Submitted by KM Hills.
The definition that comes up when you Google Equity . . . is “the quality of being fair and impartial.
I think most of us have seen the below cartoon about equity vs. equality.
I recently spoke at a public meeting and posed the question to publicly elected officials about how to do more for one group without taking away from any other group. I know I am too old to understand common core math, but someone please help me understand what is fair or impartial about taking anything from one (even a wooden crate) to give something to someone else? Please solve the math problem depicted in the picture so the shortest person can enjoy the game without taking the wooden crate from the tallest person who is enjoying the game.
I don’t often enjoy reading for pleasure but there are a few authors whose writings make me stop & think. One of them is Kurt Vonnegut. One of his short stories, Harrison Bergeron, seems very fitting as we talk about equality and equity. I encourage you to read it for yourself but what it comes down to is that the government is handicapping anyone who stands out as too smart, or too graceful or too beautiful. The government wants all citizens at the same level on all aspects.
I fear life is imitating art is this regard. If you are a gifted student schools don’t want you to become too smart so will take resources for gifted classes and use them on others in an effort to make everyone just adequate, where no one stands out as too smart or too dumb. This will be a great loss for our society as a whole if everyone is just marginal.
I will link my article here.
https://thesubtimes.com/2021/10/12/letter-history-on-equity/?fbclid=IwAR170oLxqq-nelF8-mF10Exp6gjXoF2dXQeyCd0FIvNpOycrjMzQq7XcdY4
The problem is the definition has been twisted, but still comes to the same conclusion; equal outcomes.
That’s a dangerous concept for a couple of reasons;
1. How do we manufacture equilibrium in this regard? Thomas Sowell brings up a couple of great points.
“Nobody is equal to anybody. Even the same man is not equal to himself on different days.”
Also,
“If there is not equality of outcomes among people born to the same parents and raised under the same roof, why should equality of outcomes be expected—or assumed—when conditions are not nearly so comparable?”
He’s right, we are different people, with different strengths and weaknesses on different days.
How do we account for that in any real way without taking from anyone else?
2. On what standard do we base an outcome?
A successful outcome for me has been a stay at home mom living within a humble wage but living within my means. Success for Muhammad Ali is being a famous boxing champion. I cannot (nor would I want to) achieve that. The point of equality is that if I wanted to try to go for that, the opportunity is there.
One very important point is that we can lead a kid to education, but we can’t make them learn. It takes more than an administrator, a teacher, or a school to do that. We need to encourage a cultural shift that values and strives for academic success, across the board. Asian countries far exceed us educationally because their cultures value education, they push their kids to excel academically. They have a system where it is “survival of the fittest” in education. Not everyone goes to college and definitely not wasting time on liberal art degrees.
Outside of the very Marxist context of equity- that is.
Delayed gratification, hard work and maturity provide a stable foundation where eventually you can stand on your own two feet to be a productive member of society. If these disciplines are not taught, you could end up putting a child on two crates prematurely where there are no safety measures in place. Meanwhile, with this hands off approach, you are now too far away to even have a chance to catch that child if he or she should fall. That child has essentially been set up for failure. Something to think about. At least that is how I interpret the picture in this article. .
Carla, That was a very unique way of looking at that picture. Your interpretation of it makes a great deal of sence and is something to think about.
I’d take both words out of that cartoon and call it what it is , listen to the song “ short people “
Lol.
Re the cartoon: Where is the fourth entity in the picture, the character who demands the tall boy hand over his box?? No? So let’s assume the boys cooperated and saw the actual need.
This might be the liberal position: cooperation based on empathy. What do you think, conservatives??
The same difference between charity and taxes. Charity is given voluntarily from one’s own assets. Taxes are demanded of other’s asset at the point of a gun. Cooperation based upon empathy? OK. Not someone outside of the picture demanding “cooperation” or else! That’s not cooperation; that’s coercion.
So, do you oppose all accommodations made for handicapped students? As you well know, equity policy does not demand equal outcomes only equal opportunity. Please consider your votes carefully.
Nice words but the reality of equity’s implementation is lowering standards, segregation, and the inequity of impact on those who strive to excel. Debased diplomas are already with us: 88% graduation rates with less than 50% grade level achievement; Washington downgrades credits for graduation; Oregon suspends graduation requirements; California eliminates any grade below 49.9% or “F”. You can talk a nice game of equity but in the end results are what count.
Mr. Block-
No, I do not opposed the ADA, which works to achieve equality for all. That is different than equity. You are correct you can’t demand equal outcomes and and that is my point exactly. Shifting equity has no guarantee to provide improved outcomes. In the end game the only person hurt is the person who was showing the most promise and now has to do without.
Steve,
I have zoomed regularly with a retired Lutheran pastor since the beginning of the pandemic. We have discussed how the concept of “equity” is woven throughout the Bible in scripture. Your post is in line with the most wonderful conversations we have had concerning equity and lifting people up, sharing, fairness and love for others. We are called to do this. I thank you for this reminder and will share your comment with my friend.
There’s a difference between “equity” implemented by an omnipresent, all powerful being that has NO bias and “equity” implemented by short sighted, corruptible humans. THIS IS WHY THIS NEVER WORKS.
It always ends up in genocides and murders. You don’t understand the human reality of equity. You must have ideations of grandeur in regards to humans. When you have a higher governing entity providing equity, it puts them in a God like position with human limitations.
https://thesubtimes.com/2021/10/12/letter-history-on-equity/
Km Hills picture of what equity looks like is great. In many places that holds true, but this is the United States of America and we have the wealth to add another box. If Jeff Bezos and other billionaires can pocket billions off the backs of consumers and their workers and not pay a fair share of taxes, we sure can afford to add a box. And if we didn’t have the means to add a box, isn’t it better for our community and society as a whole that everyone can see over the fence, not just the lucky one born tall enough? If everyone can see over the fence we would have more qualified doctors, teachers, accountants, mechanics, nurses, etc. coming from our own communities, and it wouldn’t be necessary to import immigrants that all of you on the right seem so upset about. Your views are incongruent.
Is there a third way? Like remove the fence? Put a chain link fence up. That’s the problem with politics of either/or is that I can’t make a choice I ever feel good about because nobody is presenting a third way that is charitable, creative and inspiring others towards those same qualities.
Elements of the cartoon are simple and symbolic. Argument misses the point when stuck on outcomes. The message is about opportunity. The math is straight forward, the result apparent, and government (We the people) has a critical role. It’s elementary.
If you want to read more, I suggest going to the indicated source: Interaction Institute for Social Change. If you have a problem with that, perhaps your motives and interests could use more sunlight.
The government should have less of a role.
If you own a house and you rent a room out- the tenant doesn’t pay rent and is more or less horrible to live with- you can’t evict him because the government tells you that you can’t.
That is equity.
The government should not tell people how to manage their time, money or property.
Mr. Warfied
“Stuck on outcomes”? I think your perspective is the one missing the point. Outcomes is what CPSD hopes to change, with the Equity Policy, isn’t it? To lift up those who, for one reason or another, have fallen behind?
And I agree with you it is about opportunity, aka equality. All students should have the same equal opportunity.
However, as I noted above shifting equity does nothing to guarantee outcomes and removes equality. It is like those who win the lottery and are bankrupt a year later. Much equity shifted and in the long run was not beneficial.
This cartoon also assumes a zero-sum game. In reality the best approach is to create more boxes. They may not be distributed equally, but as many comments to this article have already stated equality does not exist in the natural world.
OR, we have equal opportunity to boxes.
People who don’t need boxes and it creates more of a hinderance can leave it for someone who needs it more.