Editor: One day after the Fairfax County School Board adopted its One Fairfax policy in 2017, our Board of Supervisors adopted it, too.
While its measured words describe itself as little more than an instrument to effect economic growth, iIt seems advocates have conjured up dubious statistics asserting that if everyone in our county were as productive as our average citizen, then our economy would grow.
Presumably, government programs and spending are expected to reshape some to reach the abilities of others, akin to the New Soviet Man the Soviets envisioned?
Trouble is, government entities have stretched the policy’s supposed intent to even fund drag-queen performances for toddlers (at Dolley Madison Library). Social-justice warriors command all Fairfax County government to worship and perform ablutions at the equity altar as they define equity.
Most troubling is members of every board, authority and committee are compelled to sign a One Fairfax Policy acknowledgement – sort of a religious test for office, some might surmise. Others might be disturbed by its resemblance to a loyalty test.
Striving for equity has aroused a religious zeal in some quarters, culminating or perhaps starting with Fairfax’s chief equity officer Karla Bruce’s 2018 anointment as our high priestess of equity. Contrasting her presentations set two years apart, we see a downward spiral of how our county’s zealous equity quest gets more threatening.
Yet Bruce’s Oct. 16, 2019, slide presentation to the Fairfax County Athletic Council was troubling enough. Starting at Slide 9, we observe three individuals (leaving aside its pandering in that all three appear to be people of color – indeed, one color) whose view of a baseball game is blocked by a wooden fence. Each stands on an equally high crate (labeled “equality”). One person towers over this fence; another sees adequately while the third is too short to see at all.
Bruce’s fence is a metaphor for hurdles to opportunity, while her crates represent limited government assistance or rules dispensed equally.
Invoking the slogan popularized by Karl Marx – “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” – Bruce’s second pane (“equity”) depicts how superior equity is to equality, as one person gets no support while her other two get one crate and two crates, respectively, so equalizing all outcomes.
By July 27, 2021, Bruce’s presentation to the Fairfax County Redistricting Committee turns more ominous.
Slide 5 repeats three individuals, this time watching a soccer match from behind a fence. The difference here is the disparities become heightened – only one person gets a clear view, this second person’s view is partially obscured, and the third person cannot see the game. Marxism is front and center – the fence no longer horizontal, but slanted (the unjust system); compounding this hurdle is slanted ground on which those wishing to participate as spectators must stand.
Lest Bruce’s graphical admonition not sink in that our less fortunate face a two-fold stacked deck, she explains “Not the people’s ‘lack’ preventing them from participating in the soccer game, it’s the unjust system and structure.”
Such presentations seem to evidence a lack of appreciation for audiences’ ability to see through heavy-handed Marxist analysis. Freedom of speech and academic freedom are our society’s bedrocks, so one would expect to see such expressions shared in books, journals and college lecterns rather than at taxpayer expense and underpinning our county’s operations.
Must we conclude that, in Fairfax, loyalty pledges are in, equality is out; equity is in, meritocracy is out; and equality of outcomes is in?
Nicholas Kalis, McLean