Is anyone surprised that a university is holding an event called “Integrating Racial Equity and Food Justice into our Personal Lives, our Professional Lives, and Learning Environments“? In this event:
“‘Participants will explore strategies to develop and expand their personal and professional capacity to more authentically, systematically and structurally address issues of racial equity and food justice,’ reads the session’s description.
“Those who complete the racial equity and food justice program will be able to understand why these concepts and implicit bias are important to food system training, spot ‘subtle as well as overt’ instances of white privilege, implicit bias, and food injustices, and recognize resources like ‘Food Solutions New England 21-Day Racial equity challenge.’
“This challenge, which strives to ‘create dedicated time and space to build more effective social justice habits, particularly those dealing with issues of power, privilege, and leadership.'”
Michelle Obama’s executive director of her “Let’s Move” initiative is a believer of “food justice” who defines “food justice” as seeking “to ensure that the benefits and risks of where, what, and how food is grown, produced, transported, distributed, accessed, and eaten are shared fairly”.
Notice, too, that they don’t talk about “equality”, but rather “equity” that eschews not only equality of opportunity, or even equality of outcome, but an “equity” share dolled out based on “social justice”.
In this world of “equity”, inequality is actually championed if it helps the poor by hurting the rich. As Left wing lunatic John Rawls mutters:
“The difference principle permits inequalities in the distribution of goods only if those inequalities benefit the worst-off members of society. Rawls believes that this principle would be a rational choice for the representatives in the original position for the following reason: Each member of society has an equal claim on their society’s goods. Natural attributes should not affect this claim, so the basic right of any individual, before further considerations are taken into account, must be to an equal share in material wealth. What, then, could justify unequal distribution? Rawls argues that inequality is acceptable only if it is to the advantage of those who are worst-off.”
As such, this ideology of “food equity” boils down to “the assumption that it is more ‘just’ to ration breadcrumbs, than for an entrepreneur to grow more wheat and make more bread.”
So, how’s that socialist redistribution of wealth and tasty, tasty cake going on in that socialist paradise in Venezuela?
“Let Them Eat Cake: Venezuela Celebrates Chavez’ Birthday With $65,000 Cake, While Citizens Starve”
At least with the Aristocracy of Old Europe, it was the peasants who were told to eat cake!
Yet again, it needs to be pointed out that Maggie said it best: