Overlooked potential

No aid to understanding what is fair in life has been overlooked more than potential. Three examples should help clarify this assertion.

The Torah says: “Justice, justice shall you pursue”. (Deut 16:20) Whey is the word “justice” repeated? To teach that justice is due the poor as the rich, the weak as the strong. How does this principle apply where one has suffered a loss caused by someone else? Does justice here require compensation based on the actual value of the loss or must justice factor in fairly the potential, the as yet unrealized, value of the loss?

A case in point is Kelo vs. the City of New London. Suffering from a sluggish economy, city leaders were responsive to interest shown by the Pfizer Pharmaceutical Company to establish a major plant and research facility on a tract of waterfront property. Pfizer also required an adjacent piece of land on which it would erect high-end residences for senior staff, a waterfront hotel, a conference center and facilities for other amenities. The only problem is that many private homes stood on this land. When owners balked at selling, the government invoked eminent domain, the power of the government to take private property for public use so long as just compensation is given. Unfortunately, the government’s view has been that the fair market value of a property determines just compensation. In this case, however, the fair market value was not fair. Consider this hypothetical example: a poor fisherman has a bucket containing one hundred oysters he purchased for seventy-five cents each. Discovering that these oysters contained precious pearls, the government seized the oysters for a large department store which agreed to relocate there and which compensated the fisherman seventy-five dollars, the fair market value for one hundred oysters. The store then sold the pearls for thousands of dollars. From this we see that compensation in the Kelo case was not kosher. Failing to recognize potential as a vital factor in just compensation allowed the interest of the stronger to prevail.

In the case of affirmative action, potential has often been overlooked as a factor in merit. People who have not benefited from high levels of nurturing and training have been at a disadvantage in competing for jobs, college admissions, promotions, etc, though they may have exhibited considerable potential. A way had to be found to allow people to be advanced not only on the basis of being “best qualified” (as determined by test scores) but by allowing some people who demonstrated superior potential to win advancement by being found “fully qualified”. For example, to use a hypothetical case, if there were eighty spaces for admission to a graduate program, sixty spaces might be awarded to the “best qualified” – with scores of perhaps 93 and above. The remaining twenty spaces would be awarded from among those “fully qualified” – with scores of 90-92 with perhaps over one hundred candidates in this category.

This would lead to claims of reverse discrimination as someone who scored 91 – with superior potential – could be selected instead of someone who scored 92.

Another hypothetical case, which throws light on the foregoing shows how “fully qualifi ed” was intended to be used. It is the case of two runners vying for the final slot on the mile relay team. Runner a starts at the beginning

while runner B starts ten yards behind. Runner A wins but only by one yard. Selection of Runner B is made possible by the “fully qualifi ed” principle, which allows some attitude for people with superior potential to be selected. From this we can see that potential can be a factor

in merit. This approach has been

widely used in professional football without ruffling any feathers. For example, in 1996, Danny Wuerffel was selected Heisman Trophy Winner, but National football League coaches saw more potential in Peyton Manning. Today, Danny Wuerffel is hardly mentioned in discussing football greats whereas Peyton Manning is being judged as among the greatest players of all time.

A third example of potential is found in the book of Jonah. Jonah thought that G-d wanted him to bring a message of destruction to the wicked people of Nineveh. He came to this understanding from a worldview, which holds that while some people are good, others are wicked and deserving of destruction. In reality, however, G-d’s message was that while some people are good, others are not yet good. In other words, sinners may have potential for redemption. Jonah would have come to this conclusion earlier had he asked himself, “would G-d being full of compassion, send me on a mission which is absolutely doomed to failure? Jonah’s message was to be, to use a modern analogy, akin to a doctor telling a patient: “unless you stop smoking, you will not survive.”

Is it not strange that while potential is a factor in justice, in matters of merit and in seeing possibilities for redemption, it is seldom mentioned in books on these subjects? We should note, however, that the Torah states that in the seed of each species, is the potential to call fort each new generation after its own kind. (Genesis l:ll) Clearly, potential, overlooked as it, is a blessing from G-d.

Rabbinically Speaking is published as a public service by the Jewish Press in cooperation with the Tampa Rabbinical Association which assigns the column on a rotating basis.