DALLAS, Feb. 28 (UPI) -- Fair? What's Fair? Let's talk about the word 'fair.'
Former President Jimmy Carter said, "Life isn't fair," and he was roundly criticized. He meant that life is full of unfairness, but also -- particularly in this country -- full of opportunity.
In the private sector, 'fair' means treating people with respect and honesty, living up to a mission and following certain rules and regulations. We work with a number of companies that are downsizing, laying off workers or closing plants. It's important for company leaders to say, "We will treat you with respect and treat you fairly." Then the company needs to do the best it can to provide severance pay, outplacement assistance and encouragement.
If the company delivers on what it says it plans to do, employees overwhelmingly believe they've been given a fair shake--even if they are inconvenienced or suffer.
'Fair' also includes a sense of honor, stewardship and leadership. Good leaders do not fatten themselves when their troops, for whom they are responsible, tighten their belts. Companies undercut their message of fairness when they insulate executives, or worse, reward them.
The public policy meaning of 'fair' is, interestingly enough, in the middle of an interesting identity crisis.
Liberals initially preferred a definition of 'exactly the same.' In other words, the Equal Opportunity Commission says if your local population is 48 percent African-American, your workforce needs to be 48 percent African-American.
We see the same debate over women's sports, or Title IX. If 52 percent of your students are women, 52 percent of your athletes must be women -- it doesn't matter that fewer women try out for sports or that almost 100 percent of students who dance are women or that cheerleading isn't counted as a sport.
The definition of 'fair' is front and center in the debate over university admissions policies designed to foster diversity. The University of Michigan grants members of certain minorities an automatic 20 points, no matter what their family background or financial status. They are being sued by because of it by students who didn't get accepted.
The suing students are arguing in the court of law that it's unconstitutional and, in the court of public opinion, that the policy is unfair. It's a sticky legal issue because our laws are not sure whether the civil rights movement was meant to remove race-based laws, or enshrine them to benefit groups previously discriminated against.
Can one argue "exactly the same" in one breath and "this person gets an advantage" in the next?
To understand this, note that the pro-quota side in the Michigan debate wants to be 'fair' to groups and is willing to sacrifice individuals. A black or Hispanic child of two well-off physicians is worth more than the white child of a single mother high school graduate who's a clerk at Sears. To substantiate its position, the pro-quota group correctly points out that other groups, such as alumni children, receive an automatic three-point advantage.
Here's the difference between the argument in the court of law and in the court of public opinion. The Constitution, although muddled on the subject, at least mentions race; it is silent on the subject of alumni children.
The court of public opinion generally thinks if you can give points to alumnae kids, you can give them to minorities.
America has discovered that those who anoint themselves the recipients of 'unfair' treatment find a powerful weapon. The daughter of Washington Redskins coach George Allen shared an interesting memory about her father, recalling that after his team lost because of a referee's flubbed call, Allen hollered 'unfair,' and nursed that wound until his players were consumed with anger. The "unfairness card" fueled a winning season the next year. That's what's happening today.
Nurse this indignation over 'unfairness' and win your next round. Never mind the risk of creating a state of permanent rage or a sense of separation and oppression.
Is any of this "fair?" No. Because you can't make sense of this by arguing that there is or should be some mystical standard, which grants 'fairness' to any one person, all the time. President Carter, we need you! Come back and remind us that life isn't fair.
The sooner we are all brave enough to acknowledge it, the sooner we create a system with enormous amounts of opportunity.
Moral: Use this powerful and very American word very, very carefully, and argue that it means opportunity -- for all.
-- Merrie Spaeth, director of media relations for President Ronald Reagan, is president of a Dallas-based consulting firm and is a regular commentator on public radio and television.
-- "Outside View" commentaries are written for UPI by outside writers who specialize in a variety of important global issues.
