In the early ’70s, one of my mentors at the University of Chicago told me there was a new theory of justice emerging in our country. “Bob,” he said, “It’s no longer equality of opportunity; it’s equality of results.” I did not accept his arguments in favor of this theory because I thought that equality of opportunity was the American way. After all, I thought, defining justice as equality of results meant fixing the results of the race for open positions according to group identity, regardless of individual talent and ambition. In A Theory of Justice, that ace liberal John Rawls had rejected equality of results in favor of “fair equality of opportunity.” Like Rawls, I believed it was “fair” for society to move disadvantaged and privileged people closer to the same starting line so that they could all compete fairly.
I should have taken my mentor’s opinion seriously. Since the ’70s our country has been working to ensure that women, blacks, and other minorities are represented in every facet of our society according to their rough percentage in society. Businesses, sports, academic institutions, the police force, professional organizations, the press, churches, media, private and public bureaucracies, and clubs have been striving to include those left out because of sexism and racism. Indeed, we feel guilty if our achieved percentages are not high enough. Even Wall Street is concerned: Fifteen percent of the overall population is black, but only 10 percent of Wall Street operatives are black.
