There is equity, and there is equality, and those are different things. I do think that forceful push to maintain percentages in various aspects of life to correspond to percentages of population often is actually unjust. For example, to insist that it should be strictly 50/50 percentage (or whatever it is) between men and women in all professions e.g. police, school teachers, etc. and actually stop hiring a particular gender until this 50/50 distribution is established is not good.
A great point! I feel like the overarching end goal is a meritocracy - people are rewarded for their talents and hard work. I’d wager most people agree with this goal.
The problem becomes disentangling history and circumstance from our ability to measure talent and hard work. The only way we know to break some social norms that hinder a true meritocracy is to unfairly manipulate the playing field in the short term, which in itself does not follow a meritocracy.
I think there are a few main obstacles:
- Perceived talent and hard work that was actually the result of circumstance - those that think the system is currently working and therefore their position is justified.
- Lack of acceptance that the goal is long term / generational. Those that are unwilling to accept a temporary ‘manipulated meritocracy’ in the short term that would allow a better one in the future.
Perfect intersectionality is a goal, an ideal that we can be measured against, but there must be a transition to it because we are not there in many ways. Places holding themselves to a strict or impossible standard are probably hurting themselves in the short term, but I still think that it is a good goal to work toward.
The problem with this graphics is that this is absolutely not what equity proponents are doing. What is shown here is individual approach. What equity supporters want to do is to group you according by things like skin color or gender, and provide support according that grouping.
For example, equality in income distribution is when help is given based on income of the individual. Equity is when help is given based on skin color to make average income of all skin colors the same.
There’s also a conflict of interest that informs these notions, namely that “equality,” especially in the economic sense, the one that was invoked by MLK Jr and popular in the Civil Rights era, represents a threat to economic arrangements. Those same arrangements, like employers who purchase services from the diversity industry, inform the type of content that will be most marketable for diversity consultants. A company isn’t going to invoke notions of these things that would impact their bottom line. That’s why disparity frameworks are the most readily adopted by capital, because the arrangement of individuals in the system doesn’t alter or threaten the position of capital. The inverse example of this notion of equity would be, “everyone should struggle for a decent job and quality of life equally.” You can even bring this framework to the Antebellum south where, “if we had more black slave owners…”
So I always raise this “yes, and” approach to this subject matter, because it’s in the history of this racial order where the more radical and satisfying answers to it are.
The little guy should be hurt in the 3rd panel as well for the sake of accuracy.
I find that equity tends to create the illusion of opportunity rather than providing the actual support needed to allow the disadvantaged parties to properly take advantage of the opportunities, thus backfiring and hurting all parties.
For example, giving college spots to those who are unable to pass the entry bar rather than giving them the actual support they need to pass the bar in the first place, which ends up with the disadvantaged parties falling behind and taking opportunities away from those who did pass the bar. In the end, nothing gets solved.
See Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
Justice is clearly the better option.
Harrison Bergeron was required reading when I was in school, and should be for everyone, especially these days.
Justice is clearly the better option.
Sure it is, but folks fight it tooth and nail, so you end up settling for equity.
Frankly, I find the folks who think equity looks like your image and description are usually the folks we’re also having to fight against for justice. I’m a little surprised to see you supporting the fence analogy while also tearing down the boxes one. (Maybe we have different ideas about what the fence is?)
Personally I disagree that your third panel is accurate, and IME the occurrence of that outcome (and your “college spots” example) is a theoretical worst case, and detractors of equity-focused solutions claim it to be much more common it than it ever is.
It’s like all those 70’s cartoons where quicksand was a likely threat. Sure, quicksand exists. Are you likely to encounter it? No. Any entity that is supposedly taking unqualified candidates for any position based on equity programs would bring other harm to itself by doing so. I think there’s a reasonable debate to be had about things that fall under the broad umbrella of affirmative action, but I don’t think a reasonable debate includes the assertion that it routinely creates outcomes that result in hiring unqualified candidates.
It’s far easier to find cases of those programs doing exactly what they should than to find them doing harm.
Various edits…
