Not everyone watches professional basketball – or sports in general – but it’s a good way to understand how equity – i.e. achieving equal outcomes – is not necessarily a worthwhile goal.

Take the Boston Celtics, who on June 17 won their 18th NBA (National Basketball Association) championship, which is a record. They were on the cusp of winning over the last few seasons, just falling short in 2022 in the finals and last year in the conference finals. This year’s team was light years better for a variety of reasons, but the biggest factor of all, literally, was their acquisition of a 7’2” center named Kristaps Porzingis who, when healthy, is an absolute monster on both ends of the court.

As a Celtics fan I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of their storybook year: they had the league’s best regular season record and they coasted through the playoffs, winning each of their four best-of-seven series by 4-1, 4-1, 4-0, and 4-1 margins.

My favorite aspect of all was how Porzingis toyed with much of the opposition. Not only can he shoot consistently from a far distance with the accuracy of a much smaller player, but the way he lines up to block opponents’ shots is a thing of beauty. I loved every instance of watching the other team’s player speed to the basket in hopes of making an easy shot, only to have the basketball swatted away by a perfectly timed Porzingis block.

But through it all I kept thinking to myself: “this just isn’t fair.” And I remember my Celtics being on the receiving end of such an unfair advantage for years as well, at the hands of an even more dominant player, Shaquille O’Neal, who at 7’1” and 325 pounds looked like he was playing against a bunch of Kindergarteners, most of whom he could toss around like rag dolls.
That’s sports, and that’s life. We don’t get to choose the height we want to be, and some will be able to use height to their advantage. But never did I suggest changing the rules. Not once did I think baskets made against imposing defensive giants like Porzingis and O’Neal should be worth more points, or that the big men’s own shots should be worth less. Isn’t that what equity is doing; trying to achieve equal outcomes?
If equity meant treating all people, regardless of race or nationality, with respect, everyone except actual racists could get behind the idea. And even if it meant trying to identify ways to help those facing challenging socioeconomic conditions overcome them so they can compete, that too would be a noble cause. After all, if you share a two-room house with eight family members, there’s a very good chance that you’ll rarely get a good night’s sleep. If your family’s too poor to buy quality food, you’re probably malnourished to an extent. And if you’re facing stressful instances in your household, like an incarcerated family member or threat of eviction, that’s also going to take a toll. All of these factors, especially when taken together, may cause you to underperform academically as compared to your peers who live under more favorable conditions.

The mindset should be to try to remedy the conditions: provide larger living space, better nutrition, etc. Instead, the approach is to lower the standard for students in those situations by requiring less of them. Would you want to be operated on by a surgeon whose real grades were Ds and Fs but made it through medical school by virtue of an equity curve? The objective should be to strengthen jumpers’ legs so they can clear a hurdle, not to lower the hurdle.
It really boils down to a very difficult question: what’s more important, maintaining the proper standard or increasing a person’s chances to get out from under?

In some instances, interventions are commendable and have little or no downside. For instance, mentally challenged individuals decades ago would be written off and never given a chance to work. Nowadays, many do jobs like bagging groceries at the supermarket. Giving them a better quality of life far outweighs the awkwardness some customers may feel when interacting with them.

Foolhardy policies, though, such as making the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) optional are exactly what’s wrong with equity. I performed respectably on my SAT, but didn’t get nearly the high scores necessary for full scholarships to prestigious institutions. Just as I played sports throughout my high school years but wasn’t even close to being good enough to have a college pay my way just so I could play for its team.

Accordingly, I’m not on the track that could get me elected president of the United States one day (assuming I’d even want the job), and even more certainly, I’ll never play in the NBA. Oh well, that’s life. Rather than dwelling for what I don’t have, I count my blessings for what I do.
Much like when bad mortgages – or bad meat – is mixed in with the good, equity is thrown into the alphabet soup known as DEI: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Colleges and universities have created entire departments around DEI, with laughable titles such as ‘Dean of DEI’, and several institutions now offer a PhD in DEI.
As we speak, our children are being indoctrinated into believing that DEI’s a good thing, and their aim would be to cancel a columnist such as me for criticizing it. They’d conclude that if I’m against DEI, surely I must want to further the supremacy of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs), one of which I’m not.
Congratulations, Celtics. You weren’t equal this year, you were better. That’s life.