept of equality that will be satisfactory for most of the privileged classes. It is a superficial implementation of equality in America, but it does not, or it need not, stretch to countries like China, Iran, or God forbid, North Korea.

But equality, true equality, should stretch to all humans, not just those within the borders of America.

Why Equality is Attractive

Where Do We Go From Here?

Equality and Myself

-- By KateJLee - 06 Mar 2017

The Concepts of Equality

Subsection A

The Effects of Multiple Concepts of Equality

Subsection B

Subsub 1

Subsub 2

Where do we go from here?

Subsection A

Subsection B

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, KateJLee
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.