I recently realized in some articles that I was reading, that the term "Equity" was often being used instead of the term "Equality". The differences are actually quite significant and make different statements. And yet these terms are often being used interchangeably in the media these days. Some people may not have noticed the differences (need for critical thinking)."Equality" says that everyone should be treated equally and have equal opportunities. Equity says that there is an existing injustice that needs to be made right. I am in favor of both, wherever possible. But if someone slips the wrong term in to a sentence, the meaning of that sentence is often interpreted completely differently.... unknowingly by some people.

One example of equity has to do with the Native American population in the US. If you are white, your ancestors may have treated their ancestors very unjustly. In attempts to make recompense, the US government gave several tribes what could easily be termed "Equity". The Native Americans were given land free of charge in perpetuity. They were allowed to form their own governments. Some of them are given large lump-sums of American money when they turn eighteen. They have special fishing rights in the Pacific Northwest, etc.. On top of that, they are also allowed to participate at the same time in the American dream (double-dipping). They can own businesses and on their own land where they even have exemptions from anti-gambling laws, which allows them exclusively to run wealth producing casinos. But are they really being treated with equality... or just equity?

Those who seek equity the most, too often seem to be cheated out of their rightful Equality in life. Many of those who choose to leave the reservation do better in life after they leave the reservation. It isn't difficult to do better in many cases than living in a hogan with no electricity, if you simply go somewhere else. The lessons and benefits of capitalism are out of reach in those areas where the concept of capitalism isn't often even properly understood by most of those who live there. They are often given a cash payment at age eighteen and can usually return home to the reservation if life treats them too harshly. Those who endure "Equity", live on their free land (one form of official restitution from the US government) and although they may have fewer worries in life, many of them live well below the poverty line. It's the old "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day". Promise him a lifetime of fish and he will too often throw away the fishing pole altogether. There is no possible equity that can be given to make the Native Americans in the US whole (equity), besides helping them to take advantage of their rightful Equality with the rest of us.

With that said, it looks to me like "Equality" and "Equity" are often at opposite ends of the scale. If we allow Minorities to graduate college with lower grade point averages than their white colleagues are required to have, we would handicap those individuals who were expected to learn less. Many minorities would be inherantly less qualified in the business world than than their white colleagues are, if we impose that terrible burden of "Equity" on them. Even paying for their education would not be "Equity". Easy-come, Easy-go. What is a college education worth? Apparently nothing to some people. Why should they do the work of self-improvement on something that has no value? Perhaps the lessons of "Equality" are all that is available when Equity may be well deserved. But when it comes to Equality, everyone's commitment to keeping the system fair and applied equally to all should be unwavering. Unfortunately, equity is not always possible, especially if those were treated unjustly are all dead now. But we can make the best of equality to improve people's lives.

Either way and regardless of what anyone believes. The meanings of those two words differ.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2021 11:36PM by azsteve.

Great idea, in theory -- but people being people, it just didn't work out.

It's the why of what happened to the Kulaks.
The result?
Famine and six million dead.

I would take issue with the idea that native Americans were "
given" land. I think they were allowed to keep some of the land that was theirs and often the less desirable land.

The Blood (Blackfoot) Nation claims the land the Cardston, AB temple and in fact the whole town sits on is rightfully theirs.

Native American mistreatment aside, my observation is that more people are looking for equity these days rather than equality. Justice is measured in dollars, usually millions, just as Mormons promise God's blessings to reward your righteousness come in the form of wealth. Just pay your tithing and "I the lord will pour out more blessing than you have room to receive . . ." haha.

Money makes the world go round. A mark, a yen, a buck, or a pound.

Forget reparations or forgiveness. You can find what you are looking for on the back of a bus.

Kentish brings up a reasonable issue for discussion? Were the Native Americans given land or just allowed to keep some of the land that was theirs to begin with? If we consider only equity, then they were allowed to keep only some of the land that was theirs to begin with. But once again, equity isn't always possible. What would become of the country if full ownership and control of all lands in the US were divided up between all of the Native American tribes now? The results are probably impossible to accurately predict. Would the results in such a case move us closer to equality? Perhaps an invading force would quickly move in and conquer the country in such a case. In any event, the ultimate goal should be equality anyway. Today's people are not responsible for what transpired before our birth. All we can do is to make the best of our circumstances now.

We can't re-do past history now that it is in the past. Too many things are irreversible. Equality is the only reasonable goal, regardless of who controls the land. From my perspective, today's native Americans are no different than myself, except that they have both the American dream and free land, free money, and many special rights that I do not enjoy. I am not complaining. But they're starting out generally with more than I started with. So their potential is generally greater than for the rest of us if they focus more on what is possible in life, rather than focusing on what was taken from their ancestors.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2021 05:59AM by azsteve.

redistributing land is a tricky situation. I know many of the mormon pioneers benefitted from taking land that Indians had used for hunting for centuries. My own family certainly benefitted, We were there on the day of the Battle of Bear River and watched from the bluffs above. We benefitted and windfall of good cache valley land became safer to farm. White settlement in Idaho and the northern states became more feasible.

I predict that the way 'equity' will be fought over 'equality' is through taxation. Currently there are Irs rumors that Bidens advisors want to hike up the taxes on Capital gains, and inherited wealth to unpayable amounts. Near half of inherited wealth will have to be paid in taxes to keep the asset. 39% or more of tax on a farm worth more than $1 million.

Many feel that starting life out with advantage is the greatest social inequity that needs to be addressed, They want everyone to start in the same place.

There are also rumors that there are going to be retroactive taxes coming. That capital gains will no longer be just forced on realized gains but paper gains as well. All trusts over a certain number of years will be in jeopardy if they use the adjusted basis for the time they were first placed in service until the present.

The Mormon church may be in great danger as are the other old time wealthy families of Utah. Since their adjusted basis is almost $0.

We'll see what happens?

Equity simply creates a level playing field. It's why the Special Olympians compete separately from the regular Olympians. It's why children with learning disabilities (in which they may be very bright, but their brains are wired differently from their peers,) get relatively simple accommodations in schools so that they can succeed.

Here's a sample cartoon. Everyone gets to watch the game, but some people need accommodations to do so:

https://www.girlscoutstoday.org/content/dam/girlscoutstoday/images/news/equalityequity.jpg

Another cartoon that is a favorite of mine:

https://inclusiveeducation.weebly.com/uploads/1/6/7/2/16724178/3159376_orig.png?500

One thing that I've observed in urban education: The kids who make it have had to overcome far more obstacles in their quest for an education that most kids. I can't even begin to explain what these kids go through. They walk by drug dealers every day on their way to school, they hear gunfire at night, they may have a drug-addicted parent, they may not have electricity in the house or food in the refrigerator. Maybe colleges are just giving credit for qualities like persistence and perseverance through dozens and dozens of obstacles that would make most kids give up. Colleges look at diverse factors anyway: Did the applicant join clubs, participate in sports, hold an after-school job? Is the class geographically diverse, and economically diverse? (Both of which are desirable for bringing diverse views to class and peer discussions.) What is one more factor?

The Maryland legislature is working on giving students in poor areas (both Baltimore City and the rural areas,) additional funding so that these impoverished children can have access to things that suburban students take for granted. Why is this a bad idea? Don't we want students to grow up, and be educated citizens, and have the capacity to make good choices and to support themselves successfully? Wouldn't that be a good thing, a net gain to society?

Great cartoons. They explain it all!

(Like the cartoons, and educators be my very favorite and most trusted humans)

So, climbing a tree might be useful for coconut harvesters; but the world is so complex.
So many tasks; such a variety of humans.

For example, the typical "Aspie" excels at pattern recognition, complex systems, innovation, logic - yet struggles in the social decoding and encoding aspects of life as a human.
These would be terrible (and miserable) at one career; yet excel (and be happy) at another.
(As an aside, there is substantial evidence it is hard-wired from in utero accounting for the differences - not sociological molding)

Curious about (and if any have thoughts on):

1. In such a complex world, is it even possible to "create a level playing field."
How would we know it is level, by what objective measures?
(e.g. if the measure is social competency, the Aspie will fail - and how would it be possible to create a world of equity that allows the Aspie to be as socially competent as the "neurotypical" - given that the Aspie simply lacks the neurological social equipment?)
(the Aspie can force-learn how to act like a neurotypical - but it is an act; it is exhausting; and not at all enjoyable)

2. What, if any role, has performance?
Since equity is the objective, should measures of performance be eliminated?
(Because if Sammy performs better than Scotty, or Julie better than Jennifer, or John better than Samantha, or Sarah better than Robert -- it is suddenly not equitable.)

Equity doesn't guarantee a performance standard. It just means that you are given the opportunity to meet that standard.

For example, a child with poor eyesight might be seated at the front of the class to see the board better. A teacher might wear a microphone to benefit the child with poor hearing. These are relatively simple accommodations that level the playing field so that poor eyesight, hearing, etc. will not be a factor, or not as much of a factor, in that child's academic achievement. A child on the Autism spectrum will likewise be given accommodations as needed in order to be able to perform academically to the best of his or her ability.

We can't reasonably expect students to be good at everything. One of the aims of education is to help students find their areas of strength.

I agree, Summer. I always thought equity simply meant fairness, which your examples illustrate well.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Equity doesn't guarantee a performance standard.
> It just means that you are given the opportunity
> to meet that standard.
===============================
This makes sense, thanks (thought this was already being done?).
So it has nothing at all to do with outcome; and it is a very simple concept, really.

(Okay -- not going to start asking questions re: equality now ;-))

I don't know if there is a common factor to success in life or not, and if there is, whether or not it can be given to someone at a young age.

Growing up, most of my friends would get money from their parents whenever they needed it and certainly their basic needs were taken care of for them. If I wanted to wear clothes that matched my peers (lower middle income part of town) - instead of wearing pants with holes and stains in them to high school, I had to get an after-school job and earn some money to pay for those clothes myself, not to mention having a modest amount of money to spend when we went somewhere. My closest friends grew up in families in the church. Both of my parents were alcoholics and my mother used illegal drugs and was a convicted (felony-level) criminal also. So I spent all of my time at friend's homes with nothing good to come home to. At age 12, I could tell my parents that I would be home in three days on my way out the door and they wouldn't even ask where I was going. My friends all had rules to live by, and curfews.

By age eighteen, I had saved some money and found someone on my own to pay for the shortfall between what I had saved and what my mission would cost. While those same friends of mine struggle to get-by now (some of them still living with parents in to their 50's), I eke-by a middle income (not wealthy) lifestyle. Most of the counselors that I've seen in recent years, have been shocked to hear both my childhood background, and then what I do for a living now (requires degrees and some rudimentary culturing that didn't come from my parents). Once again I am not wealthy. But how did my fate and that of some of my friends get reversed? They started with more and were given more of a support system early in life. Technically, all of them should have done better than I did. Some of them have done better financially and raised large families while doing it. But the person's start in life does not always end up proportional to how things end up for them.

So I grew up without much equity as a child. But my friends all treated me with equality. And that helped immensely. I saw from them, how people and families should live. I feel very fortunate. I think that what goes wrong for people in many cases is not having the right kind of friends, or people giving their kids too much money without teaching them the necessary lessons that should be taught by parents to their kids, about money.

Then sometimes, I think that some people just want more money because others around them have more than they do and any plausible justification works. Except it doesn't really work. It justifies for them, why they shouldn't have to do anything different than what they are doing. And they can end up staying in a bad place, expecting what they perceive as equity. And it never comes.

What you say is broadly true. You can attach probabilities to how a certain childhood will influence an entire life but those probabilities describe Bell Curves and there are always two- and three-sigma outliers and you, by your own account, are one of those.

The piece of the puzzle you did not include in this history, however, is that at one point you had to rely on public support. Surely that's relevant, for it is an equity intervention by society at large. You and caffiend are similar in that regard. But the point remains that whether the person receiving the publicly-financed "equity" is the child of a single mom, a drug addict who's trying to get straight, or an adult like you, they are all receiving government-sponsored equity.

And none of those ages or characterizations is morally preferable to another. In fact, the data suggest better outcomes for children in poverty than for adults who fall on hard times. So I urge you to be careful not to underestimate the economic, social, or moral importance of offering equity to people who are in trouble.

Today's azsteve is very much a product of welfare equity. Don't make the mistake of assuming that is not true of many other successful people as well.

Yes, the public safety net should be available to those who need it. For me, the lapse occurred between the time that I realized the church is a cult, and when I was able to re-organize my life to continue without the church. Most people might think that this shouldn't matter so much. But when you have no template of who you should be, to fall back on, all you find are missing pieces that don't fit together and that don't make sense. And you don't know who or what you can trust.

It's really odd (to me) how this happened in my case. All at once, many assumptions that I had made about life -foundational pieces- were suddenly not true or couldn't be trusted (including the very humanity of other people). At age 28, I was thrown back psychologically to what I would guess was around age twelve or fourteen, suddenly and completely unable to handle adult responsibilities and decisions, and not because I didn't want to. I still had the memories of being what I had previously seen as successful (money, cars, self sufficiency). But I knew that many of my life's foundational pieces in my case were flawed, and that I wouldn't be happy on any course until I found and fixed those broken pieces first. That took a few years to do. In the meantime, I dropped completely off the radar to everyone who knew me, no friends, no relatives, no one. I completely isolated myself and that was very painful also. I reconnected with family and some selected friends a few years later after I started figuring some of these things out. Some of my friends from just before that time, I haven't spoken to since then, going on thirty years later now.

I did absolutely find more equity from the state than I did from the church. I never expected nor asked for and would not have accepted any financial support from the church because they were giving me bad advice and I suddenly couldn't trust them either. But after getting really bad guidance from the church for a few years, I did need financial help from the state to get back on my feet again. Things diminished until I resigned from the church, after which things started improving. My earliest core group of mormon friends are still my closest friends now. I jokingly tell them that they are grandfathered-in, because I generally avoid making close friendships with other church members now.

But back to equity vs equality. The biggest drain on my life since just before I resigned from the church until this very moment, has been from all of the energy lost trying to get equity or from not accepting the in-equity that occurred thirty years ago, when I should have sought only equality. I had to re-build and learn to trust people again and that wasn't fair. The church leaders and some church members who greatly harmed my life are never going to apologize nor re-affirm to me that what they did to me was wrong. It's just not going to happen, probably ever. My greatest source of happiness now comes from people who do treat me with equality. And that still includes my friends from that original group, who's families took me in when I didn't really have much to go home to at age fourteen.

So it's more often than not been the equality in life and not as much the equity, that has brought me the most happiness. I do think that equity where possible, should be the preferred path. Sometimes equity is just not available and that can be tragic.

To say that I am a product of welfare equity though, doesn't sound accurate from my perspective. I could have died from an overdose of illegal drugs as my brother did. I could have found a woman much like my mother to get together with. That nearly happened, despite my best efforts to not let that happen. But it didn't happen. I could have numbed-out on alcahol for much of my life as my father did. Part of my not following those patterns was luck and part of it was determination. Part of it had to do with finding good friends. Maybe God (if he exists) helped a bit. And a part of it came from welfare equity also. But from my perspective, equity is more often not something you can count on.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2021 08:50AM by azsteve.

Azsteve, if you wear eyeglasses when you drive, that's equity. It's a reasonable accommodation so that you can drive a car or a truck just like everyone else. When you use a motorized store cart after a leg injury, that's equity. Closed-captioning on TV for when your hearing starts to fade? Equity once again. A ramp beside the stairs in front of a building, so that wheel-chair users can access the building -- equity.

The fact is that you probably run into examples of equity every single day. I realize that it's not an easy concept, but surely you can understand the examples that I've given.

Equity doesn't mean that others have to suffer. The wheel-chair ramp, motorized cart, closed captioning, etc. really do not inconvenience anyone else in any meaningful way. Equity does not need to come at someone else's cost.

Summer, I absolutely agree with you. The debates over equity seem to occur most from those least willing to give it to others where they should. The "when they should" part can be where it gets sticky. But your examples are clear cut to say they should. If we all treated eachother with equality, then those "should" or "should not" arguements would be easier to resolve.

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know if there is a common factor to
> success in life or not, and if there is, whether
> or not it can be given to someone at a young age.
===============================
Clearly, you've got The Right Stuff.
Captain John Paul Jones facing down HMS Serapis kind-of-stuff.

--------

If consider dispassionately the whole and follow the rabbit, the external all boils down to one question:
Am I my brother's keeper ("brother" expanding to the whole)
Reasonable people argue each possibility (and a spectrum of possibilities)

But
the internal is waged against (or with) the 'best version of oneself.'

Most of our human angst and distress comes at the boundary line in confusing the two.
We are not taught this.
So who can lay blame on us.