hopelesshappiness.com

In the last 40 years 40 percent of the NCAA men's basketball national championships have been won by the four teams meeting in this year's Final Four; and interestingly this year’s championship game is being played on 4/4/22. Furthermore, of 137 teams who have made an appearance in the tournament since 1939, the top 10% (14 teams) have captured 48.8% of the coveted Final Four slots, the middle 40% (teams 15 thru 69) have earned 43.4% of the Final Four berths, while the bottom 50% have snuck into the Final Four with only 7.8% of the 332 theoretical possibilities.

There is an even larger disparity in national championships. Using the same rankings, (number of Final Four appearances, with ties broken by national championship then runner-up), the top 10% have 65.1% of the titles, the middle 40% own 34.9%, and the bottom 50% have 0.0%. Incredible! Even if we were to accept as a foregone conclusion that the bottom 50% would never win a championship, based on the percentages of the top 50%, the middle 40 should have won 47.4% of the titles yet they have only won 34.9%! In this land of the Red, White and Blue, there is a myth that anyone can win. This is apparently not true even in an athletic event that is supposed to be contested on a level playing field.

I found some striking parallels.

From the 2022 World Inequality Report: “The richest 10% of the global population currently takes 52% of global income, whereas the poorest half of the population earns 8.5% of it.” Leaving the middle 40% with 39.5%.

Also from the 2022 World Inequality Report: “Global wealth inequalities are even more pronounced than income inequalities. The poorest half of the global population barely owns any wealth at all, possessing just 2% of the total. In contrast, the richest 10% of the global population own 76% of all wealth.” Leaving 22% for the Middle 40%.

And finally, specific to our United States, again from the 2022 World Inequality Report, “Wealth inequality levels in the contemporary US are close to those observed at the beginning of the 20th century, with a top 10% wealth share above 70%.” Specifically in the United States the richest 10% owns 70.7% of the wealth and takes 45.5% of the income, the middle 40% owns only 27.8% of the wealth and takes 41.2% of the income, and the bottom 50% owns a paltry 1.5% of the wealth and takes only 13.3% of the income.

Income is opportunity.

Wealth is power.

If we were to equate Final Four appearances with income and Championships with wealth, comparatively the percentages are scarily similar. Summary below.

Final Four Appearances:

• Top 10 – 48.8%
• Middle 40 – 43.4%
• Bottom 50 – 7.8%

US Income Inequality:

• Top 10 – 45.5%
• Middle 40 – 41.2%
• Bottom 50 – 13.3%

National Championships:

• Top 10 – 65.1%
• Middle 40 – 34.9%
• Bottom 50 – 0.0%

US Wealth Inequality:

• Top 10 – 70.7%
• Middle 40 – 27.8%
• Bottom 50 – 1.5%

Nine weeks ago I drew another parallel between sports and social justice. In that week there was an uproar over the blatant injustice of the NFL overtime rules. I said then, “there is a reasonable chance the rule will be changed to allow for more equitable opportunity.” And regarding social justice, I also asked, “Where is the uproar? Where is the demand for equitable opportunity? Where is the rules committee?” This week the NFL changed their overtime rule. And I am still asking, when will we connect the parallels?

For some weeks now I have been agitated and disturbed by our apparent inability to not only NOT understand the concept of equity (balanced justice according to circumstance), but even more so by our inability to see its importance to our survival as a species. Two weeks ago I expended considerable personal effort to explain equity to myself. I want to understand! In that thought I said, “One who is in a position to actively apply (their version of) truth and reason, by virtue of their position has already tainted justice. There is no way completely around one's loyalty (i.e. subservience) to their advantage in a given power dynamic.” By nature we are selfish individuals and if I’m okay, you should be okay; especially when I am okay AND when I have the advantage of power. Yet even without that advantage most of us find a way to be okay; most commonly by being unimaginatively simple.

If you have read the headlines this week regarding the Final Four, you found frequent mention of blue bloods. And yes, all four of this year's participants are in the top 10%. The richer continue to get richer. Throughout my life I have said that as a fan, sports, athletic competition, should be an entertainment and a distraction. But tear away its sheep’s clothing and we see it for the wolf it is; a reflection of our American way of life substantiating, justifying, empowering and perpetuating wealth and entitlement. Inequity is so ingrained and entangled in every aspect of our being and doing that we can no longer see it, certainly do not care about it and even when given the opportunity we refuse to optimally act on it. The NFL’s rules committee for example, only changed their rule to advance equitable opportunity for playoff games; which comes across somewhere between pretentious and elitist. And due to internal political maneuverings they did not even choose the most equitable option for the playoffs.

Blue Bloods: persons holding exceptional rank and privileges.

No matter the venue, where there is American capitalism, there will always be a class of blue bloods.

I said above, in this land of the Red, White and Blue, there is a myth that anyone can win. Throughout our entire history wealth and entitlement has factored into that equation, keeping it from being so, partially by maintaining a powerful class of blue bloods; even in our games. And in stuff that matters, if we tear away the sheep's clothing of patriotism, partisanship and populism, we find other factors, both episodic and as a constant undercurrent, that show the true nature of the Red, White and Blue; Red Scare, White Power and Blue Bloods. And today it seems to be more public, more conjoined, and more widespread than ever.

And empathy and compassion have become rhetoric and ignorance.

No one will talk to me about equity.

Good fortune I believe puts one on a winning path. And once on that winning path one has more opportunity to widen it, pave it, add shoulders, put a line down the middle, make it one way, and build on-ramps and off-ramps to control access. But in the beginning, there was simply good fortune; luck; random chance of birth and circumstance. And this framework or landscape applies to multiple, various levels of circumstance from our games to stuff that matters. And it is not justice. No matter how adamantly those traveling their thruways insist that everyone has the same opportunity and insist that they are winning because they earned it and they deserve it, no matter how loud they scream it, winning 65% of the championships and 71% of the wealth is not equity.

Income is opportunity.

Wealth is power.

And no one will talk to me about equity.

I am neither here nor there; yet I am. And many (most? all?) who are here, are not. And many (most? all?) who are there, are not. I can no longer unsee or unhear stilted inanity. This leaves me in an interstitial certainty of uncertainty. Flailing; unable to restore inner harmony, congruency, stability. Unable to sway those who are not. They think, they believe, (those who are not) that it is better to be in place than to be. I think, I believe, it is better to be. I walk where they unsee and unhear. They are rooted in place and time, stable, congruent, delusional.

I can step into here. I can travel to there. And then, in place, in quiet moments I am stable, congruent, delusional. But because I am unable to unsee or unhear, when inanity invariably finds me, I am thrust, flailing, back into the in-between.

Because I am unseen and unheard, when I am in place I am without essence; truly, completely invisible; to myself as well as to those here, and there. So to be I must walk athwart; neither here nor there, yet everywhere; with everyone, alone; consequential nothingness.

There are those who want to join the here with the there. And there are those who want to keep here, here and drive there further away. Those who want to join are not working to see and hear; they are simply hoping to unsee and unhear together, more harmoniously, congruent, stable. And those who push away believe that here will be stronger due to a more definitive consensus inanity. They think, when here is stronger, my place is stronger; I am stronger.

I believe for a moment I am heard; and perhaps if I am heard, I will be seen. No. I am not heard, I am merely recognized for a moment because for a moment I was in place and time, mistakenly thought to be in agreement. Is disagreement necessary? Yes. With agreement comes inconsequential nothingness. If all is nothing, I prefer consequentiality. Consequentiality confers essence.

If I am to be, I cannot be here, or there. If I am to be, I cannot be stable, congruent, delusional. If I am to be, I must work to be seen and heard from my flailing state of concealed consequentiality. Today I will continue to be unseen, unheard. Perhaps a necessary progression.

Or perhaps this is the delusion.

Equity is balanced justice according to circumstance.

Consideration of circumstance must include social, economic, demographic and geographic factors as well as individual health and well-being.

Justice is affinitive active truth and reason applied with compassion and empathy, and absent any rhetoric, duplicity, contrivance, subservience or expectation. Justice is an ideal. To seek justice, one must have a voice.

Balanced Justice is hearing and understanding all voices equally.

One who is in a position to actively apply (their version of) truth and reason, by virtue of their position has already tainted justice. There is no way completely around one's loyalty (i.e. subservience) to their advantage in a given power dynamic.

Furthermore, (as said), to balance justice, one who is in a position to actively apply (their version of) truth and reason must account for, listen to and understand all voices. Yet it is difficult to hear ALL voices and even more difficult to feel the pain of the powerless, to decipher the cries of the poor, or to hear the silence of the subservient.

So as one of the powerless, the poor, the subservient, the best I can do is work to find a voice then seek tainted justice.

This week I sent the following communication to University leadership:

No one will talk to me about equity.

How is it okay that those making $100,000 or more received an average 5.40% increase and those making less than $20 per hour received an average 0.33% increase?

How is it okay that our “equity experts” received an average 11.10% increase and our student support specialists received an average 2.53% increase?

How is it okay that you, whose names appear as leadership on the University organizational chart, received an average 10.42% increase and custodians received an average 1.77% increase?

How is it okay to talk about $500 million to go toward performance-based pay increases and not tie that into equal opportunity; (i.e. a voice)?

If the distribution for your $500 million is determined by our current process it appears the richer will continue to get richer and the gap will continue to widen.

In your State of the University address given this week you asked, “How do we create a more equitable and just society by using our most innovative ideas, policy and culture?” I am asking the same thing.

Yet no one will talk to me about equity.

I wanted to give this group the opportunity but I will be surprised if this communication results in anything more than additional insistent justification.

Justification is not justice.

I ask for discussion; you quote from the rulebook.

I ask for acknowledgement; you perform a song and dance.

I ask for consideration; you file a report.

I ask for justice; you make excuses.

I ask for compassion; you condescend.

I ask for empathy; you mewl.

I ask for goodness; you give me 37 cents.

I ask for a thinker; you send me a cop.

I ask for philosophy; you offer me bubble gum.

I ask why; you are silent.

Most people equate thinking outside the box with taking their head out of the sand for a minute. Guess what!? You’re still standing inside the box! And it will take you more than a minute to think at any level of consequence, much less find your way outside the box! I am so terribly disappointed in the predictably constant superficiality of Humanity.

• Where there is Humanity, there will always be varying degrees of power.
• Where there is Humanity, there should be Goodness, Compassion, Empathy, Justice.
• Where there is power, there is advantage.
• Where there is power, there is a desire for status quo.
• Where there is status quo, there is superficiality.
• Where there is advantage, Goodness, Compassion and Empathy will be random and sporadic, and there will never be justice.
• Where there is advantage, there will always be subservience.
• Where there is subservience, there will always be varying degrees of delusion.
• Where there is delusion, there is status quo.
• Where there is subservience, there should be rebellion.
• Where there is rebellion, there is a desire for change and improvement.
• Where there is improvement, there is Goodness, Compassion, Empathy, Justice.
• Where there is (even a hint of) rebellion, there is a reassertion of authority.
• Where there is a reassertion of authority, there is a gauntlet.
• Where there is actual rebellion there is a likelihood of failure.
• Where there is failed rebellion, there is status quo.
• Where there is status quo, there is power.
• Where there is a successful rebellion, there is a new order of Humanity.
• Where there is Humanity, there will always be varying degrees of power.

So if it only brings us back to where we began, why rebel? I believe, because, at least to some small degree…

• When there is a new order, there is improvement.
• When there is improvement, there is Goodness, Compassion, Empathy, Justice.
• When there is improvement, there is encouragement.
• When there is encouragement, there is possibility.
• When there is possibility, there is effort.
• When there is effort, there is a desire for change and improvement.
• When there is a desire for change and improvement, there will be rebellion.
• When there is successful rebellion, there is another new order of Humanity.

So, I ask for rebellion.

Beyond the rulebook, beyond excuses, beyond superficiality, beyond delusion, beyond the status quo, I ask for rebellion.

And again, I ask for rebellion.

Streaming rebellion.

Instead of predictably constant superficiality, predictably constant rebellion.

I ask for rebellion.

It is easiest to get worked up over personal injustice, it is more difficult to get worked up over injustice served to others even when the injustice is similar to or the same as a personal injustice, it is often more difficult yet to get worked up over injustice brought upon people who are different in circumstance, culture, geography or belief, and it is most difficult to get worked up over any injustice when I am fortunate, comfortable or even just okay within my personal circumstance.

I believe a common perspective of happiness is to find a way to be okay regardless of your circumstance and regardless of any clinging injustice. In other words, delusion.

It is a logical extension then to maintain that those who don't get worked up over injustice (especially obvious injustice) as felt by others are thinking and/or acting delusionally.

Delusional thinking or behavior is not always dysfunctional, (and sometimes it is necessary), but in this regard, the divisiveness created by the common injustice we have systematized in this country is keeping us from saving the world. In hindsight we will have no choice but to admit our behavior was dysfunctional.

Perhaps the 4th degree injustice described above as distanced by personal comfort, is not a separate category but a multiplier; or more correctly, a divisor. Perhaps the more you are (or the more you believe you are) fortunate-comfortable-okay-happy, the weaker, the more diluted your compassion, empathy or desire for justice. This explains the efforts of the most fortunate to maintain status quo by convincing the less fortunate that they are happy and okay within their personal circumstance.

To further dissociate and confuse within this equity dynamic, I believe we have an overall mindset that those who have more deserve more and as substantiated by our growing wealth gap, in the workplace and in other financially-driven circumstance, we have developed processes in which those who have more get more. Perhaps I have reversed the chicken and the egg; perhaps those who have more get more first, which then strengthens and justifies the mindset that those who have more deserve more. Regardless, I see this in my workplace (a large state university) and I have documented how across groups the richer get richer; (for example from 2020 to 2021 those making $100,000 or more per year received an average 5.40% increase and those making less than $20 per hour received an average 0.33% increase). Yet I have no doubt that for any given individual case, justification has been made or can be manufactured. Justification is not justice.

Analyzing what I know, my workplace, what began nearly a year ago as a search for personal justice has revealed (to me) what appears to be widespread, systemic inequity. This week I asked those with the word “Equity” in their title (i.e. equity experts) to help me to understand. I told them that I would seriously like to know if I am misinterpreting what I see and, if not, if there is an awareness and if there is work being done to correct / improve, and (again, if not), should there be? So far, (granted, it has only been a few days), I have received two responses that expressed curiosity and an official response from the Office of Institutional Equity outlining my rights, options and resources, and suggesting that I discuss my concerns with a “human resources benefits specialist” to better understand “the university’s global grading scale and job class structure.” I suspect it is this scale and structure, this exact process, that I am questioning, and I suspect it will provide justification and the University will come away secure and protected having put me back in my place. But again, Justification is not Justice, and I am not at all clear how one can see the consistent disparity in across-the-board percentage increases (ex. >$99,999.99 – 5.40%; Custodians – 1.77%) and not see inequity.

More than anything, I want to listen and understand. In this moment, I have no agenda beyond this request. Yet so far I have (maybe) piqued some curiosity and I have been steered toward resources that promise justification. We will see in the next few days if anyone will come forward to address equity and justice and compassion and empathy. If the equity experts do not have the time or inclination to discuss equity and justice and compassion and empathy, then (in this moment) I am inclined to perhaps ask this same group again; perhaps persistence is necessary. I feel like if I begin asking other groups or interested parties too soon, it will potentially muddy the waters. Ultimately I would like to see one of two outcomes: 1) an explanation convincing me I have misinterpreted data and there is no injustice, or 2) acknowledgement, awareness and the beginning of progress toward correction and improvement. This is not about me. I will say it again: there is a bigger picture here that I would very much like for others to see and understand or convince me that I am not seeing it or understanding it correctly. I will continue to pursue this, in some way, until one of these two results come about.

February 26, 2025: Three years later I have not accomplished either objective. There is no justice and there has been no acknowledgement, awareness or improvement. My last day will be March 1, 2025.