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.
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…
The problem with equity is that we live under a government in which doesn’t give a rats ass about providing boxes in the first place and so rather chooses the appeasement route that takes the least amount of effort.
They don’t actually want to do anything, just appear like they are.
Making the comparison to the homeless crisis, it becomes more clear.
Instead of building more housing and providing a mechanism to help the homeless, they go with hostile architecture that forces the homeless out into dangerous and deadly environments.
They want the illusion of solving the problem while doing the most minimal amount of effort. If you didn’t know any better & saw fewer homeless people, you’d probably think that “maybe they are solving the homeless problem” when in reality they were solving “the homeless people problem” by creating an environment where the homeless either leaves or dies.
and your “college spots” example is a theoretical worst case…
It’s not as theoretical as you think, as there’s plenty of real world examples of the scenario I described.
Infact, Harvard; one of the most acclaimed colleges in the world let alone the US; was doing exactly what I described prior to the Supreme Court ruling that the practice was unconstitutional, see Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
Many colleges, do infact still engage in this practice sighting state level laws.
Harrison Bergeron was required reading when I was in school, and should be for everyone, especially these days.
