What principle could limit the openness-ideal and not simultaneously obliterate it? Could there still exist an openness-value that consisted of saying: ‘be more open, unless it is inconvenient or unless it does damage to any other values which you may have, which will include even exclusiveness?
Children with physical indications of Down’s Syndrome (mongolism) would as often be above average on IQ tests, as below, but that doesn’t happen. Also the age gradations would not smoothly rise for each year on the tests given to children. People who are drugged in a mentally incapacitating way would not get consistently lower scores.
One group in power can force further moves towards these propaganda-ideals while remaining more secure than the others within a shelter of hypocrisy. Since they don’t have to pay the price themselves, but just force it on others politically, they don’t need to care what happens to those who are sacrificed. This is how pro-openness also can move towards a more radical program; the people who force others towards the pro-openness goals are not necessarily the same as those who are made to pay the most for it. This possibility introduces a serious instability, one group (the pro-openness in power), can afford to be as irresponsible as their caprices would ever lead them to be. So long as the false value is not rejected, the tendency is all towards further excesses in the name of the misvalued item. When political power is used, the false value can be refuted ever so thoroughly, yet the political establishment can hold on to it regardless. Government schools are in a position to ignore any refutations of their false values. They can proceed as if not a word had been said against them with nothing to fear except that their funding might be taken away.
The government is not likely to say that it is fomenting race war in order to aggrandize its power, but officials can say that their racial policies are pro-openness. Their moral image would be crippled if they said racial conflict as a means to power is their objective. Their moral reputation should be just as handicapped if they say they are guided by openness-as-a-value, if people would take care to see what this would mean.
What they mustn't be given is an inheritance of the results of past freedom and virtues, which give them every incentive to lie about what drives them out. It is too easy to lie, when all that is required is to suffer. Rewards should be for virtues and achievement, not suffering and attunement to what story needs to be told to get a share of the rich man's legacy.
This sets them against all human merit; to say not 'let the best man win' but 'let in my relatives regardless', is to be anti-merit. The presence of the anti-merit immigrants is a constant affront to justice. Justice would not have chosen these people (above others). That they they might have been admitted on a free immigration policy is no objection; such a policy is impossible in a welfare society.