Nothing better shows the difference between the classical liberal mindset and that of “progressives” than their views on “group imbalances.” To the classical liberal, as long as individuals have freely chosen a field of study or work, there’s no problem. We can count on individuals to figure out what they are most interested in and have the most aptitude for. But for progressives, every group must be socially engineered so as to have an acceptable (to them) balance of various sub-groups. Therefore, if they see some imbalance, they must rush in to solve the supposed problem.
As we read in this Guardian story, a number of universities in the U.K. are following the progressive playbook and taking steps to get rid of the “problem” of too many men and too few women in engineering. Scotland is “leading the way” in this lunacy with its “final gender action plan” which aims at having no “imbalance” of more than 75:25 by 2030.
One truly visionary university says it will do its part by ending math and physics requirements since men do better in those subjects than women do.
Well, that’s a good first step, but how about later having a law mandating that all engineering projects be done by teams consisting of equal numbers of men and women? Wouldn’t that be even more fair?
The egalitarian crusade for group equality gives progressives (there, here, everywhere) something to do while they live off tax dollars, but the consequences will gradually kill the goose that lays the golden eggs they consume.