equivalency -- equivalentOne of the most misused concepts out in the political aether is the concept of equivalency, the view that two-sides deserve equal portions of alloted time, merely because a very small and negligable minority believe something out of the mainstream. Once again, we of the Left have no one to blame but ourselves, when we recognize that back-in-the-day when we were in our finest fettle, we once heralded that flavor of the month now called "relativism", once a word denoting a virtue, now reduced to a sneer.
To flesh out this notion, let's turn to the so-called evolution-intelligent design debate. Because a fraction of a minority within the community of life science scholars that almost runs into negative integers affect to plug into this thing called intelligent design, it is therefore declared that there are two sides and that a debate with equal time is now necessary. No such thing is true.
First, we need to allot time relative to the acceptance of a theory versus a religious fever dream set within the rules of scientific debate. Since no top-flight, groundbreaking-research life science institution accepts intelligent design (referred to in this posting as IT), we cannot allot each side half an hour for each side in an hour long debate. We need to establish intellectual equivalency, or proportionate representation, for each, in this case 59 minutes for evolution, and one minutes for intelligent design.
Look at cosmology. You do not allow people to feel about the heliocentric versus the ergocentric view of the solar system. There is no debate in this area; there are no two sides. Likewise, in the realm of earth sciences, there is no hollow earth debate, no matter what my late cousin Stevie said about the matter, despite his reams of "documentation" to the contrary.
Now, public schooling, which is essentially adult day care used to depress unemployment numbers, is irrelevant in terms of assessing the leigitimacy of this so-called debate. Weirdly enough, I believe if a publically elected school board wishes to make their charges more stupid, they have every right to do so as expressions of the public will. As long as they do not impose their stupidity on that minority of students racing on the fast track to challenging careers in real scholarship beyond the age of seventeen. Let's face it, 99% of high school students are not going to elite top-flight universities, so it doesn't matter whether they believe in IT or not. However, to require that the elite students have this dreck imposed on them is tantamount to theft, theft of their time, theft of their brain cells, and a theft and a threat to their aspirations to enter challenging academia. And, no, elitism, like pluralism and intellectual, are not pejoratives. When any of us end up in the emergency room, given the choice, we want an intellectual graduate of an elite Ivy League institution attending to our needs, not the regular guy from an avearge medical school who blathers on about how he is under grace.
Once again, follow the money...no politician asks for imposing this IT dreck in the life sciences department of state universities, a policy which will drive out the top drawer faculty, and thus drive away the grants from any life science-based corporations. It is cheap grace to require IT in high schools because they are in the main second rate institutions that do not matter.