“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…”   The opening line from the Declaration of Independence affirms that our nation was founded on principles rather than allegiance to ethnic identity, race, religion, class or location.   Here we have a bold affirmation of equality.

      But what supports such a claim to equality, given the fact that human beings are not equal in so many ways?  A quick comparison of brothers and sisters, friends, neighbors and strangers reveals that we are not the same regarding abilities and talents for study, work, physical strength and skill, music and the arts—one could go on and on.  And I have not even mentioned that the very people affirming this equality made serious distinctions in the way we afford rights to men and women, white and black, as well as educated and common people.  Indeed, I assume that Jefferson was quite aware of the fact that most of these people could use this opening line against him—but that is a story to come later.

      What is striking about affirming equality is that in no time at all we find ourselves talking about inequality.  The fact is, it is the suffering because of inequalities which prompts the affirmation of equality.  We quickly recall how variations in intellect, strength, and skill become the justification for unequal treatment, opportunity and rights.  Furthermore, these variations are inevitably connected to differences in race, religion, class and ethnic group, so that forms of privilege or subordination are determined by birth.  If this is too abstract, let us simply recall that Jefferson was objecting to the fact that one man in Great Britain claimed by virtue of birth the authority to rule over others and parliament—a group of white men—claimed authority to legislate over the colonies as they saw fit without the consent of the colonies.     

      So how does Jefferson react?  He proposes an alternate vision for society in contrast to the one where a monarch and an aristocratic class rule by divine right.  The alternative is a society where all have equality of opportunity and rights, protected by the law.  But to gain support for this vision he needs more than the principle of equality.  He must appeal to a history of the abuse of power caused by the reality of inequality. Note the connection: talk of equality leads to a list of grievances caused by inequality. And the list is quite long.

      The appeal to a vision and a history support one another.  To overthrow a monarchy established by divine right, Jefferson appeals to the same God who creates all men equal.  He has no illusions about every one being his equal in fact, but he bristles at the thought that aristocrats claim the right to rule by birth.  The vision is not pie in the sky but entails very specific rights, which will be named and protected by law.  In other words, the vision must have laws and procedures for protecting equality under the law. This is exactly what happens after the Civil War with the passage of the 14th Amendment. Lincoln proclaimed a vision for a new society by his emancipation of the slaves, but it was necessary to amend the Constitution in 1868, affirming Equal Protection and civil rights for all (i.e., former slaves).  Emancipation as an act of the President would not change much if there were not rights protected by the government and society.  And, the vision needs to be supported by a history of abuse of power and a naming of systems whereby people are oppressed. Most of the Declaration refers to the history of abuse by King and Parliament over people in the colony.  Without this history, a vision of a new society would be reduced to polite discussion in coffee houses.  The point then, is that Jefferson’s affirmation of equality rests on a vision and an appeal to a history of abuse and it is very clear he is passionate about both.

      In the 20th century, there were all sorts of attempts to affirm equality.  Women’s Suffrage evolved into Women’s Rights.  Efforts for the rights of racial minorities came together after WWII in the Civil Rights movement.  All set forth a vision, with actual steps for legal action to support equality and all set forth a history of inequality as a means to arouse support.  But in our time, it is precisely these two parts of Jefferson’s Declaration—the vision and the history—which have been slowly eroded.  This can be illustrated by the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as in political rhetoric.

      Consider two court cases.  The Bakke case of 1978 was perhaps the first major step in this direction.  Allan Bakke had filed an appeal to the Supreme Court charging that he had been unfairly excluded from medical school in California. The school had set aside 16 places in the new class for minorities.  Bakke claimed that his scores were in fact higher than all 16 minority applicants and that his constituted a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment.  The ruling was somewhat mixed: it clearly did not like the idea of a quota but then added that race could be a factor in admissions.  It would seem that in 1978 the court still had some sense of Jefferson’s vision and concern for history.

      But this was not the case in 2023, when the Court issued an opinion on Affirmative Action against Harvard and the University of North Carolina.  The new conservative majority, formed by theories against Affirmative Action under the Regan administration, decided against the use of race as a factor in admissions.  Admissions policies should be color blind.  Furthermore, remedial action for women or minorities was no longer needed.  Again the Civil Rights Laws and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment were used against any attempt to provide remedial assistance to underrepresented minorities. 

      Let me make several comments.  First, the 2023 case affirmed a questionable distinction—which represented for a long time the fear of white people—that race and merit in admissions decisions were antithetical.  It would be hard to find a school that operated on this assumption, namely, that the female or minority students admitted lacked merit.  Such a view has been unfairly supported by the claims of white men that their scores were better than some female and minority students who were admitted. But that is not unusual, unless you expect female and minority applicants to have scores higher than all white applicants.   On this basis very few underrepresented applicants would be admitted. Affirmative action has always assumed that underrepresented applicants were qualified, i.e., that their scores were in the range of all students admitted.   Nevertheless, the court decision gave sanction to the current administration to declare that D.E.I. stands for unqualified people to be admitted to schools or jobs.  This view is so intense that equality and inclusion have become dirty words.  This is an amazingly cynical and divisive development. 

      Second, the court decisions created serious practical problems as to how to proceed.  If the goal of Affirmative action was to be more inclusive in admissions and hiring for jobs, it is difficult to see how that can be done without any reference to race or gender.  Without some guideline or road map, how does one decide what is appropriate in generating a more diverse class for schools?  Without some reference to gender or race, it is conceivable that a whole class of medical students could be made up of women.  Would that be moral or legal?  But if that offends you, what is your reaction to a whole class made up of white men?  Is there a benefit of having a diverse group of students to help understand racial and gender stressors and differences and produce doctors with whom patients can feel comfortable?  These questions do not seem to worry the Court in the 2023 decision because it sees no need for remedial action.

      Such comments bring us to the most serious failure of the decisions: the lack of vision and history.   Where was the vision which reminded us that equality means equal access and protection of rights? Was the court aware of the bitter and often violent mistreatment for so many people who have known inequality that the Civil Rights legislation of the 60’s and 70’s (as well as Jefferson’s vision) would now be turned on its head to defend white privilege?   To suggest that remedial action to level the field and compensate for historical privilege is no longer needed contradicts the facts of history.  For example, from early 20th century through WWII, the enrollment of women in medical schools was fairly constant between 5 and 10%.  It was not until the Affirmative Action of the 70’s that female enrollments rose.  While female enrollment may have reached some level of equality, what is to prevent a decline?  We don’t know what will happen if we use a gender-blind standard over the next twenty years for admissions to medical schools.  But we do know that the current administration is quite intent on organizing society on the principle of white male domination, as in the re-organization of the military or control over one’s body.

      These decisions from the court did not come out of nowhere.  There was always opposition to the Civil Rights and Feminist movements for equality. But a major change is the rise of openly sexist and racist speech in the political order and the will to overturn steps toward inclusivity over the past 65 years.  There are open attacks on teaching history so that we celebrate the greatness of our nation but cover up the sorrows. State laws now prohibit certain ideas from being mentioned in schools and books are banned. In the 2024 election Kamala Harris was publicly denounced and personally insulted by her opponent in ways which can only be described as racist.  White Nationalism—a movement traditionally opposed to rights for blacks, women and Jews, such as those that marched in the “Unite the Right” march in Charlston—was welcomed for support.  Upon taking over the government, the new administration began a purge of D.E.I. ideas and programs.  If we had to name the vision implied in the assault on minorities and the policies of equality by the Musk Committee on efficiency in government, it would have to be described as the affirmation of white male superiority at all levels: social, political and economic.  Its goal was and is to destroy the achievements of affirmative action and embrace persistent inequality.  The failure of the court to address the matter of vision or refer to the history of inequality enables the white nationalist vision to claim victory.  

      It will take time—a long time—to form a new consensus regarding Jefferson’s vision of a society based on equality.  But it will happen because equality is a superior value than hatred and because the white male supremacy ultimately divides us from one another, making life intolerable.  Even Marjorie Taylor Greene has broken ranks with her party over the Epstein Files and health care.  When faced with disregard for women who have suffered or her constituents needing health care, she now chooses solidarity with women and children, and apparently a new job.

       It may well be that the opposition to equality and affirmative action was underestimated and that a whole new set of strategies are needed to implement a more equitable society. In these mean times it will be necessary to hope and pray for a re-awakening of the vision of a society governed by equality.  It is striking that Jefferson relies on two great sources of inspiration for his defense of equality.  On the one hand, he clearly invokes the power of the Enlightenment to affirm equality as a self-evident truth.  In this tradition, it is reason which can liberate us from centuries of warfare and ignorance.  In his mind, self-evident truths could override the authority of monarchs, priests and tradition.

      On the other hand, he quickly incorporates an appeal to the Biblical tradition, where everything is derived from God.  In this tradition, to affirm that rights are derived from God means that no human power (monarchs, parliament or church) can take them away.  It also means that when all people are endowed with such rights, then the people are allied in a unity that is also established by God. The logic is like that in families: if two people create children, then the children are brothers and sisters.   This had crucial implications for ancient Israel: God not only created the people of Israel but joined them together in the covenant of Moses.  Such words like justice, equality, or mercy are not concepts based on rational arguments but are derived from the way God wills us to treat one another in the covenant.  There is also a powerful image from the New Testament which I think has a profound impact on the political thinking about equality in New England.  This is the experience of believers who are invited to the Lord’s Supper to receive the gifts of God.  At that Table social inequality is overcome.  As St. Paul says:  There is neither male nor female, rich nor poor, slave or free—all are united in Christ in a manner that entails equality.  My point is not to deny the influence of Enlightenment thinking about democratic ideals, but to point out that in many colonies, people already had an experience of radical equality by their inclusion at the Table of the Lord. (Flash forward to our situation: this makes the affirmation of hate and division by Christians today a shocking development.)  

      In the Declaration, Jefferson joins the two traditions together and that is fine with me.  In both traditions, there is a defense of the rights of life, liberty and equality and that is precisely what is needed today.