Abiola Lapite's column ("Inequality of Wealth is a Force for Good," Oct. 22, The Dartmouth) was more than misguided, it was worrisome. It outlined the age-old argument that the inequality of wealth is a good thing because those who are motivated and work hard deserve the wealth that they earn, while the "lazier and less reflective individuals" among us deserve the poverty and obscurity that naturally accompany those traits.
Obviously this is a very nice and comfortable way for a well educated member of a minuscule elite (the Dartmouth Community) to view the situation. It makes sense that we blame the poor for their problems. It's certainty a lot easier than trying to understand the more complicated reasons for the uneven distribution of wealth and maybe even, (gasp), taking a little responsibility for them.
Lapite's argument makes sense only if each person in the world starts out with an equal chance for success and whether or not that person is successful depends solely on his or her own motivation and character. Hopefully, there aren't too many people out there besides Lapite who believe that this is the case.
While there certainly are poor people who are poor because they are lazy and unmotivated, and rich people who acquired their wealth solely through determination and hard work, there are countless others who are victims of cycles of poverty and violence that are hard to break. Motivation and hard work can make a difference in any circumstance, but it is so much harder for some people to succeed than others because of where they started from. After graduating from an Ivy League school, there are any number of employers who would love to hire us. Try getting those same jobs if you had to drop out of high school to help your single mother pay the rent on your apartment. Because we are the ones who have the built-it advantage, it is easy for us to blame the high school dropout's poverty on himself; the loser didn't even finish high school, of course he deserves to be poor. Or does he? Maybe he doesn't have the same freedom of choice that we do because of the circumstances of his upbringing. Maybe it's not so fair to call him lazy.
Lapite's argument is worrisome because it promotes complacency among privileged people like ourselves. As long as we refuse to take an honest look at the circumstances of the distribution of wealth in this world, we will never feel the need to understand and address the problem. After having graduated from Dartmouth, chances are we will be successful. It is also likely that that success will be a result of a lot of hard work. It is my hope that none of us will forget how lucky we are to have been given the many chances we have had to succeed. And just as important, I hope that we will try to understand that the vast majority of the world has none of those same opportunities. Or maybe they are all just lazy.
