I am a child of the 1960s, a product of a rather different era. We were told to question authority and never to trust anyone over 30. We took issue with the morality of what sociologist C. Wright Mills once called “the power elite,” and we urged greater equality for men and women, rich and poor, gay and straight, and so on.

It is therefore particularly disturbing to see that the language of equality and a corresponding distrust of elites is now being used to justify nutty crusades. Take, for example, the need for balance in political debate. Fair enough – for the sake of equality, it’s important that a range of viewpoints be considered. Unfortunately, this can produce results of quite silly proportions when scientists (the power elite) are challenged by those who ascribe the workings of the universe to (take your pick) God, Allah, astrology, the spirit world, or a special bond with the earth. From this point of view, equality might dictate, for example, that students be taught not only Darwinism but a literal form of creationism.

After all, 45 per cent of Americans believe that God created human beings – in their present form –at some point during the past 10,000 years. Their conception of equality demands that their system of knowledge formation be given respect, even though polls demonstrate that less than one quarter of one per cent of American scientists with appropriate educational credentials hold the same point of view. For literal creationists this is all the more telling – it just demonstrates the need for balancing the views of elites with the views of the average working person.

Or, in a more secular sphere, consider the recent commentary of Ian Brodie, formerly Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s chief of staff. "Every time we proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, sociologists, criminologists, defence lawyers, and Liberals attacked us for proposing measures that the evidence apparently showed did not work," Brodie said. "That was a good thing for us politically, in that sociologists, criminologists, and defence lawyers were and are all held in lower repute than Conservative politicians by the voting public. Politically it helped us tremendously to be attacked by this coalition of university types."

In other words, sociologists, criminologists, and defence lawyers represent an elite, and as such, are not to be trusted. Never mind that this “coalition of university types” happens to be correct because they base their opinions on carefully analyzed evidence rather than their emotions. Mr. Brodie doesn’t even try to dispute the accuracy of the claim made by the “coalition.” For him, it’s quite irrelevant. Polling demonstrates that those with knowledge are mistrusted, perhaps even resented, when they propose measures that can be described, albeit inaccurately, as “soft on crime.” And the Conservatives, like the creationists, can take these feelings to the ballot box.

Put differently, equality is not all that it appears to be, at least not here in the real world.