• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Equity vs Equality II: E2

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,186
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I was thinking of starting a thread about Equity vs. Equality. It is an important discussion that I want to explore more and get my head around. I am aware now that the term "equity" is associated with Karl Marx and communism and that it seeks equal outcomes, but I’m curious to explore it more broadly to see effective applications of both “equity” and “equality”.

It occurred to me that one positive example of equity would be handicapped parking. Individual's with disabilities are allowed to park closer to the building to produce the same outcome that "everyone can enter the building safely and in a timely manner".

I noticed one problem in the values of "equal outcome". The problem is to assume that there isn't worth and merit in varying levels of success. My own field of music is a good example. There is an important role that a world class concert pianist plays in the world to inspire and explore the edge of human potential. But a school accompanist also serves an important role enabling children to perform a musical and enhance their development as people. Or the local piano teacher like myself contributes in an important unique way that is not a subset of the concert pianist who could likely become impatient hearing beginners play all day. I think we need to celebrate and respect a variety of outcomes. The problem with equity producing the same outcome is primarily an issue when we only value one outcome and force everyone into it.

I would like to explore this topic further with the intelligent folks here to get my head around it. I'm not interested as much in devolving into a discussion only of communism, but more variety of applications of these concepts and examples of contexts where the different approaches produce optimal outcomes.
 
Last edited:

ceecee

Coolatta® Enjoyer
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
16,211
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
I was thinking of starting a thread about Equity vs. Equality and found this old one. I am conflicted about resurrecting it, because it seems to have a bit of conflict and the OP user was banned, but it is an important discussion that I want to explore more and get my head around. I am aware now that the term "equity" is associated with Karl Marx and communism and that it seeks equal outcomes.

It occurred to me that one positive example of equity would be handicapped parking. Individual's with disabilities are allowed to park closer to the building to produce the same outcome that "everyone can enter the building safely and in a timely manner".

In reading over the thread so far, I noticed one problem in the values of "equal outcome". The problem is to assume that there isn't worth and merit in varying levels of success. My own field of music is a good example. There is an important role that a world class concert pianist plays in the world to inspire and explore the edge of human potential. But a school accompanist also serves an important role enabling children to perform a musical and enhance their development as people. Or the local piano teacher like myself contributes in an important unique way that is not a subset of the concert pianist who could likely become impatient hearing beginners play all day. I think we need to celebrate and respect a variety of outcomes. The problem with equity producing the same outcome is primarily an issue when we only value one outcome and force everyone into it.

I would like to explore this topic further with the intelligent folks here to get my head around it. I'm not interested as much in devolving into a discussion only of communism, but more variety of applications of these concepts and examples of contexts where the different approaches produce optimal outcomes.
I think you should start a new thread.
 

ceecee

Coolatta® Enjoyer
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
16,211
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
"Equality is giving everyone the same pair of shoes. Equity is giving everyone a pair of shoes that fits."

Does having a pair of shoes that fits mean everyone will be able to run the same distance? No. But it means no one's ability to run that distance is hindered by their shoes, whilst one group can run comfortably and succeed above those who may even be putting in MORE effort, but don't have a chance because their shoes don't fit.

I like this description of equity vs equality. Using the shoes as an example is a good way to try to explain to a white person they have privilege simply by being white, regardless of income, family situation, education...etc. The color of their skin isn't a detriment, in addition to whatever barriers they face. Their grasp of this varies so much, although I personally never understood the anger. I'm white and it never made me angry.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" makes me chuckle as my husband and I use to use this phrase often when our kids were younger. If the toys got picked up and plates put in the sink or even when they needed a little help getting dressed or riding their bikes. I realize Marx wasn't necessarily directing this at children but it's I think it's appropriate for any age.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,186
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
"Equality is giving everyone the same pair of shoes. Equity is giving everyone a pair of shoes that fits."

Does having a pair of shoes that fits mean everyone will be able to run the same distance? No. But it means no one's ability to run that distance is hindered by their shoes, whilst one group can run comfortably and succeed above those who may even be putting in MORE effort, but don't have a chance because their shoes don't fit.

I like this description of equity vs equality. Using the shoes as an example is a good way to try to explain to a white person they have privilege simply by being white, regardless of income, family situation, education...etc. The color of their skin isn't a detriment, in addition to whatever barriers they face. Their grasp of this varies so much, although I personally never understood the anger. I'm white and it never made me angry.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" makes me chuckle as my husband and I use to use this phrase often when our kids were younger. If the toys got picked up and plates put in the sink or even when they needed a little help getting dressed or riding their bikes. I realize Marx wasn't necessarily directing this at children but it's I think it's appropriate for any age.
These are helpful thoughts. It has occurred to me that the family unit is a micro-communist structure.

There are two factors that I see greatly influencing any “-ism” and that is the scale at which the system is applied and what the system is being overlaid on - existing culture and systems influence the new so it’s also hybrid.

This is true for equality and equity. Having equity as getting shoes that fit does require the ability to specifically determine the size of the foot in need. I have wondered if equity works best at smaller scale and/or for specific, measurable needs and outcomes like handicapped parking. Equity could require specificity of need and outcome which is harder to determine large scale?

Or perhaps large scale results in combining equity and equality. If statistically a certain group displays a certain need then they are as a group given the same leg up - like child tax credits. These are equal amount per child even though they have different needs. There is a lot of negotiating space where the two concepts are functioning in tandem to address societal issues.
 

The Cat

The Cat in the Tinfoil Hat..
Staff member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
26,243
I don't ascribe to -isms, no siree, not this little black duck. I'm an -itis person myself.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,307
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
"Equality is giving everyone the same pair of shoes. Equity is giving everyone a pair of shoes that fits."

Does having a pair of shoes that fits mean everyone will be able to run the same distance? No. But it means no one's ability to run that distance is hindered by their shoes, whilst one group can run comfortably and succeed above those who may even be putting in MORE effort, but don't have a chance because their shoes don't fit.

I like this description of equity vs equality. Using the shoes as an example is a good way to try to explain to a white person they have privilege simply by being white, regardless of income, family situation, education...etc. The color of their skin isn't a detriment, in addition to whatever barriers they face. Their grasp of this varies so much, although I personally never understood the anger. I'm white and it never made me angry.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" makes me chuckle as my husband and I use to use this phrase often when our kids were younger. If the toys got picked up and plates put in the sink or even when they needed a little help getting dressed or riding their bikes. I realize Marx wasn't necessarily directing this at children but it's I think it's appropriate for any age.
Yes, a family is a great example of that famous phrase. Babies have significant needs, but can't contribute much. Stable, healthy adults can contribute much but have much more modest needs. Most people don't question this in a family setting, but somehow outside that sphere it becomes anathema. Heaven forbid we place more of a burden on those who are actually able to shoulder it. This is why I have no patience with regressive taxes like property, sales, even the many fees we pay for things like car registration.

I was thinking of starting a thread about Equity vs. Equality. It is an important discussion that I want to explore more and get my head around. I am aware now that the term "equity" is associated with Karl Marx and communism and that it seeks equal outcomes, but I’m curious to explore it more broadly to see effective applications of both “equity” and “equality”.

It occurred to me that one positive example of equity would be handicapped parking. Individual's with disabilities are allowed to park closer to the building to produce the same outcome that "everyone can enter the building safely and in a timely manner".

I noticed one problem in the values of "equal outcome". The problem is to assume that there isn't worth and merit in varying levels of success. My own field of music is a good example. There is an important role that a world class concert pianist plays in the world to inspire and explore the edge of human potential. But a school accompanist also serves an important role enabling children to perform a musical and enhance their development as people. Or the local piano teacher like myself contributes in an important unique way that is not a subset of the concert pianist who could likely become impatient hearing beginners play all day. I think we need to celebrate and respect a variety of outcomes. The problem with equity producing the same outcome is primarily an issue when we only value one outcome and force everyone into it.

I would like to explore this topic further with the intelligent folks here to get my head around it. I'm not interested as much in devolving into a discussion only of communism, but more variety of applications of these concepts and examples of contexts where the different approaches produce optimal outcomes.
It may help to consider at what point do we assess outcome, and how do we define it? To use ceecee's example, is the outcome that everyone finishes the race at the same time, or that everyone is able to run their best race, unhindered by bad shoes? I sometimes describe it this way: each one of us is limited by many things. Equity involves removing as many of those limitations as possible, so the playing field is as level as possible. Then differences of outcome more closely reflect real differences of ability, as well as personal interest, level of effort, etc.
 

Vendrah

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,967
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
I was thinking of starting a thread about Equity vs. Equality. It is an important discussion that I want to explore more and get my head around. I am aware now that the term "equity" is associated with Karl Marx and communism and that it seeks equal outcomes, but I’m curious to explore it more broadly to see effective applications of both “equity” and “equality”.

It occurred to me that one positive example of equity would be handicapped parking. Individual's with disabilities are allowed to park closer to the building to produce the same outcome that "everyone can enter the building safely and in a timely manner".

I noticed one problem in the values of "equal outcome". The problem is to assume that there isn't worth and merit in varying levels of success. My own field of music is a good example. There is an important role that a world class concert pianist plays in the world to inspire and explore the edge of human potential. But a school accompanist also serves an important role enabling children to perform a musical and enhance their development as people. Or the local piano teacher like myself contributes in an important unique way that is not a subset of the concert pianist who could likely become impatient hearing beginners play all day. I think we need to celebrate and respect a variety of outcomes. The problem with equity producing the same outcome is primarily an issue when we only value one outcome and force everyone into it.

I would like to explore this topic further with the intelligent folks here to get my head around it. I'm not interested as much in devolving into a discussion only of communism, but more variety of applications of these concepts and examples of contexts where the different approaches produce optimal outcomes.

Well, its a long talk but making it short and doing some assumptions from your part, it is not a matter of equality or equity but rather a matter of dignity, respect and honor to a less degree. It is the assumption that realistically most people (and ideally yet not realistically everyone) does deserve to have dignity and respect, and the equality and no privilege on that respect.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Werewolf of London
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
21,540
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Regarding equity, I would like something to be done about the way property values determine educational funding. I am not sure what exactly, but it needs to change.
 

The Cat

The Cat in the Tinfoil Hat..
Staff member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
26,243
Regarding equity, I would like something to be done about the way property values determine educational funding. I am not sure what exactly, but it needs to change.
Everyone would need to do a lot of acid, but I really do believe it would be worth it.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Werewolf of London
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
21,540
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Everyone would need to do a lot of acid, but I really do believe it would be worth it.
Hmm, I think there are other ways of changing perspectives. I don't know all of them, but most of them probably involve talking to other people you wouldn't normally talk to in some way.

I've also read a little about different kinds of networks that are intriguing.
 
Last edited:

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Werewolf of London
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
21,540
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Would it be possible, do you think, to create a community message board like what could conceivably exist in the early 2000s? How would you get people off of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Threads, TikTok enough to get them posting? That is the chief hurdle more than the strictly technical ones.
 

Haight

Doesn't Read Your Posts
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
6,399
MBTI Type
INTj
In case this hasn't been stated, I have a bit of bad news . . . equality is a myth. A social construct created by a given society or group. We are born inherently unequal. And I would not want to live in a society where that was not a fact.

Equal opportunities for all in a given society (what I am viewing as "equity") is a nice goal to aspire to. And similarly, I would not want to live in a society where that goal was not at least attempted. Since, of course, stability is not achieved unless people at least perceive that equal opportunities either exist or somehow could exist within a given political structure.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,856
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
For me, it really depends on what a person means by equity. Some people have a reasonable definition of it, where it's something like having wheelchair ramps to make things more accessible for the disabled. But there are some people who have a more... shall we say, extreme idea of it, and think that any disparity in outcomes is proof of injustice. They would not just want to lift up the disadvantaged, they would want to force people who are more capable to go through life with one hand tied behind their back so that those who are less able don't have to feel inferior.

That would be when I say they are going too far with equity. You can give people with a disadvantage some help, but I don't see any value at all in holding back the potential of people who don't have a disadvantage and denying them resources and opportunities just because it makes outcomes more equal. I don't think there are a lot of people who think this way, but I have unfortunately seen a few, and I would have to say I don't think achieving equity by making life worse for those who are doing well would be very desirable... even though it is probably a lot easier than making life better for those who aren't doing well, and would likely be successful in creating a form of equality between them if implemented.
 

Haight

Doesn't Read Your Posts
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
6,399
MBTI Type
INTj
Well, there are idealists and there are realists. However, there is something to be said about shooting for the stars to receive the moon in return.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Werewolf of London
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
21,540
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I don't think it's going too far to think people should have access to equal primary and secondary education. I definitely don't think they should be denied it (clandestinely these days) because of their skin color.

It's not that I think anyone is claiming that I'm saying that, though. I'm just making myself clear.
 

Haight

Doesn't Read Your Posts
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
6,399
MBTI Type
INTj
What does "equal primary and secondary education" mean? In other words, what would "equal" be? Put yet another way, what would "equal" education look like to you from a practical sense?

My guess is that you mean "similar." As in similar opportunities that would only have marginal differences. However, even that is something I don't see any human society ever achieving. Don't get me wrong, it's important to aspire to things that are better, if one views it that way. But even that is unobtainable. Interestingly, I don't think anyone would appreciate living in a society where full equality was actually achieved.

Actually, that society would not be sustainable from a political sense. However, even while it was sustained, there would be more people exiting than entering.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Werewolf of London
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
21,540
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
What does "equal primary and secondary education" mean? In other words, what would "equal" be? Put yet another way, what would "equal" education look like to you from a practical sense?

My guess is that you mean "similar." As in similar opportunities that would only have marginal differences. However, even that is something I don't see any human society ever achieving. Don't get me wrong, it's important to aspire to things that are better, if one views it that way. But even that is unobtainable. Interestingly, I don't think anyone would appreciate living in a society where full equality was actually achieved.

Actually, that society would not be sustainable from a political sense. However, even while it was sustained, there would be more people exiting than entering.
I'm not arguing for full equality. I'm arguing for full opportunities. I'm not discussing how to make this happen politically. I'm aware the road is difficult. However, it is useful to see what objectives people will and won't agree with.

I think, for starters, all subjects should have all the resources and equipment they need, like textbooks. Nobody should be forced to only use the textbooks half of the year because they can't afford them for everyone. This happened in a school I went to, in a class I attended.

At no point am I arguing for equality of outcome, just equality of opportunities.
 

Haight

Doesn't Read Your Posts
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
6,399
MBTI Type
INTj
I think you are discussing equality in the realm of politics. Who do you think make the decisions regarding educational funding in terms of allocating educational resources?

Either way, my point stands. Equality is a myth. And even if it were realized, you would wish it had not.

To Athenian - I agree with you. Equality is great to aspire to, but only because it provides incremental change, which is progress. But anything approaching equality is unobtainable and unsustainable. Yes, that's sad. But wins are done on the margins and should be considered progress. I think the women's Suffrage movement is a good example. Are women today equal to men in terms of access to opportunities? Nope. But "radical" change inspires incremental change. And as time moves forward, the incremental changes result in real progress. But in the end, equality is not achieved., But the opportunities are improved beyond what the ladies of the Suffrage movement could have ever dreamed of.
 
Top