The Age Gap in Equity: Why Toddlers Deserve a Seat on the School Board (Obviously)

There is a glaring underrepresentation of infants, toddlers, and young children on school boards and in government. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies are clearly ageist, discriminating against these groups and preventing them from representing themselves. Millions of children are affected by decisions made without anyone who “looks or sounds like them” at the decision-making table.

If DEI logic is taken seriously, that representation should mirror population percentages rather than qualifications or experience, then toddlers have every right to demand inclusion. After all, they make up a sizable demographic, they are directly affected by policy, and they have very strong opinions on juice boxes, nap schedules, and the universal injustice of bedtime.

Imagine a two-year-old on the school board. Meetings might begin with finger painting and end in tears, but at least they would be authentic. Lunch breaks would feature an assortment of animal crackers and pouches of applesauce. Committee debates would be passionate and loud, though perhaps less hypocritical than those of some adults. When discussions stall, one member could dramatically throw their sippy cup to the floor, signaling that it is time for a recess, a literal one.

The irony, of course, is that this absurd scenario perfectly illustrates the flaw in the ideology of enforced representational equity. When equal outcomes become the standard of justice, logic ceases to matter. There is no limit to the number of categories one can divide humanity into, nor to the demands that each be represented proportionally in every institution.

But representation alone does not create justice or competence. A government made up of every possible demographic box in perfect statistical alignment would still fail if it lacked wisdom, discipline, and moral integrity. The best ideas are not born of diversity quotas; they are born of reason, virtue, and experience, things toddlers, despite their charm, have not yet developed.

Equality of opportunity means that anyone, regardless of background, has the chance to pursue a role if they earn it. Equality of outcome means everyone must end up in the same place, regardless of effort or capability. The former encourages excellence, while the latter destroys it. It replaces earned achievement with administrative engineering, a moral sleight of hand that values appearance over substance.

Equity, as often practiced, treats disparities as evidence of discrimination rather than as a reflection of natural variation in interest, skill, or choice. Not every imbalance is an injustice. There are more male mechanics and more female nurses not because of oppression, but because of differing inclinations and strengths. Demanding identical results in every field requires denying human diversity itself, the very diversity DEI claims to celebrate.

When every outcome must be equal, merit becomes secondary. The question shifts from “Who is most capable of leading?” to “Who checks which box?” And when identity takes precedence over ability, the system inevitably drifts toward incompetence masked as virtue. That is how institutions that once prized excellence become bureaucracies obsessed with optics.

In that light, appointing toddlers to school boards is not as far-fetched as it sounds. It is simply the logical endpoint of representation without restraint. If lived experience is the highest credential, who could possibly understand the kindergarten experience better than a preschooler? If empathy and visibility are the keys to justice, should not those directly affected by nap policies have a seat at the table?

Of course, we all know why that is ridiculous. Children are not developmentally ready to make such decisions. Yet this simple truth, that some people are not yet equipped for certain responsibilities, applies beyond age. Competence matters. Readiness matters. Pretending otherwise in the name of representation undermines the very institutions that keep society functional.

The goal of a just system should not be to guarantee identical results, but to ensure open doors and the freedom to walk through them when one is ready. Anything beyond that, no matter how well-intentioned, veers into moral absurdity.

Governance should prioritize wisdom, expertise, and the pursuit of the common good, not a demographic checklist. And if that means the toddlers must wait a few years before joining the school board, I suspect the republic will survive.