|
SarahBrandSecondEssay 4 - 16 May 2021 - Main.SarahBrand
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | The Fake Distinction Between Equality and Equity | >
> | The Unnecessary Distinction Between Equality and Equity | | | -- By SarahBrand - 07 Apr 2021 | | | Background
Equity v. Equality | |
<
< | I was eighteen years old when I learned that talking about social justice in terms of “equality” was wrong. I remember the distinction between equality and equity quite clearly; as a student of education, it was a common point of discussion throughout my undergraduate career. In terms of social justice, equality emphasizes sameness or equal distribution of resources. Equity focuses instead on fairness and justice. The differences between the two words are evidenced in dictionaries, news articles, blogs, and even memes—at least more than their similarities are emphasized. SOURCE. Those who fight for social justice declare that the distinction is not only useful, but necessary. I would like to argue that it is not only unnecessary but detrimental to the furtherance of social equality. Further, the current interpretation of equality in popular culture is incorrect. | >
> | I was eighteen years old when I learned that talking about social justice in terms of “equality” was wrong. I remember the distinction between equality and equity quite clearly; as a student of education, it was a common point of discussion throughout my undergraduate career. In terms of social justice, equality emphasizes sameness or equal distribution of resources. Equity focuses instead on fairness and justice. The differences between the two words are evidenced in dictionaries, news articles, blogs, and even memes—at least more than their similarities are emphasized. SOURCE. Those who fight for social justice declare that the distinction is not only useful, but necessary. I would like to argue that it is unnecessary and detrimental to the furtherance of social equality. | | | | |
<
< | The History of the Distinction
In order to understand the problems with the distinction, we have to first understand how society has come to define the differences between equality and equity. A common image used to depict the difference can be found here. Equality is pictured on the left and purports to provide everyone with the same resources whereas equity, on the right, provides individuals with the resources necessary to achieve the same outcome or opportunity as everyone else. This distinction was not always present, though. Equality was the gold standard for societal improvement until the 1960s, when H. George Frederickson published his theory of social equity in response to a concern that public administrations were ignoring the differences of citizens while pursuing social justice. SOURCE. In lieu of integrating this concern with current attempts at social justice—those concerned with equality—equity became its own idea, eschewing equality. | >
> | The Relationship Between History and Language
In his introduction to Keywords, Raymond Williams recalls a phrase commonly used between successive generations: “They just don’t speak the same language.” Nonetheless, he argues that “no single group is ‘wrong’ by any linguistic criterion, though a temporarily dominant group may try to enforce its own uses as ‘correct.’” This phenomenon appears in the movement to replace equality with equity; neither group is wrong when using either term, but the dominant group using “equity” argues that “equality” does not adequately define their goal. | | | | |
<
< | Actual Definitions of the Terms
The shift of society’s goal from equality to equity was inaccurate. Equality, appropriately defined, is the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities. SOURCE. To have equal rights, statuses, and opportunities does not automatically denote that each individual receives the same resources to maintain those rights, statuses, and opportunities. For two students to have an equal opportunity to master single-digit multiplication, the teacher may need to spend more time reviewing with one student than another. This is still equality and the need-based resource allocation of resources denoted by “equity” lives within it. Therefore, the recent trend toward making an adversary of the two terms is simply inaccurate. Equality, by nature, envelops equity. Any other definition of equality is not a definition of equality, at all. | >
> | Williams also noted the importance of recognizing the limitations of dictionary definitions. That is, in the dictionary, “a certain foreshortening or bias in some areas is…inevitable.” We cannot look to the dictionary alone to define language. Equality, as defined in the dictionary, is the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities. SOURCE. Historically, equality has developed into two main definitional branches. Branch (1) concerns a continuous process of equalization, premised upon the belief that “all men are naturally equal as human beings, though not at all necessarily in particular attributes.” Branch (2) focuses on the process of removing inherent privileges, based instead on the premise that “all men should ‘start equal,’ though the purpose or effect of this may then be that they become unequal in achievement or condition.” | | | | |
>
> | Understanding the Two Branches of Equality as They Relate to Equity
Both branches of equality encompass the fundamental definition of equity, insofar as it is currently defined in popular culture. Equity merely requires that each individual be provided with substantial resources such that they have the same opportunity for success as others, even if some people require more resources than others. Equity and branch (1) of equality share the premise that individuals are equal as human beings despite their distinct attributes. Equity and branch (2) of equality also share characteristics; namely, the two definitions revolve around the idea of providing individuals with equal opportunities for social success. When these two branches of equality are viewed holistically, equity is encompassed within them. In fact, there is no need for an additional term. Equality is sufficient. | | | Consequences of the Distinction | |
<
< | At first glance, there seems to be no material consequences to switching the way we describe the goals of social justice. A deeper analysis of the uses of the “equity” and “equality,” however, presents the problematic burden placed on those pursuing social justice to educate the public on appropriate language. Additionally, by promulgating an incorrect definition of equality, we have provided valid language to be used by those opposed to equality. This can be illustrated by current legal battles over affirmative action in higher education. | >
> | At first glance, there seems to be no material consequences to switching the way we describe the goals of social justice. A deeper analysis of the uses of the “equity” and “equality,” however, presents the problematic burden placed on those pursuing social justice to educate the public on appropriate language. Additionally, by unnecessarily claiming that the term “equity” is “correct,” we have provided valid language to be used by those opposed to equality. This can be illustrated by current legal battles over affirmative action in higher education. | | | The Educative Burden | |
<
< | I spent all of my childhood and virtually all of my teenaged years believing that equality was the goal. In hindsight, I conceptually understood “equality” to be as “equity” is popularly defined, but those in pursuit of social justice had to educate me on the “proper” terminology to describe my desire to achieve equality. This experience only spurred further confusion for me, and I know it did the same for many of my peers. The differences are pedantic on their face, and the effort to educate society about “equity” versus “equality” merely distracts from more practical attempts at dismantling systemic inequalities. The countless articles written about a false distinction could have made a larger impact if they focused on spreading information about the systemic injustices plaguing the country. Rather, the obsession with the distinction has spread false information and frustrated supporters of social justice who struggle to understand such that they disengage from the “movement” altogether. | >
> | I spent all of my childhood and virtually all of my teenaged years believing that equality was the goal. In hindsight, I conceptually understood “equality” to be as “equity” is popularly defined, but those in pursuit of social justice had to educate me on the “proper” terminology to describe my desire to achieve equality. This experience only sparked further confusion, and I know it did the same for many of my peers. The differences are pedantic on their face, and the effort to educate society about “equity” versus “equality” merely distracts from more practical attempts at dismantling systemic inequalities. The countless articles written about a false distinction could have made a larger impact if they focused on spreading information about the systemic injustices plaguing the country. Rather, the obsession with the distinction has spread false information and frustrated supporters of social justice who struggle to understand such that they disengage from the “movement” altogether. | | | Arguments Against Affirmative Action
Currently, arguments against affirmative action revolve around ideas of “reverse discrimination.” At its core, these allegations imply equality is not being achieved because those who are not racial minorities in the higher education arena are not being given equal rights or opportunities to education. As such, by improperly defining “equality” as that which does not include the need-based resource allocation of “equity,” arguments against a tool for equality can be made using equality itself. This undermines the integrity of the arguments for affirmative action, as well as invites confusion among those attempting to defend affirmative action for the purpose of achieving equality. | |
<
< |
If this is an essay about the history of social concepts, the best route to improvement is to put the text in contact with that history more deeply. Raymond Williams' Keywords is often a good place to start inquiries of this kind, and its article on Equality will be helpful.
If this is an essay about contemporary American political speech, then I think the real subject is particularism and solidarity: how left thought in the US moved from the democratic socialism of union, equality, and working-class self-determination to the claims of disparate sub-communities who cannot or do not repose trust in the prospective solidarity offered by the broadest coalitions. The interplay between attitudes and institutions is complex, and probably cannot be comprehensively summarized in 1,000 words, but it would be good to try.
| | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: |
|
|
SarahBrandSecondEssay 3 - 28 Apr 2021 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| | | Arguments Against Affirmative Action
Currently, arguments against affirmative action revolve around ideas of “reverse discrimination.” At its core, these allegations imply equality is not being achieved because those who are not racial minorities in the higher education arena are not being given equal rights or opportunities to education. As such, by improperly defining “equality” as that which does not include the need-based resource allocation of “equity,” arguments against a tool for equality can be made using equality itself. This undermines the integrity of the arguments for affirmative action, as well as invites confusion among those attempting to defend affirmative action for the purpose of achieving equality. | |
>
> |
If this is an essay about the history of social concepts, the best route to improvement is to put the text in contact with that history more deeply. Raymond Williams' Keywords is often a good place to start inquiries of this kind, and its article on Equality will be helpful.
If this is an essay about contemporary American political speech, then I think the real subject is particularism and solidarity: how left thought in the US moved from the democratic socialism of union, equality, and working-class self-determination to the claims of disparate sub-communities who cannot or do not repose trust in the prospective solidarity offered by the broadest coalitions. The interplay between attitudes and institutions is complex, and probably cannot be comprehensively summarized in 1,000 words, but it would be good to try.
| | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: |
|
|
SarahBrandSecondEssay 2 - 16 Apr 2021 - Main.SarahBrand
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
"After a year of law school, what have I learned about the sort of lawyer I want to be? How—if I am returning to law school in the fall—do I plan to guide my learning in order to become the lawyer I want to be? If I have learned that I should not continue in law school, how have I come to that conclusion?" | | | | |
<
< | Paper Title | >
> | The Fake Distinction Between Equality and Equity | | | -- By SarahBrand - 07 Apr 2021 | |
<
< | Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1 | >
> | Background | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 2 | >
> | Equity v. Equality
I was eighteen years old when I learned that talking about social justice in terms of “equality” was wrong. I remember the distinction between equality and equity quite clearly; as a student of education, it was a common point of discussion throughout my undergraduate career. In terms of social justice, equality emphasizes sameness or equal distribution of resources. Equity focuses instead on fairness and justice. The differences between the two words are evidenced in dictionaries, news articles, blogs, and even memes—at least more than their similarities are emphasized. SOURCE. Those who fight for social justice declare that the distinction is not only useful, but necessary. I would like to argue that it is not only unnecessary but detrimental to the furtherance of social equality. Further, the current interpretation of equality in popular culture is incorrect. | | | | |
>
> | The History of the Distinction
In order to understand the problems with the distinction, we have to first understand how society has come to define the differences between equality and equity. A common image used to depict the difference can be found here. Equality is pictured on the left and purports to provide everyone with the same resources whereas equity, on the right, provides individuals with the resources necessary to achieve the same outcome or opportunity as everyone else. This distinction was not always present, though. Equality was the gold standard for societal improvement until the 1960s, when H. George Frederickson published his theory of social equity in response to a concern that public administrations were ignoring the differences of citizens while pursuing social justice. SOURCE. In lieu of integrating this concern with current attempts at social justice—those concerned with equality—equity became its own idea, eschewing equality. | | | | |
>
> | Actual Definitions of the Terms
The shift of society’s goal from equality to equity was inaccurate. Equality, appropriately defined, is the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities. SOURCE. To have equal rights, statuses, and opportunities does not automatically denote that each individual receives the same resources to maintain those rights, statuses, and opportunities. For two students to have an equal opportunity to master single-digit multiplication, the teacher may need to spend more time reviewing with one student than another. This is still equality and the need-based resource allocation of resources denoted by “equity” lives within it. Therefore, the recent trend toward making an adversary of the two terms is simply inaccurate. Equality, by nature, envelops equity. Any other definition of equality is not a definition of equality, at all. | | | | |
<
< | Section II | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | >
> | Consequences of the Distinction
At first glance, there seems to be no material consequences to switching the way we describe the goals of social justice. A deeper analysis of the uses of the “equity” and “equality,” however, presents the problematic burden placed on those pursuing social justice to educate the public on appropriate language. Additionally, by promulgating an incorrect definition of equality, we have provided valid language to be used by those opposed to equality. This can be illustrated by current legal battles over affirmative action in higher education. | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | >
> | The Educative Burden
I spent all of my childhood and virtually all of my teenaged years believing that equality was the goal. In hindsight, I conceptually understood “equality” to be as “equity” is popularly defined, but those in pursuit of social justice had to educate me on the “proper” terminology to describe my desire to achieve equality. This experience only spurred further confusion for me, and I know it did the same for many of my peers. The differences are pedantic on their face, and the effort to educate society about “equity” versus “equality” merely distracts from more practical attempts at dismantling systemic inequalities. The countless articles written about a false distinction could have made a larger impact if they focused on spreading information about the systemic injustices plaguing the country. Rather, the obsession with the distinction has spread false information and frustrated supporters of social justice who struggle to understand such that they disengage from the “movement” altogether. | | | | |
>
> | Arguments Against Affirmative Action
Currently, arguments against affirmative action revolve around ideas of “reverse discrimination.” At its core, these allegations imply equality is not being achieved because those who are not racial minorities in the higher education arena are not being given equal rights or opportunities to education. As such, by improperly defining “equality” as that which does not include the need-based resource allocation of “equity,” arguments against a tool for equality can be made using equality itself. This undermines the integrity of the arguments for affirmative action, as well as invites confusion among those attempting to defend affirmative action for the purpose of achieving equality. | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
SarahBrandSecondEssay 1 - 07 Apr 2021 - Main.SarahBrand
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
"After a year of law school, what have I learned about the sort of lawyer I want to be? How—if I am returning to law school in the fall—do I plan to guide my learning in order to become the lawyer I want to be? If I have learned that I should not continue in law school, how have I come to that conclusion?"
Paper Title
-- By SarahBrand - 07 Apr 2021
Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|