One of the more intriguing tasks I have as a duty achan at a school is that of gatekeeper. It is a task that I have written about before [1] [2] and one that greatly interests me. There are some aspects of it I greatly enjoy and some parts I don’t. For one, I have never been very proficient with keys (sadly, I am almost as good at breaking into my own house/apartment as I am with using a key [3]). On the other hand, I have a natural tendency both to greet newcomers and outsiders as well as ruthlessly attack enemies within who don’t belong there.

In short, I have a temperament for a gatekeeper, determining who is a threat and who can be welcomed, keeping some people out and letting some people in. It’s a delicate balance. Sometimes you let people in provisionally, keep an eye on them, and see if they need to be thrown out or if they deserve open access. In any case, it’s a hard job to do perfectly, and a vital job to do well. Gatekeepers are those who provide opportunities to others, and potential benefits to those whose gates they guard. But a gatekeeper also has to deal with the risks that those he lets in will harm what he has a duty to protect.

Unsurprisingly, problems of access are rampant in our society for predictable reasons. Passwords are ever more complicated because of viruses and malware and the need for increasingly strict protection of data and information. This means that people who deserve access have to jump through more hoops to enter, more passwords, more of those irritating recapatcha systems that are hard to read, and more codes. As a result significant time is wasted on typing and remembering and looking up passwords and trying to enter protected areas and less time can actually be spent doing what one needs or wants to do there. This leads to greater waste and inefficiency.

Nor is this the only place where access is a problem. Competitions require access points as well. If you want to play in the 20-team FCS playoffs or the NCAA Tournament, you must either win your conference or receive an at large bid (the same is true for the BCS tournament). Whomever determines which teams qualify is a gatekeeper, whether it is a pollster or a computer program that spits out teams via a secretive formula, or whether it is some retired coach filling out his list of top 25 schools for the week. Obviously, such gatekeepers are flawed–they choose a team like Virginia Tech over a much better one like Boise State because they have biases about conferences they like better, they weigh conferences heavily based on perception, leading others to complain (legitimately) of injustice. Where there are limited places there will always be ferocious fights about access.

And this is a significant problem in life. Success requires access and connections, access to help for problems, connections with people who can point you in the right direction, make sure you write and act and speak in a proper way to get a desired outcome. Those who have this access prosper, and those who do not fail. When gates work corruptly, some people have cart blanche to do whatever they like and others never even have the chance to prove themselves.

As a person I tend to be hostile to equality in results. I remember all too well growing up and being forced to be in groups with people who were lazy and let me do all the work knowing that I would work hard to get a good grade and seeking to profit off of my labor without doing anything themselves. Free riders are morally offensive to me. Such behavior strikes at my very high sensitivity to injustice, and my extreme disinclination to reward people undeservedly.

That said, I believe very strongly in equality of opportunity. I believe that all should have the opportunity to succeed based on their own talents and diligence in those areas (especially) where they have deep personal interests and recognized abilities. I think all should be able to have an honored place whatever it is that they do that is worthwhile to society at large. I believe people should have the opportunity to do what they do well, what they love, and that is beneficial (i.e. morally and economically good) and receive both honor and personal profit for so doing, regardless of their own background or heritage. When the wrong factors lead to opportunities, even (especially in) misguided attempts to right historical wrongs, people start fighting over quotas and neglecting the need for greater equality of opportunity in general.

In many ways I believe we make opportunities too circumscribed rather than seeking ways for all to be rewarded in meaningful ways. We spend our time boosting the prestige of superstars in one field or another and fail to take the time to examine our whole society to make sure that those tasks which are necessary are rewarded sufficiently to keep our society strong. By neglecting those areas that do not have the bright lights or attention, we discourage people from fulfilling those roles, and pay the price. For such matters are not only questions of economic justice, but are deeply moral questions as well. We cannot be helped by those whom we shut out at the gates. Nor are we helped by those who take access for granted and never do anything to deserve their privileges. How to correct those problems requires that we be much more knowledgeable about what we need and what others have, something that requires an interest in others beyond that which is superficial and easy to determine. But in times where we need all the help we can get, it is foolish for us to deny opportunities to those who have the drive and ability to help us out profoundly. What will our society’s gatekeepers do?

[1] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/personal-profile-shallum-the-korahite/

[2] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/an-open-door/

[3] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/breaking-and-entering/