So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it they began to grumble against the landowner. “These men who were hired last worked only one hour,” they said, “and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.”
But he answered one of them, “Friend I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?” (Matt 120:10-15)
Based on the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, it is pretty clear how Jesus stood on amnesty. The late-arriving workers in the parable are a perfect analogue for immigrants who entered this country later and without legal documents. In the case of the “Dreamers” legislation which gives the amnesty to the children of these immigrants so they might enroll in college, it portrays the later arrivals as hard-working laborers, who had no role in the illegal migration of their parents.
The latest amnesty controversy addresses whether these children of illegal immigrants should be allowed to drive legally. Most states have granted licenses to the children of undocumented parents, but Arizona and Nebraska have been adamant about withholding that privilege. As the governor of Nebraska declared “policies that reward illegal behavior are not fair to those individuals who do follow the rules.”
These words can hardly be stated without whining. Behind them is the premise that good behavior must always be rewarded and bad behavior should always be punished. Jesus campaigned against this principle from the beginning to the end of his public ministry. He favored the condemned and outcast the way the Father favored the Prodigal Son, the way the shepherd favored the lost sheep, the way the Vineyard owner favored the late-arriving workers. And those who complained of discrimination he scolded for envy. Envy and jealousy are what drive so many cries for “fairness.”
No parent or teacher can deny that they must favor one child over the other under certain circumstances. Forgiveness is what allows children to grow up without oppressive guilt. If they are manipulated by guilt, as some parents feel constrained to do, they are bent or broken in their adulthood, constantly trying to appease the parent who would not forgive them as children. They form adult relationships based on guilt and they retain harsh expectations of their own children. It is a vicious cycle of unrelieved guilt.
That is why “fair” is not the same as “equal.” You have to make an exception to give the offending child a chance to recover and return to wholeness. You may have to allow a privilege that the good child did not receive, as the Father gave a feast for the Prodigal Son, but you know that the offending child needs this opportunity to return to life and restore a broken relationship. So you risk offending the “good” child.
Teachers face this dilemma interminably with grading delinquent students. According to school regulations or to the requirements set down in the syllabus, students should fail your class for non-performance. Maybe the assignment was not turned in, even within a grace period for late work. Maybe the early assignments were poorly written during a family emergency.
Maybe the paper was riddled with errors reflecting a learning disability, but the student recognizes and addresses the problem in later assignments. Equal treatment would consign the student to a “C” status from the beginning. Hard work and improvement would be negated by poor performance at the beginning.
My students, all future teachers themselves, are often divided on how you treat erratic performances like these. Those who can identify with the contingencies that interfere with school will understand why the student could be cut some slack and given advantages not accorded the best performers in the class. Those who have worked diligently through school with appropriate rewards see equal treatment as the cardinal principle of teaching. If they knew I had allowed the single mother to do make-up assignments long after the work was due, they would be indignant. Everyone gets their denarius, but some get it for working hard at the end of the semester.
Inevitably there are those who arrive to the vineyard late and then expect to get their denarius for a token effort. They should get something for trying, right? Those malingerers should read the Parable of the Talents, which I interpret to mean that “showing up” is not always enough. There is always that critical moment in teaching when you decide that the student will have to come back and work in another vineyard and another day.
To those who say, “Our work is degraded by those who get A minuses just for working hard at the end of semester,” I say, “You have your “A,” don’t whine about those who got a break when they needed it.” And I hope they will teach their future students in the same way.
Fair is not always equal.