Kamala Harris and The Pursuit of Equity
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
So there’s a big difference between equality and equity. Equality suggests, “oh everyone should get the same amount.” The problem with that, not everybody’s starting out from the same place. So if we’re all getting the same amount, but you started out back there and I started out over here, we could get the same amount, but you’re still going to be that far back behind me. It’s about giving people the resources and the support they need, so that everyone can be on equal footing, and then compete on equal footing. Equitable treatment means we all end up in the same place .
The above text is the script of a video circulated on Twitter by Vice Presidential nominee Kamala Harris. It’s fair to say it has raised a few eyebrows among conservative, libertarian, and even soft liberal commentators, especially given the Biden campaign’s theme that it is for moderation in politics.
The initial reaction has focused on the very end of the final sentence, taking it as an endorsement from Harris for achieving “equality of outcome” via government policy. Andrew Sullivan, for example, tweeted ““Equitable treatment means we all end up in the same place.” That’s equality of *outcomes* enforced by the government. They used to call that communism.” As Friedrich Hayek once wrote , “There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means, as De Tocqueville described it, ‘a new form of servitude.’”
This interpretation of Harris’s video is not the only one we can take away from the actual text, however, nor even the most generous. One alternative, I suspect, is closer to her view and goes something like this: “if we give everyone genuine ‘equality of opportunity’ [what she defines as equity] then there’s no real reason to expect that outcomes between people or different groups will be drastically different.” Indeed, the starting point for much progressive politics is the idea that differences in representation or income or wealth between different groups owes itself to societal and policy discrimination, rather than different free choices between individuals. Eliminate the discrimination and disadvantages, they think, and those gaps will disappear.
Now, there are two big problems with this line of thinking from a libertarian perspective. The first is that “equality of opportunity” is itself a principle without limit . Is it the idea that all people should be able to use their talents, absent coercive state‐imposed constraints, to pursue their ambitions? Is it that any state actions or policies should treat all individuals as equal under the law? Maybe some the term that way, but sadly neither represents how it is used in wider political parlance—usually as the idea that the government should come in and make up for “disadvantages” some suffer relative to others.
The problem is, taken to its logical end point, the desire to equalize opportunity is just as totalitarian as attempts to equalize outcomes. Why? Well, some people will always have advantages over others, including genetic inheritances such as looks or height, even before we think about finances, or better parenting, or being brought up in a decent neighborhood. Attempting to eliminate all of these gaps in opportunity is impossible and, from the perspective of liberty, deeply undesirable. Such an agenda would, in effect, ban altruism, families caring for their children, and prudent behavior.
And, by and large, even progressives accept this. Yes, you get the harder left pushing for confiscating all inheritances and providing government-delivered childcare from birth. But most in politics pay homage to the principle of equal opportunity, while declining to act on its most extreme forms. Yes, there is a stated desire to ensure that all kids get good schooling, but very few seek to ban parents reading to their kids as some kind of unfair “advantage” that other children do not have. At the very least it is accepted that, past a certain age, the government doesn’t have a responsibility for eliminating all “disadvantages,” especially if they are a result of free choices.
The second problem with Harris’s outlook, however, is that it is empirically untrue that when given equity in terms of opportunities, people end up in the same place. There is absolutely no reason to expect different individuals and therefore different groups, on average, to achieve the same economic outcomes or even be equally represented when everything else about their upbringings, education, work experience and more is the same.
Thomas Sowell documents this brilliantly in his book Discrimination and Disparities , in which early on he explains how success requires many prerequisites, such as intelligence, effort, and living in a place with good institutions. This can lead to a highly skewed distribution of outcomes, even if extensive measures are taken to equalize opportunities and no discrimination exists.
We see this in labor markets today. Progressives often tend to talk as if statistical gender pay gaps exist solely because of discrimination by employers, or in the attitudes of society that shape government policy. Yet even on the Uber platform where discrimination is not possible, a 7 percent “gender pay gap” exists between men and women, partly because of how male and female drivers broadly use the app, the areas they drive in, and the speed that they drive at.
Likewise, a study of gender pay gaps on Mechanical Turk , which is an anonymous platform, even controlling for experience and education, found a male-female pay gap of over 10 percent existed, because of the tasks that the sexes, on average, chose to select. Again, the nature of this platform makes discrimination impossible.
None of this is to deny that discrimination exists elsewhere in society. And as my colleague Michael Tanner has explained brilliantly in his book The Inclusive Economy , often government policies themselves restrict the opportunities of the poor or other groups. Eliminating these bad policies–providing the double dividend of more opportunity and improved life chances–is a goal we can all share.
But generally, there is no reason to expect that even if “equitable treatment” could be achieved, in the way Harris defines it, that we would all “end up in the same place.” And if the absence of equality of outcomes is taken everywhere and anywhere as evidence of inequities in life chances requiring government action, then not only will politicians like Harris be perennially disappointed, but we will suffer a ratchet of liberty-restricting government interventions in pursuit of an unattainable goal.
Outcomes are often unequal, and if due to the free pursuit of our ambitions, that’s ok.
Tags
Who is online
406 visitors
From 2020, when Kamala told us what she really stands for.
gee, with all those maga talking points on equality, it kind of seems strange that trump is dragging his feet on agreeing to a debate with kamala. why is that?
Of course you interpret her words in the extreme ... claiming Harris is arguing for all people in the USA to have equal results. All have the same houses, clothing, cars, ... A purely egalitarian society. That is absurd, Vic.
I think a far more rational interpretation is this:
Imagine two children who both want to be scientists. One is a product of a family that can afford to send her to college to get the education needed to actually be a scientist. The other is a family that has no real chance to help her.
The unequal opportunity portion of Harris' scenario is obvious. The equal results portion is more likely: 'they both can become scientists'.
In America that is determined via grades, not by Kamala nor Harvard College waving certain groups to the front of the line.
You seem to miss the point.
A child in a family with money has far more opportunities to get a better education than those whose families are struggling.
And I am not suggesting waving groups to the front of the line but rather (as her little add suggests) giving the under privileged an equal opportunity to succeed. That starts well before college age. It starts with ensuring the child has decent schooling, is getting decent nutrition, etc. And for those who get the grades, aptitude, and ambition, but do not have the financial means, helping them get a higher education.
This is good for the children (you might be surprised that intelligence, aptitude, and ambition are not a function of a family's annual income) and when they contribute to society at a higher level, it is good for everyone.
To wit, I think it is a good goal to enable the bright scientists of the future to pursue their ambitions and that includes not only those born in good conditions but those born in poor conditions.
That is why education is mandatory in the US.
Of course that is not what Kamala was saying.
I'll give you a heads up. Tomorrow I'll examine her ideas on getting rid of private insurance.
Obviously you are going to just dance around my point. Fine, Vic. Readers can see it.
Don't worry, they got it when they took the time to read the article.
You seem to imply that the "State" or other authority needs to give special considerations and advantages to certain selected groups or individuals to insure equality of outcomes. This can lead to disastrous consequences as standards are lowered to reward less than qualified individuals. Grades, merit, and excellent performance should be qualities that lead to success.
Education is mandatory, but it is not equal. The funding mechanisms for public education must change for that to happen so that schools receive equal funding.
No. He said a child that has a home capable of housing, feeding and tutoring their child has an advantage over a child that's struggling with homelessness, food insecurity and/or no home education support. This is not some secret. Decades of stats bear this out. He's also saying that Dems regularly support programs that try to mitigate those inequalities.
No one is saying standards should be lowered. They are saying children do better at school when they aren't hungry and when children do better at school they don't perpetuate the cycle of poverty they started in.
Bingo.......then why do Democrats fight against school choice?
We pay for public schools through our taxes. Why should we pay for private and/or Catholic schools as well? That's up to their parents, not us.
Because the kids will receive a better education, isn't that what you want?
Why should I pay for it? Is that what you want?
That's up to their parents, not me.
So, you think paying for substandard education is better and then complain the kids aren't getting an equal education. Let that sink in.
What the fuck are you talking about?
If parents want their children to go to a private and/or religious school, let them pay for it.
Why the fuck should I?
Let what sink in? You make no sense.
You pay for it already, why not get the best chance for a better education.
So you support forgiving student loan debt, so kids can get a better education?
Dumbest idea I’ve ever heard of. And that is saying a lot.
How in the fuck did you come up with that.
Read your own post...
Because the kids will receive a better education, isn't that what you want?
Wouldn't it have more to do with the grades of the two children? If the one lacking family financial resources has the grades, isn't there resources available to ensure they have a chance to go to college?
This starts when a child begins school. Education is a progressive process. Bad early education is a barrier to higher learning.
Do you not see the collective national good that comes from ensuring all children have a decent educational foundation and that those who show the aptitude, attitude and deliver the grades should have the opportunity to get advanced degrees that their equivalently skilled, energized contemporaries get by virtue of being born to a wealthy family?
We of course cannot ever achieve equal opportunity, but should we not strive to enable talent to be developed rather than wasted due to circumstances of birth? Do you not see how this benefits the USA as a whole?
Agreed. Obviously the bad early education isn't the fault of the student. Who is accountable for that?
Of course I do, however they're not all "wealthy" families.
That's incorrect, we already have equal opportunity. What we can never achieve is equity of outcome.
Again,.... of course I agree. How do you think this could be done better?
The issue is how to cultivate the talent in the USA rather than have it be wasted due to economic conditions of birth.
Okay, great, problem solved.
Given you have claimed that we have achieved equal opportunity, there is no point asking that question. And I certainly have no interest in attempting to discuss this seriously with someone who declares the problem solved.
But, per my prior posts, I am suggesting that we ensure the formative education prepares our children to be able to compete at the higher education level. And that we ensure those with the attitude, aptitude, and demonstrated grades are able to pursue their academic goals, graduate, and contribute to our society.
I do not know what experiences you have with this, but I have nieces and nephews who, even coming from a medium to upper middle class family, struggled to get the funds needed to pursue their educational goals. They are now strapped with major league debt but they at least were able to secure the loans (with parents struggling to support them).
One became a Physicians Assistant (one step below M.D.), the other an attorney, and the third earned a double major in Psychology and Sociology and is pursuing now an MBA. They are all contributing to society.
It would be a good thing if talented children from lower 'class' levels could develop their minds, learn to learn, and possibly gain equivalent levels of education and then contribute to society.
A good goal, IMO.
Yes and as you correctly pointed out, bad early education is a limiting factor. Again,... who is accountable for that?
If you don't think equal opportunity exists, that's a you problem not a me problem. The concept of equity does nothing to adresss the issues that caused that thinking.
Again,.....agreed. Also again, if they're not whose accountable for that?
That's nice. Good for them, sorry they got so far in debt. We're they prestigious universities?
That is the wrong question, the question is how can we address the problem. This is a societal issue.
As I noted, there is no point discussing this with you if you think that everyone with equal aptitude and attitude already start off on a level playing field.
They were good but not prestigious. But that is not the point. The point is that I saw first hand the struggles of a family trying to help youths who clearly had the aptitude, attitude and grades to get the education necessary to pursue their careers and add to the productivity of this nation.
They barely made it. That illustrates how difficult it is for families of even fewer means. But you do not see the problem.
Agreed, that's why I think it's the right question.
That's not at all what I've said. Perhaps you should ask for clarification if you're confused.
Never said that either.
The working class recognized that problem, established public education, and put government in charge of education. So where did the inequality come from?
Sliding away from the question of where the inequality came by pointing at racial bigotry ignores the fact that government was put in charge of civil rights, too. Was the working class faith in government misplaced?
Since I did not even hint at racial bigotry, your reply makes no sense.
Denying a big source of inequality is even more nonsensical. Where do the inequalities in public education come from? If government cannot provide equal opportunity then why should we believe the government can provide equity?
Talk to Greg, he is the one who claims we already have equal opportunity. And I do not propose equal results so again, non sequitur.
Seems to me that Tig is talking about equity of opportunity while conflating it with equal opportunity.
Then you fail to understand what I have clearly (repeatedly) laid out.
Equal opportunity is a mechanism that, ideally, enables those with equivalent talent and ambition to achieve similar results. It reduces barriers that inhibit lower social 'classes'.
There are already taxpayer funded programs. They could be expanded but that wouldn't adresss the root cause would it?
Could you clarify what you mean by lower social classes?...
The root cause of poverty is exploitation.
The root cause of poverty is overpopulation
Why do you think that is?
There is no single root cause of US poverty or global poverty.
Human nature.
Yes, Greg, I am not suggesting we are starting from zero.
Do you understand that our society (like every other society) is stratified in a class structure? Typically this is organic.
There are people who are workers and those who are bosses. There are people born to a low income family and those who enjoy generational wealth. There are individuals living in rural areas with basic means and those living in high-tech, high luxury urban areas. There are those with no connections and those with an abundance of influential connections. On and on.
My point of course is that there are circumstances of birth which directly impact one's opportunities in life. The lower social classes are, per the context I established, those whose members are hindered from pursuing their ambitions and fully exercising their aptitude and then there are others in higher social classes who essentially do not have any barriers (other than themselves).
Can a kid who grows up in a broken home on the south side of Chicago whose life from his earliest days is influenced by the street have "equal opportunity" with a kid who grows up on the North Shore whose parents earn 300,000 dollars a year? Of course not. Oh a few of them might have something like equal opportunity due to one smile of fate or another, but for the vast majority absolutely not. They will never have "equal opportunity".
[✘]
So you don't think equal opportunity exists at all either?
You're deflection is noted.
Agreed, and here in the US, they're afforded the capability of changing their situation if they want to.
And my point is those circumstances can be overcome in this country, can you name another that they could?....
And still no direct answer to the question of who is accountable?....
I just gave you a detailed explanation. You are playing a game. Do so with someone else.
Try not to be so vague.
Of who and by who?
History gives you a very deep answer to this question. The dynamic of those in control of resources, technology, and manpower vs. those who serve those in control has manifested in various forms throughout recorded history.
Simply apply historical lessons to the USA.
Hmmmm .. really? I do not necessarily disagree - but I will argue that there is considerably more depth to poverty than mire population - poverty dates back to the beginning of humanity when the 'gift of fire' was wealth, hierarchy is unavoidable
'Why is that'?
Is that all you have?
Vague?
Excuse me?
I agree, there will always be disparity. Absolute equality is impossible and it is also undesirable. Each human being is unique with different talents and flaws. So on what dimensions do we measure equality? Makes no sense.
What we should do is help remove barriers which inhibit fellow human beings from developing their potential. We can make improvements but can never absolutely create a level playing field.
And, as you note, it is human nature (it would seem) to form a hierarchy of control. There will always be those more in control and the majority that are less in control (with the lowest rung of the ladder having no control). Trying to mitigate this to enable development is good, but there is no solving this in the absolute.
It simply cannot be done TiG . equality is an ideal, it sounds good, but it is a feel-good term, something that is going to always be out of reach.
The United States government is the epitome of a hierarchy gone awry .. there is no equality - that truth needs to be covered up by changing the meanings of words .. like equity. I have 2 sons, one is 33, the other is soon to be 24 - both have had the same upbringing, offered the same advantages, yet my youngest drives an old truck and has already bought his own home - my oldest bought a new truck and rents a rundown place to live .. it comes down to personal choices..
Nothing is making much sense these days .. my head may never stop shaking!
It doesn't JUST come down to personal choices
Nothing JUST comes down to anything, life is complicated, but if one starts out thinking they are owed something - then the odds are one will never earn anything, JUST continue to live life a victim of inequity!
No one here is thinking they're owed anything dear and no one has said that except you.
Why make this statement which implies that I have suggested equality (even as I defined it) is NOT an ideal?
Right here, this is the most recent of several mentions and in a reply directly to you:
How do you interpret these words??
The history of humanity defies that explanation as too simplistic.
There have always been richer and poorer people.
The more freedoms we have, the greater the disparity there will be.
Our public education system is clearly failing the people paying for it many places in the US. The biggest cause, because it isn’t pumping more money into it, is union control of our teachers that is more interested in indoctrination than education.
Shit can teachers who aren’t teaching, pay the teachers are actually teaching. Pay those teachers more. Get rid of the dead weight.
Greg is right. There is equal opportunity. There just isn’t equal application of the main goal of our educational system. To educate our kids.
I agree to a point. Without writing an essay, watch the movie October Sky.
Possibly but you exonerate the parents who buy cell phones for their middle schoolers or allow their children unlimited internet access?
Conservative victimism?
Usually the point of most school boards in my experience none of which were unionized which really didn't make a difference. They still protect their own and close ranks.
Opinions vary, ask JD Vance.
Of course not, because people aren't robots, not the teachers, parents or students.
That is the noble goal.
Again, you don't just bring kids into the world and let your wife or mom raise them. There are a generation of people who cannot function without electricity, electronics or computers. That isn't the teacher's fault but they have to deal with it every day.
We disagree on a lot but not the parent part. Please tell us. How do you propose to fix that?
Tell us how you propose to fix school systems (let’s not kid ourselves, most of them are unionized) that protect lousy teachers?
And victimism my ass. Indoctrination not education is proliferating or education systems at nearly every level and would be much worse if many parents weren’t getting on school boards and fighting it at every level.
Lets talk about those parents, present parents, trying to unscrew what the NEA and others has worked to screw up.
No .. actually it is not that absurd .. Equity is a made-up term [when used politically] to make it seem like it is about equality .. Harris's thoughts on equity are that everyone starts at a different level .. but 'we' should end up in the same place ... so ......
Equity and equality are two very different things .. equity as applied to the human condition does not exist .. tis nothing but spin, what exactly is equity of treatment?
all terms are made up terms
Especially race, no science behind it.
You act as if you are the only one who ever heard that before. Race does not exist biologically, genetically all the races are something 99.9% the same. "Race" was invented to serve social purposes , and since it does, it exists as a concept.
What makes you say that? Do your never ending comments about Trump’s unfitness for office mean that you’re the only one that believes that?
Yes, historically, but most of us continue to promulgate this unscientific concept. If we want it to end, we need to stop promoting this destructive notion.
I do not read her that way. I think she is saying exactly what I laid out:
Two children with equal aptitude and ambition want to grow up to be research scientists.
One is part of a wealthy family and is afforded a great private school education which helps develop her mind, given access to sports (this is expensive by the way) to develop her body, and access to opportunities (e.g. working part-time in a related field). She is better equipped to score higher on the SAT, has a good resume for acceptance into a prestigious university, and has the money to afford the tuition.
The other is part of a family living paycheck to paycheck. She will not have the best education (the public school of her district), will not be part of expensive sports teams (but, rather, will play sports available to her like basketball). Her family will not have access to opportunities to further develop her skills / qualifications such as working in a lab. She will, in result, not be as well equipped to score on the SAT, will not likely have a resume to gain acceptance in the better universities and if accepted would likely not be able to afford it.
Equivalent kids (could be switched between the families), entirely different circumstances of birth, very likely that the lower 'class' child will not achieve her ambitions due to the many barriers.
The 'equal results' here is the ability to actually become a research scientist.
So, Colour, should society make an attempt to help (approaching equal opportunity) a child with the same intelligence and aptitude as one in a wealthy family to achieve her goal of being a research scientist and contribute to society? Should we attempt to better cultivate talented youths by giving them better opportunities to develop and to ultimately be as qualified a research scientist as her wealthy counterpart?
Or should we dismiss this notion of developing the human being entirely and pretend that Harris is arguing that minorities, etc. should simply be hired into jobs that they are not qualified for just to make things equal? Do you really think she is suggesting that if you come from a poor family and have an associates degree from a community college you should be hired over those with a bachelor's degree from a respectable university?
Developing the human being? Pretending what Harris means?
It all comes down to personal choices, you can lead a horse to water, but ........................ each individual can become whatever they want to .. athletes are some of the best examples of this, some of the nations most impoverished youths have gone on to become the world's greatest because they wanted it and did not wait around for it to be handed to them.
There is a whole generation of individuals that think they desire a trophy for just showing up - that is BS, it does not equate into equality just because they to have a prize when others worked hard to get theirs...!
What choices does a child have?
Fair question, as young children there are few choices that can be made regarding where they live, who their parents are etc .. yet do you think that pushing 'equity' makes more choices available or less choices...?
I once had a house full of neighborhood kids .. now they are all young men living their lives, interestingly enough, the ones offered / given the least advantages are the ones that have achieved the most.
Pretending? Okay, if you want me to treat you as hostile I will.
I am applying common sense to a political cartoon that intentionally speaks in gross generalities. I am not reading into it the most ridiculous and impractical possible interpretation. I see it as the promotion of equal opportunity. The notion of breaking down barriers to allow talented, ambitious individuals whose birth situation leaves them fighting uphill to have a better chance of achieving their ambitions.
I do not read this as Harris wanting a purely egalitarian society (a ridiculous, impossible, undesirable notion). I read this as Harris illustrating the notion of breaking down barriers so that talent can emerge and hopefully rise to the level of talent that did not have those barriers. A very different message and one that focuses on practical application of equal opportunity.
You are off on some anti-liberal rant and that is offensive given I do not and have never supported such nonsense. I have made no such suggestion of 'everyone is a winner' and other bullshit. If you cannot honestly deal with what I write then I will respond accordingly.
We already know that giving children who had a good night sleep some breakfast before classes makes them pay more attention in class. We already know that smaller classrooms and schools without crumbling walls and outdated textbooks improves testing scores. This isn't rocket science, it's simple statistics.
Adjoining neighborhoods with the same socio economic and racial backgrounds in Chicago had different outcomes. The one with a functioning afterschool community center showed higher test scores, lower crime and better general health then the one that had none.
Breaking down barriers, Colour, not 'pushing equity'.
Are you against working to help all children get decent educations K-12 so that the talented and ambitious but economically/situationally challenged individuals have a decent shot to get good SAT scores, build a decent resume to get accepted into good universities and somehow pay to get a quality education and then contribute to the GDP? You know, raise the intellectual quality and productivity of the USA.
I would assume you are in support of that.
Other than purely partisan drivers, what motivates you to interpret this political cartoon, devoid of details, in the worst, most impractical and stupid way?
Who is that generation I wonder?
Yeah and some republicans are voting to NOT have those children get free breakfast and lunch at school and when school is out for the summer.
Go figure.
Yes i'm 100% sure she is against giving children a decent education
Yes, it should be obvious that no rational human being is against helping children get a decent education.
So given that, there should be no objection to trying to break down barriers so that talented, driven children (especially) have a better chance to compete. It does not matter how smart one is if they have not been given the opportunities to learn how to best use their minds, to gain useful knowledge, to build a decent resume, etc.
It is not my intent to come across as hostile .. nor am I on a anti-liberal rant. There will always be the haves and the have nots, that cannot be changed there is no such thing as a level playing field..
Breaking down barriers for some, and not for others [not all barriers can be overcome] does not equality or equity make .. who is the decider on what is considered disadvantaged, how is 'who needs elevated' decided?
Skin colour, income, geography .. whether there is a 2-parent home or not .. so many factors come into play.
I always appreciate a good conversation where things are agreed and disagreed upon ... compromises and understandings reached - that is not you and I today!
Peace
Very true, and I do have to take a step back to see the whole picture at times - I am made in Montana .. we do not have broken down schools like those in the inner cities .. etc.. after school programs were broke up into who would be home on what days of the week and our kids were safe from gangs and drugs etc
Thanks for pointing out that I should take my blinders off from time to time
Again, you write this as if I have argued that a level playing field is possible; even when I note that it is not.
Again, I have NOT stated that all barriers can be overcome to achieve some idealized equality. I spoke of breaking down barriers and was quite clear that I was talking about making progress towards a goal rather than achieving come ideal.
I react harshly to dishonesty. If I make a point and you disagree that is fine. Disagree with an honest argument. Don't engage in rebuttals for points that I was quite careful to NOT make.
I do not think I am being the hostile one here TiG .. everything I type, you take offense to as if I was intentionally rubbing you the wrong way.
React as harshly as you want - twist my words all you want .. there is nothing more I can say.. except that dishonesty does not apply.. what you see as rebuttal I see as continuing my thoughts, I put no words in your mouth. Should I have said how right you are and kept my opinion to myself .. if so, I have no problem with no longer engaging with you.
Peace out
And here you go again.
I am very careful with my words because social media forums are notorious for strawman arguments. In this case I made it crystal clear that equal opportunity is an incremental process with a goal of allowing talented and ambitious individuals the opportunity to pursue the ambitions to the fullest. If we were able to accomplish that fully that would be ideal. But I did not argue for the ideal but rather that we continue to make progress and continue to help break down barriers that inhibit talented, ambitious individuals from becoming (as per my scenario) research scientists and contribute to the GDP.
I also stated clearly and repeatedly that an idealized equality is both impossible and undesirable. And I explained why, in detail.
In spite of that, the strawman arguments dismissing equal opportunity as an ideal and unqualified equality as the end goal are still made.
Disagree with an honest argument, no problem; I will offer my rebuttal. But do not expect me to be gracious after taking explicit measures to mitigate the obvious strawman argument when that obvious argument is made nonetheless.
Hmmm.....
What is confusing you?
Nothing. Thanks for asking.
possibly why a clock has two hands....
No, it isn't absurd. Vic is simply reflecting reality, as I will explain.
While I agree that your hypothetical example is just, it doesn't reflect reality. This is illustrated in the following common meme.
In your hypothetical, it is assumed that both children are equal in potential. Further, your hypothetical assumes the poorer one will be less likely to achieve their goal due to their economic status. I agree. However, that is largely irrelevant to reality. I will attempt to explain why using the provided image.
The portion of the image that depicts "equality" suggests that, as indifferent as it may be, people should have equal access to opportunities. It does not, however, suggest that a person will, or even, should, have equal access simply because they exist. Using your analogy, the man in the blue shirt enjoys his position because of his qualifications, physiology or natural talent, whereas the person in the purple shirt does not. It does not matter that purple shirt person is only there because he did not have the opportunities blue shirt did. As I said, this system, in a perfect world, is indifferent to the individual. It only cares about qualification. No NBA team would hire me, and rightly so.
In the equity portion of the panel, qualification doesn't matter. Purple shirt person will be elevated regardless of his worth or qualification. That, of course, is an oversimplification but still accurate enough to get on with. It would be more accurate for me to say that qualification takes a back seat to political consideration. For instance, United Airlines isn't likely to hire a black barista simply because she'd decided she's tired of slinging coffee over a black woman who's actually bothered to learn how to fly a plane. However, United Airline's declared goal of having X amount of minorities, be that based on skin color or sexual characteristics, demonstrates how equity puts actual qualification behind political objectives. That is, United Airlines being able to say they are leaders in the field of equity trumps passengers concern as to whether the pilots are actually qualified to fly the plane.
There are, of course, flaws in my reasoning. It assumes that regardless of whether I'm speaking of equality or equity, they will both be applied dispassionately. That is obviously not the case. Equity is not intended to be applied fairly to all but, rather, as a means to advance racial and political desires. Since I am neither racist or sexist, I prefer equality over equity. Disregarding the human penchant for corrupting everything it touches, equality at least suggests that everyone should have the same access to opportunity. Equity, on the other hand, suggests that, regardless of qualification, anyone should have access to anything they desire. Or, rather, that is the way equity is applied in our political environment.
this, of course is not reality. People like to imagine, to soothe themselves, that everyone has equal access to "opportunity". This is nonsense.
Exactly, no matter what the government does, I will never sing like Sinatra.
You're almost there Drinker, you have the opportunity to sing like Sinatra, you just don't have the ability, (I'm assuming never having heard you sing) but the Government will make sure you get the job singing and all the perks of being Sinatra because your results will be equal.
www.idealist.org /en/careers/equity-vs-equality-the-difference-and-why-it-matters
Equity vs. Equality | The Difference, and Why It Matters
Amy Bergen 7-9 minutes 8/17/2021
Once you’ve worked in the social-impact space for some time, you tend to become familiar with the terms equality and equity —especially if you’re part of a workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) team .
Although similar-sounding terms, equality and equity actually refer to two very distinct concepts, and the differences between these concepts matter greatly to the people in your organization and to the populations you serve.
What is equality?
Equality indicates a system where everyone has the same opportunities and resources—a “one size fits all” approach to human rights. At first blush, equality might seem reasonable: a class where every student has the same course materials and is graded by the same standards, or a workplace where everyone is held to the same expectations.
The catch with equality, though, is that even if everyone gets the same opportunities, they’re not starting from the same place. And even if expectations are the same, people may need different resources to meet these expectations. As the Annie E. Casey Foundation has said, equality is only effective if everyone has the exact same needs , which is rarely the case in the real world.
In a classroom, for instance, a student learning English as a second language might struggle to keep up with assignments and lectures that are all in English. In a workplace, a single parent responsible for childcare might not be able to dedicate long hours to a project the way their child-free colleagues more easily could.
Equality-based treatment may even penalize people for the different obstacles they face. The student might get a lower grade despite hard work, and the parent might be passed over for promotions because they don’t seem dedicated.
In organizational initiatives, equality may play out as a commitment to multiculturalism or “service to everyone”—which, again, sounds like a worthwhile goal. But this goal overlooks the fact that every group has different needs. A networking event for young Black professionals might not be considered “equal” or “multicultural” since it’s not open for all to attend, but it still fulfills a crucial function.
And when programs are designed for a certain population, like a discussion group for teens who identify as LGBTQ+ or a health clinic for unhoused local residents, they don’t have to serve everyone; they’re targeted toward specific communities for a reason. Programs that give everyone equal access to these resources may diminish the positive impact for communities that really need them, eventually becoming ineffective.
If you prioritize equality in your programming, what you’re probably really going for is equity—a different system that’s more difficult to achieve.
What is equity?
Equity is a system that recognizes each person has different resources and opportunities and seeks to understand and provide what people need based on these differences. According to Merriam Webster, equity is a kind of justice that includes “ freedom from bias or favoritism .” Paula Dressel, founding vice president of JustPartners, Inc. and the Race Matters Institute defines equity as “treating everyone ... justly according to their circumstances .”
Equity, unlike equality, acknowledges different populations face different barriers to success and works to limit or eliminate these barriers.
As you might imagine, equity is harder work than equality. To return to the classroom example, it’s simple for a teacher to copy the same syllabus and course materials for 20 college students. It’s tricker and more time-consuming to make the materials accessible to students with visual impairments, negotiate deadlines for students with learning disabilities, and explain concepts like office hours to students who haven’t spent much time in a college environment.
These accommodations can make the classroom equitable, rather than equal, since everyone gets resources tailored to their circumstances, and it gives all students a better chance of succeeding in the course.
What else might equity look like in a school or workplace? Here are just a few examples:
Working toward equity and justice
You might be familiar with a graphic that uses two pictures to illustrate the equality/equity difference. In the “equality” image, three people of different heights observe a sports game from behind a tall fence. They’re all equally positioned, but only the tallest person can see the game. In the “equity” image, the two shorter people have wooden blocks to stand on, enabling them to see over the fence.
Like most broad metaphors, this one is imperfect—as writers at the Equity in Education Coalition have pointed out, the image implies the shorter people are to blame for their own unequal circumstances. Even equity-based systems can fall into this trap; organizations may operate on the false assumption that “people of color are less than and, thus, need more,” as the Equity in Education Coalition article says.
Organizations working toward equity might also unintentionally engage in “ deficit thinking ,” a thought process that holds people responsible for the disadvantages they face.
Justice, on the other hand, focuses on the systemic barriers that prevent people from reaching their goals, not characteristics of the people themselves. When a “justice” image is added to the graphic above, the fence itself disappears. The problem wasn’t that the observers were too short, but that the system was set up for them to fail. And the systemic change, unlike the individual fixes, is permanent—all future observers can now enjoy the game.
Justice as a long-term goal
Achieving justice won’t be a quick fix but a long-term endeavor that affects every aspect of your work. Specifically, organizations can examine how policies, cultural norms, and hiring and promotion practices support or hinder equitable opportunities. Returning to the workplace examples above, your organization could ask:
Questions like these won’t be answered overnight, and the answers may require you to rethink, even overhaul, some organizational systems. A mindset that values equity over equality—examining what different populations need and working to empower them, rather than seeking to meet everyone’s needs the same way—will make it easier to see what changes are required. Ultimately, the work should help you live out your DEI ideals as a workplace with justice in mind.
Why write such drivel? If the government makes everyone equal we would all be equal. We're not.
Doing it “my way” is so overrated.
Because there are sanity checks on the liberal progressive agenda of people like Harris, we aren't all equal, that is a simple fact. Everyone won't be Hank Aaron, or Taylor swift, but the ability to try to be is open for everyone, it is a lie to say that it isn't.
Does "everyone" have an equal opportunity to become the CEO of a Fortune 500 company ?
Yes, when they are born they have the same opportunity to become to become the CEO of a fortune 500 company, what they do with that opportunity is on them. to say they don't is a bold face lie. Exactly what do you think prevents them from becoming CEO?
No way, which brings up a great point. Government intervention to provide children equal opportunity is insufficient. That intervention needs to occur throughout adulthood as well. Equal opportunity through age 21-22, is one thing, but it doesn’t ensure equal opportunity at age 35.
I think the problem we have is too many equate opportunity with Ability, if you spend your time getting high and abusing drugs and not paying attention in school you squander your opportunity and severely damage your ability to become a fortune 500 CEO.
In short, you 'understand' my hypothetical but deem it irrelevant. Deeming a hypothetical irrelevant is a convenient way to not address the point made.
As I figured, you are arguing a strawman. You are pretending that I have argued that individuals with low potentials should be granted equality. Something like a hiring situation where one candidate has 3 years experience and a Masters degree while the other candidate has 1 year experience and a Bachelor's degree but came from poor family and had to put herself through school. In your strawman, you imply I have argued that the lesser candidate should be hired due to their conditions regardless of the difference in qualification.
Wrong. Strawman.
What I have suggested is that there are plenty of intelligent, driven human beings born into challenging circumstances. They do not, by virtue of their birth, have the opportunities to develop their talents and eventually culminate in gaining the education and credentials to become a scientist (the example). The opportunities are unequal (often by far). Whereas those born to a family with disposable income enjoy a good education (quality schools from K-12) which developed them, gave them the means to score higher on SATs, gave them the means to secure scholarships (parents affording team sports, etc.) on merit based on their development, gave them the means to go to reputable universities and earn their degrees.
Two human beings with equivalent intelligence, etc. both wanting to be professional research scientists (and thus contribute to our nation) yet one of them may never get out of their condition due to barriers that we all know (or should know) exist.
That is not good for the human beings and is not good for the nation.
CEOs typically have strong educational credentials; have graduated (often with honors) from prestigious universities.
They also have connections based on their social 'class' which provide opportunities to achieve success in endeavors and to thus build a war chest of accomplishments that qualify them (in the eyes of a board) for the job.
These two factors are very difficult to achieve. Do you think that a child born to a family living paycheck to paycheck has the same development opportunities as a child sent to the best private schools, able to play expensive sports, etc.? The road to a prestigious university requires a properly developed child (or shitloads of money). How does a family with little money hope to develop their intelligent, driven child anywhere close to that of the wealthy child?
Social 'class' enables connections. Do you think that a child born to a working family has the same connections that a wealthy family has? With how many executives, influential politicians, etc. do you think the working family socializes? This is a very different world and those connections are gold when speaking about becoming CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
Bottom line, George, circumstances of birth do indeed directly impact a child's chances of becoming CEO of a Fortune 500 company. And I am not suggesting that society can fully address this and provide equal opportunity. That is impossible. But we certainly should not blindly declare that because anything is possible that there are no real barriers.
Does "everyone" have a n equal opportunity to become the CEO of a Fortune 500 company?
Of course! They just have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and not be such fucking loafers and welfare mooches.
The government should help fix your earlier bad decisions.
I pretty much stopped reading your post at this point. While equality says that everyone should have the same opportunities, it doesn't suggest that they actually do. That would be a function of equity. Nor does equality say that all have, or even should have, the same resources as anyone else. Again, that would be the goal of equity.
Equality is like a personal servant you never meet and doesn't actually know you, personally. This is because it's busy trying to remove barriers to your success. Its focus is always outward, not toward you. It doesn't care that you're only five feet tall and unlikely to ever play in the NBA. It only cares that there are no external obstacles preventing you from trying.
Equity, however, is the opposite. It doesn't care about reality. It doesn't look outward. It cares nothing about your qualifications. It only cares whether you are getting what you desire or feel you deserve. Or, more accurately, what some political figure thinks you deserve or desire. It seeks to put you on that NBA team regardless of your qualifications. Equity drug equality into a dark alley and is trying to murder it, intending to take its place.
Equity as currently defined by its promoters is simply an extension of Marxist thought. It seeks to remove individuality and, therefore, anything resembling a merit-based system. Equity seeks to make humans merely parts in a societal machine, not unique individuals in their own right. Having a five-foot trans "woman" on a basketball team becomes more important than the team's ability to succeed as a basketball team.
Of course, you can claim that I'm being hyperbolic but, really, I'm not. DEI shows that I'm not. United Airline, for example, shows us this. The color of a person's skin or their sex takes second place to merit in their declared hiring practice. The reason we aren't likely to see a five-foot trans "woman" on an NBA team simply shows that there's a limit to how much unreality society is willing to put up with. Cheatle's position within the Secret Service is another obvious example.
Well, yeah, if you ignore literally everything I wrote explaining why your hypothetical was faulty. Other than that, you're right. /s
A cliche (bullshit) excuse.
Spot on
Oh, c'mon. Neoliberal Republicans are trying to pull the bullshit stunt with 'opportunity' as they did with 'entitlements'. Listen up Republican assholes, I worked for it, I earned, it's mine, and Mitt Romney did not have a fuckin' thing to do with it. Ayn Rand can polish the toe of my hobnails with her broad ass. I had opportunities and I took the risks. Some fat assed rich bastard did not carry me piggy back. And I did not cheat anyone.
If opportunities are equal then I am Atlas. And the neoliberal Republican scammers, shysters, bamboozlers, and flimflammers are scared shitless if that Atlas shrugs. Quote scammer Hayek all you want, you won't make a dime without Atlases like me.
Equal opportunity is not welfare for the rich. Libertarians can go pound sand because that's all they'll get from this Atlas.
The idea of equity scares neoliberals not because everyone would end up in the same place. Equity would also require keeping us all in the same place. That would eliminate the neoliberal ability to cheat their way to the top. For the rest of us that would be the end of progress. Under equity we'd all end up like parakeets in cages and could expect nothing less and nothing more for our descendants.
God created all men equal. That's equality of opportunity. If we allow government to put a thumb on the scales to favor cheaters striving for inequality or to artificially herd us into a golden cage then government has turned its back on God's great plan. Either way, a Godless government will be the end of progress.
WTF is a neoliberal republican?
Sounds like a rant from the former 'president' convicted felon and rapist - a bunch of gobbeldygook and nonsense.
What do you call someone who is incapable of using Google?
What do you call someone who just makes shit up and then passes it off as truth?
They're called Democrats.
Nope, you're the champ there as well.
donald j trump.
The dear leader of making shit up and passing it off as truth
What the huh? Are you Atlas? More indecipherable illiterate garbage
lol ….. who’s illiterate?
Ask Kamala. Kamala is the expert on indecipherable illiterate garbage. Kamala could explain it in terms you might better understand.
No, you're the champ.
It might help if kamala specified what her comment meant and how she would get their in clear and concise terms.
It doesn’t matter what she said. Her spokesman will leak she changed positions and rather than asking her why she keeps flip flopping, the media will attack republicans for pouncing on her flopping.
lol, happened again:
SCOOP: A spokesperson for Harris’s campaign tells me that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has changed her position and no longer supports a federal jobs guarantee, an idea championed by some on the Left and Green New Deal proponents
harris, and media, silent.
There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means, as De Tocqueville described it, ‘a new form of servitude.’”
As we’ve all seen most liberals shake any vestiges of actual liberalism from their ideology and repudiated equal opportunity and embraced the authoritarianism of equal outcomes over the last 50 years.
telling most progressive not to judge someone by the color of their skin is as heretical to them as it would be to their progressive klansman forefathers,
Trying to make people equal is absurd. Not only is it impossible, but it is a bad idea. The better idea is to cultivate talent and enable people (regardless of economic conditions of birth) to rise to their occasion. The equality, if you will, is being able to achieve their potential and pursue their objectives sans economic barriers.
And my entire argument is couched in the practical constraints of reality. We cannot achieve perfection, the idea is to improve on where we stand.
Great. We agree Kamala Harris's ideology is absurd and dangerous for the country.
The equality, if you will, is being able to achieve their potential and pursue their objectives sans economic barriers.
Equality of opportunity is fine. Using the government to obtain equality of results is not.
d my entire argument is couched in the practical constraints of reality
That's great, but I was discussing what Harris said.
And I see Trump supporters continue to flail about trying to find some angle on which to criticize. The faux obtuseness tactics are never good, so I encourage you to continue using them.
If you define equality of results as providing favoritism such as promoting someone due to their ethnicity or gender over someone who is more qualified then I would agree. However equal opportunity is, at its core, a mechanism to prepare children so that they have the genuine skills and credentials to compete on a level playing field with others of equivalent talent and ambition. Do you have a problem with that too?
No, you are taking this political cartoon and interpreting it in the worst possible way.
Lol. How dare republicans attack her words!
Do you have a problem with that too?
I have no problem with equal opportunity, but that's the opposite of what Harris is calling for.
ou are taking this political cartoon and interpreting it in the worst possible way
Harris is a big girl, an attorney even. I'm sure she knows what her words mean. You understand her statement is perfectly in line with the ideology of the party she represents, right?
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others
- Animal Farm
That is how things really are. That depending on circumstances outside one's control the people in a society are stratified into classes with unequal opportunity. You recognize this, right?
I understand the concepts like equality and social justice, in their purest form, are a pipe dream. Man is inherently flawed in that absolute power can corrupt, absolutely. No matter how righteous the intentions.
I am, as noted, NOT speaking of an ideal pipe dream.
Making progress to help cultivate talent from our youth regardless of social class is a positive move. Categorically deeming any such progress as a 'pipe dream' is both cynical and short-sighted.
[deleted][✘]
[✘]
You know you're a racist when equality equals oppression. The right hates equality. That's why trump has been on a 4 day rant about Harris's race, because he is a RACIST.
I see no one but you saying that. Not every one is going to work as hard to achieve their goals. Not sure why that confuses some folks when some succeed and some don’t. I suppose that’s racist as well eh.
Then why is the right so consumed with her race? I could not possibly care less about her race, only that she is qualified.
Most aren’t. Certainly less than how many on the left were consumed by Trumps “pee tape” or other such nonsense.
this will be next:
2020. Donald Trump says that Biden has to pick a woman of color to avoid blowback and compares Kamala Harris to a racehorse that "checks so many boxes." Trump even says that Biden decided to choose Kamala as VP because of George Floyd's death.
Just kidding, that was MSNBC.
They keep telling the fucking moron to shut up about her race but of course the more you tell the fucking moron to shut up the more the fucking moron rants about it