What ever happened to the old saying, “Two wrongs don’t make a right”? That’s what the Biden Administration and Progressive Democrats are bringing you. They’ve found a word to replace the phrase, “social justice” and that is “Equity”. The problem is they’ve altered its meaning to fit their agenda.
There is a subtle difference between equity and equal. For equity to exist you sometimes have to discriminate against one to favor another. For example, let’s say you’re involved in a project. The idea is yours but your partner provided most of the labor. The project can’t be sold without the both of you but the amount of work not equal. Let’s say the idea was genius and the labor to get it done was not unique or highly specialized. Or the idea is not all that unique but the labor is unique and highly specialized. What is the equitable split of the proceeds? An equal split is 50/50. But equitable? Equity could be 70/30 for one or the other depending on the value they brought to the project.
It is therefore the policy of my Administration that the Federal Government should pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality. Affirmatively advancing equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal opportunity is the responsibility of the whole of our Government. Because advancing equity requires a systematic approach to embedding fairness in decision-making processes, executive departments and agencies (agencies) must recognize and work to redress inequities in their policies and programs that serve as barriers to equal opportunity.
President Biden Executive Order January 20, 2021
How about opportunity. Should we have equitable opportunities or equality of opportunity? Equitable opportunities will create preferences of one over another based on some criteria people compile. Equality of opportunity means the opportunity is open to all regardless of criteria. Two people compete for a job. How do you make it equitable for the company hiring if they must choose one over the other even if that person is less qualified. If the company had the freedom to choose they would have chosen another. What if because of the lack of qualification the employee suffers frustration and lack of growth because they don’t know what they’re doing? What if the company suffers losses because now they are paying for labor that doesn’t fit.
Equity as it’s being used today is a weapon. It’s being used to hold some people down because they may have some real or perceived advantage over others. That might be great in a utopian society where human nature is removed. But it is unworkable in real life and only results in the subjugation of all in the end.
We used to live by the concept of equal under the law. The law was meant to be blind. Does it always work? Obviously not because the law is administered by flawed human beings. But it is more fair than equity under the law. Equity under the law will be administered by the same flawed humans except they will now be empowered to discriminate and favor the groups they believe deserve special treatment.
Instead of making their case openly and honestly, advocates of equity twist and turn to avoid revealing their radical goal of re-engineering society through coercion. If the results fall short, as they inevitably would, the remedy is obvious: more money, more rules and more indoctrination. Why not tell us who will receive these special benefits and for how long? At whose expense? Who will administer these programs? Who will judge whether the outcomes are fair enough? When will it all end?
Since the ultimate goal is achieving equal outcomes, these evasions raise the hardest question of all. Isn’t equity just a new brand name for the oldest program of achieving equal outcomes? Its name is socialism.
Wall Street Journal
The concept of equal under the law is far superior to any application of equity by flawed humans.