Liberals continue to talk about the income inequality gap but say nothing about the two other gaps, and these two gaps do far more damage to people's self-esteem and standing and that affect far more people, namely, the athletic inequality gap and the academic inequality gap.
Each year, only a small, tiny elite get to play college athletics, and only an even smaller elite get to play professional sports each year. Less than 2% of young adults in school get to participate on college sports teams. Very few even try out because they know they have no chance of being selected, due to the unfair, merit-only selection process. And the percentage of Americans who get to play professional sports is even smaller, again due to the unfair, merit-only selection process. Clearly this is grossly unfair.
Similarly, the academic inequality gap continues to grow, as a small minority of students continue to win scholarships and make honor rolls, while other students are left behind, due to the unfair, performance-only grading system. No consideration is given to how students were raised, the access they had to educational experiences at home, etc., etc., which is clearly unfair.
The solution? One, mandate that 10% of all college athletes be selected from students who did not try out for the team but who want to play. Two, mandate that 10% of all professional athletes consist of amateurs who did not try out for the team but who are willing to play. Three, mandate that students from households with annual incomes below $50,000 be given a 10% boost to all their grades, so as to take into account their disadvantaged childhoods. Four, mandate that students from households with annual incomes above $200,000 have all their grades reduced by 10%, so as to account for the unfairly advantaged childhoods.
I would also suggest that we apply the label of "hate speech" to arguments that contend that there will always be some people who study more, who exercise more, who are more athletically talented, who are more motivated than others, and that therefore it is unfair and unrealistic to seek to equalize results. This is the same elitist argument that conservatives use to justify the income inequality gap.
Each year, only a small, tiny elite get to play college athletics, and only an even smaller elite get to play professional sports each year. Less than 2% of young adults in school get to participate on college sports teams. Very few even try out because they know they have no chance of being selected, due to the unfair, merit-only selection process. And the percentage of Americans who get to play professional sports is even smaller, again due to the unfair, merit-only selection process. Clearly this is grossly unfair.
Similarly, the academic inequality gap continues to grow, as a small minority of students continue to win scholarships and make honor rolls, while other students are left behind, due to the unfair, performance-only grading system. No consideration is given to how students were raised, the access they had to educational experiences at home, etc., etc., which is clearly unfair.
The solution? One, mandate that 10% of all college athletes be selected from students who did not try out for the team but who want to play. Two, mandate that 10% of all professional athletes consist of amateurs who did not try out for the team but who are willing to play. Three, mandate that students from households with annual incomes below $50,000 be given a 10% boost to all their grades, so as to take into account their disadvantaged childhoods. Four, mandate that students from households with annual incomes above $200,000 have all their grades reduced by 10%, so as to account for the unfairly advantaged childhoods.
I would also suggest that we apply the label of "hate speech" to arguments that contend that there will always be some people who study more, who exercise more, who are more athletically talented, who are more motivated than others, and that therefore it is unfair and unrealistic to seek to equalize results. This is the same elitist argument that conservatives use to justify the income inequality gap.
