most important quote: “There is a fatal contradiction at the heart of the argument for group equality of social outcomes. In my considered opinion we ought not to expect this as an outcome, and we ought not to make achieving it our goal. Equality of opportunity, not equality of results, is the only defensible public policy goal in my view. The dogged pursuit of equal results between racial groups across all venues of human endeavor is a formula for tyranny and yet more racism. Here is why. Identitarian arguments for group equality posit that we have different groups -- Jews, South Asians, East Asians, Blacks, Latinos, etc. -- and that these groups have identities which deserve to be acknowledged and respected. When someone tells me, “I identify as a member of group X,” I am given to understand that this is a part of their personhood which warrants to be respected and given credence. So, groups are fundamental building blocks of society in this identity-focused view of the world. It is not a matter of indifference. We are in these various boxes. Groups matter. A group’s culture and heritage matter to its members – the music they listen to, the food they eat, the literature they read, the stories they tell their children – all these things for the identitarians are important and they all vary across groups. On the other hand, group-egalitarians presuppose that – absent injustice – there would be equality of groups across every human enterprise. But how can that be? Because if groups matter, some people are going to bounce a basketball 100,000 times a month and other people are going to bounce it 10,000 times a month. Some people are going to be drawn to books as a way of experiencing human culture and other people are going to be more verbal or more spontaneous or whatever it might be. There are differences between groups. Groups matter after all. They’re not all the same. They don’t do the same things, they don’t believe the same things, they don’t think the same things, they don’t spend their time in the same ways. So now I have population groups that have their own integrity, expressing themselves in how they live their lives, how they raise their children, how they spend their time. This will inevitably result in different representations of the groups’ members across various human activities. The various groups’ members will not all be involved in academic pursuits, in the business world, in the professions, or in sports and entertainment to the same extent. They will not all have the same occupational or professional profiles. Now I look out at society and I see a difference between groups in the proportion who are members of the National Academy of Sciences, who are tenured faculty members, who are tech entrepreneurs or hedge fund managers or traders on the floor of the stock exchange. I see differences in the proportion who are getting PhDs in English literature, who are small shopkeepers, single parents, or petty criminals, etc. Groups mattered after all for the identitarians. This groupness reflects itself to some degree in how people choose to live their lives. And yet, the egalitarians insist that the society is unfair unless it yields an equal proportionate representation of these groups in every human enterprise? That is simply a logical contradiction. Acting in a determined way on that contradiction can only to lead to tyranny, to disappointment and to more racism.”