On the Unlawful Nature of ‘Equity’ in Virginia

by David Gordon

The Democrats wanted a fight over Critical Race Theory (CRT). The Virginia Project and our friends gave them the fight they were begging for — and spanked them so hard they’ll never forget it. When the facts were made known, the public was overwhelmingly against it, across every demographic. Fighting CRT was a clear winner and Virginia’s Republicans rode the issue to success across the state.

However, CRT is merely the root of a much broader structure, one that includes other concepts such as “equity, diversity and inclusion” and “antiracism.” While CRT itself has been purged, with leftist schools and school boards rushing to scrub it from their materials lest they get caught and become the next schools scandal, its products remain deeply embedded — not just in the schools, but all across the state, implemented at the local level.

Critical Race Theory is dead. It’s now time to kill off its hyper-racialist demon spawn, starting with “Equity.”

“Equity” is the new “Critical Race Theory,” and the war to defeat it is rapidly entering into full swing.

[For those who wish to review the structure of Critical Race Theory and its relation to “Equity,” please review our groundbreaking March 2021 presentation on the subject — the one that set off the national debate.]

The basic premise of “equity” is that every individual can be accurately judged by ethnicity alone, that government can and should be making that judgment, and on the basis of that judgment unequally administer the law using these permanent stereotypes.

The concept is not only offensive to reason, but offensive to the law in several major respects; it is more than reasonable to assert that the practice is plainly unlawful and must be not only abolished, but prosecuted where found to be in practice.

First, the 14th Amendment demands equal protection of the laws and all but explicitly forbids the practice of “equity.”

Second, Virginia Code 18.2-485 makes it a Class 4 felony to incite acts of violence by one race against another race — acts most certainly incited in reality, are directly inspired by “equity” ideology, and which we can document endlessly thanks to the 2020 riots and subsequent effects and echoes thereof.

Third, one key element of Critical Race Theory that was not widely enough noted is its explicit rejection of objective reality. That may be all well and good to do in the isolation of academia’s ivory towers, but once money starts changing hands, the rejection of objective reality becomes false advertising and fraud. The snake-oil nature of “equity” can be firmly established from its own creators’ words as well as the reality on the ground that no “equity” program has ever achieved the results it claims to want to achieve.

[It is here I must implore you to crack open that copy of Luke Rosiak’s Race to the Bottom which details, with endless receipts, the essentially fraudulent nature of “equity consulting.”]

“Equity” cannot survive these tests; not in the court of public opinion, nor in a court of law.

What That Means for Virginia

In the past, none of this mattered. A Democrat governor and a Democrat attorney general would never in a million years seek to right wrongs done by an ideology they themselves supported, and it’s hard to imagine any Democrat doing such a thing on any issue. But the miracle of 2021 changed the game. Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares takes these issues very seriously, he has the support of Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin. In a Dillon Rule state, this makes all the difference.

And they are quite serious, as we can see with the special grand jury in Loudoun and two new human rights investigations into Fairfax County schools. They were elected with a mandate to put a stop to these abuses in the schools, they know it better than anyone, and they are faithful to this duty.

Since The Virginia Project was dragged into schools issues, we have been at the forefront of exposing and defeating the infiltration of radical left politics therein. More concerning even now is how much criminal activity is business-as-usual among that crowd. We have become an accidental crime-fighting investigatory agency and are currently pursuing no fewer than seven scandals in Fairfax County alone, currently exposed or to be exposed during this election season.
What we find the Attorney General will know about; his office has already launched investigations and prosecutions as a result of our findings. We take utmost care to do our due diligence so that we continue to be seen as a source of actionable intelligence about Democrats’ crimes spree against Virginians.

Ultimately, the Virginia Project is a political action committee, not a detective agency. However, these needs conflate perfectly with the political demands of the public at large, for the imposition of a reasonable level of law and order in lawless Democrat-run localities, and for reasonable means to pursue justice as a regular and reliable process to be available for redress of grievances. These are basic Constitutional rights, they must be defended to the last, and only Republicans, from executive offices and legislative bodies, will rise to defend them. Any pursuit of justice must thus include removal of Democrats and their replacement with Republicans.

These investigations, along with our other activities — party building, candidate development, election integrity — are able to continue only with your support. The outlook for Virginia Republicans in 2023 is not good at all, and another set of miracles will need to happen in order to get the GOP over the finish line and in full control of the legislature, so that we may finally pass legislation urgently needed by the Commonwealth without Democrat obstructionism.

Virginia Project investigations are the most likely source of the miracles we will need to win in 2023, as our paradigm-altering work in Loudoun in 2021 testifies. Your support can well make the difference between putting an end to the threat of a renewed Virginia Democrat reign of terror, and sealing the deal on Virginia being a Republican state for the foreseeable future.

There will be much more to come and I eagerly look forward to the telling.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

David Gordon is the founder of the Virginia Project, a political action committee dedicated to winning elections for Republicans in Virginia.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

34 responses to “On the Unlawful Nature of ‘Equity’ in Virginia”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: ” The basic premise of “equity” is that every individual can be accurately judged by ethnicity alone, that government can and should be making that judgment, and on the basis of that judgment unequally administer the law using these permanent stereotypes.”

    total BS.

    It has nothing what-so-ever to do with race or ethnicity and everything to do with providing the resources a given child will need to achieve their own potential.

    It’s like arguing that we can’t spend more to education an autistic child or a child with dyslexia than we’d spend on other kids without such issue. Or that an AP program for gifted kids is “illegal” because we’d be spending more on them than other kids less gifted who would not benefit from such additional resources.

    1. disqus_VYLI8FviCA Avatar
      disqus_VYLI8FviCA

      It assumes the government/school can create equal outcomes for students. It can’t. If students skip school, don’t study, disrupt class, they will get the education they deserve – not what anyone wants, but the outcome that is the result of individual decisions and behavior. Equity assumes that if the govt intrudes enough, puts its finger on enough scales, the outcomes will be equitable. They won’t it’s pure folly and a fool’s errand.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        is it “equal outcome” to provide food to kids who cannot afford it? If a child has dyslexia and untreated it results in lower achievement than he/she might attain than if it was treated; is rendering that extra resource rewarding insufficient motivation and hard work to provide an “equal outcome” to which they are not entitled?

      2. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        To the contrary. It only assumes that provision of support offers a more equal playing field, not outcome. Individual decisions and behavior compromised by some disability will not create an equal playing field.

  2. LesGabriel Avatar
    LesGabriel

    I’m glad t o see that Virginia Project is alive and well. None of the other comments have addressed the main point, the differences between equity and equality and how pursuing equality of outcome is incompatible with equality of opportunity.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      “Pursuing equality of outcome” is not the purpose of equity. Affording any assistance to school children is intended to equal the playing field as far as possible to take advantage of the available opportunities. Equity and equality can co-exist without conflict.

      1. Warmac9999 Avatar
        Warmac9999

        I suggest you look at the history of the Puritan Commune before you make the statement that Equity and Equality can co-exist. Equity, by its very nature, is anti-merit and unfair. The Puritan Commune was nearly destroyed by Equity.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          handicap ramps are inherently inequitable and unfair if they don’t benefit everyone equally.

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            I fear this nuance escapes the literalists, originalists, textualists.

          2. Warmac9999 Avatar
            Warmac9999

            I slipped on an ice covered handicap ramp and fell. Thus the cons as well as the pros of equity.

        2. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          It’s a long way from Tipperary and the Puritans. By definition, equity is the essence of fairness, originating from chancery courts a/k/a the conscience of the King. Suggest you review that history and the inclusion of the term equity in Art. 3, Sec.2 of the Constitution.

          1. Warmac9999 Avatar
            Warmac9999

            Again, the American colonial Puritan experience is relevant. Essentially, the Puritan communal living under equity produced unfair and unjust results. Interestingly, the women felt the most abused. Equity is not about merit and it is now all too often being used in unfair ways to disable success – see withholding of merit scholarship info. The best intentions of Equity to promote fairness have been turned on their heads

      2. James Kiser Avatar
        James Kiser

        Yeah that is why Russia and China are so successful

      3. LesGabriel Avatar
        LesGabriel

        IF equality of outcome” is not the purpose of equity, then what is? Do those two terms mean the same thing? If not, what is the difference? If so, then why two different terms?

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      If it were actually true that there was pursuit of equal outcomes… about as true as CRT actually taught,…

  3. I think you and many republicans have grossly overestimated the severity of the “spanking” you gave the democrats in 2021. I also think you are deceiving yourselves regarding the degree to which the “miracle of 2021” “changed the game”.

    I predict that if you and many republicans continue to deceive yourselves on the aforementioned points, you will have your posteriors handed to you in 2023 and 2025. Barring the complete meltdown of the Biden administration, of course.

    1. VaNavVet Avatar

      Let them keep on believing in this “miracle” and spouting this nonsense.

    2. M. Purdy Avatar

      Here’s the reality: Youngkin won by two points, with rurals coming out as they’ve never done before. He won, not on a campaign of actual policies, but on a campaign of misrepresentation about the nature of what was being taught in our schools. Fast forward to the midterms and the special election and VA, and we see that that old playbook as lost its luster and has not paid dividends nationally. But instead of recalibrating, focusing on real issues (e.g., gun control), we’re back to the playbook that won Youngkin the governorship in 2021. These guys aren’t big on actual ideas. If R’s really believe they changed the game, more power to ’em. Go ahead and fight the last war.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        R’s have an immense abiility to overplay election results… in general.

        To them a “mandate” is what Youngkin did. He won. Time to implement all the GOP agenda.

        😉

        1. M. Purdy Avatar

          Well, we see how much Virginians love that GOP agenda:-). But for the sake of getting Rs out as soon as possible, I hope they keep it up.

        2. Warmac9999 Avatar
          Warmac9999

          Clinton once said something like this – I may only have won election by less than 50% but I have 100% of the power of the presidency.

  4. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    While this article is merely a cross-post from another source, it is so desperately disinformed as to be well beneath the standards of BR. The author asserts that the 14th Amendment “all but explicitly forbids the practice of ‘equity.’” Article 3, Sec. 2 of the Constitution reads that “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity arising under this Constitution.” Thus, the equal protection of the law afforded in the 14th Amendment must include equity within jurisprudence for “All persons born or naturalized in the United States.” It is equitable to provide reading assistance to school children; buses; lunches; and other support to enable all to compete and prosper on an equal footing.

    The author further writes:
    “The basic premise of “equity” is that every individual can be accurately judged by ethnicity alone, that government can and should be making that judgment, and on the basis of that judgment unequally administer the law using these permanent stereotypes.”

    No individual can be accurately judged by any criteria much less ethnicity. Black letter application of the law was abandoned in England leading to the creation of courts of equity to avoid such harsh outcomes of the common law. For example, you are not within your rights to exercise dominion over your neighbor’s cow when it trespasses upon your property. Such application of the law would be inequitable.

    Perhaps the author owns no cattle, but the example stands. The entire article is cow wash.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      If you buy the premise about “equal protection”, then providing free and reduced lunches is inequitable.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        According to this author, provision of any assistance is suspect under the 14th. And not simply in schools.

      2. Warmac9999 Avatar
        Warmac9999

        It is inequitable as it assumes that only the poor need the lunches at no cost. However, the government in its wisdom has decided that the overall benefit exceeds the inequity created.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          The point being that some are provided lunches based on income levels, free or reduced.

          And you say this is not equitable why?

          What would make it equitable? none or all?

          Would you do that for Medicaid for kids also?

          Kids with specific medical needs can’t get therapy because they’re getting something other kids are not?

          “equal outcomes” – the kid with a heart defect gets extra help so he ends up “equal” on the heart thing?

          1. Warmac9999 Avatar
            Warmac9999

            I am not saying I disagree with these policies only that they are not equitable. If someone receives a benefit that someone else is barred from receiving, that is inequitable. Equity that is based on fairness and Justice and can result is unfairness and injustice. This is what the Puritans discovered and they created opportunity to compensate for unfairness.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            so do you agree or disagree with policies to provide resources to those that need them?

            do you think providing such resources makes them “equal” to others and therefore an “equal outcome”?

            do you consider a disability to be “unfair” – as opposed to a policy that is “unfair”?

          3. Warmac9999 Avatar
            Warmac9999

            That is not my point. A policy, law, or adjudication action that intentionally favors one person or group over another is inequitable and possibly unconstitutional. The policy may be a good one but all such policies based on fairness or justice have elements of unfairness or injustice inherent in then. I can’t name a policy that does not have a downside and I challenge you to do so.

            Equality of opportunity is the best we can strive for. Equity of outcome is a disaster in that it undermines individual merit and excellence – and work.

            Why do you think disable people always need government help? I went to school with a guy who was mentally disabled from birth. Yet he was the hardest working kid you ever saw. He graduated with a “c” average and got a standing ovation. He was a winner not because of the false pity of the left but because he overcame one deficit through work.

            How many disabled people have you further disabled by helping them out with government? How about that 6 year old who shot the teacher? Ever consider the possibility that he was in the wrong situation because of policy?

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            so trying to get calibrated on your views. You think that laws that require handicapped access are unconstitutional?

            free and reduced lunch -unconstitutional?

            correct?

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      To keep in the vein of equity within the context of the Great Range Wars, sheep dip too.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      To keep in the vein of equity within the context of the Great Range Wars, sheep dip too.

      1. Speaking of range wars, I think it’s sad that most everyone forgets about the real victims of the Great Range Wars – coyotes…

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          They’re back. Been reported at the Yorktown Battlefield.

          They may be the winners…
          https://dwr.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/Living-with-Coyotes-Near-Your-Home-in-Virginia.pdf

Leave a Reply