DIE, The Triad of the New Religion and others in the postmodern pantheon
Part III – Equity
Section (c): Equity as explained by Equitioras
{We have, in these pages, previously discussed the first two persons Diversity and Inclusivity, and have also seen the first two parts on the third person Equity}
Depiction of an Idea
Equity is frequently explained by its proponents using the example of three people without tickets who by themselves assume that they are, or by theorists are assumed to be, entitled to watch the game on the other side of the fence. If society, school, company, the government - or other possessor of capital, feels obliged or is mandated to provide these three people equal-sized boxes to stand on, to obtain what those inside the arena have paid to obtain, that is said to be provision of mere equality. That someone may possess or have access to many boxes or that others have tickets in the first place, is considered a problematic or even oppressive reality, irrespective of how such possession arose. Such possession is incidentally perhaps a reason to be resentful of the possessors, but its treatment herein would be a digression since the objective is to grasp the idea of equity, in the form in which it is currently fashionable, rather than the motivations of its ideologues.
The insufficiency even disdain expressed upon equality[1], which here is an equal treatment of all at the fence, irrespective of whether equal treatment was due, is that the tall green man can see over the fence anyway but he still gets a box, but the short blue woman cannot see even when standing on the box, and the purple person in the wheel chair cannot stand at all. In some variants of the situation, the blue woman does get to see when she gets the box, and the purple person is just too short.
Into the setting, therefore, where equality of treatment is ineffective for the purpose, equity comes to the rescue and provides another box to the blue woman and sets up a ramp for the wheelchair to ascend. Now everyone can watch the game without paying, irrespective of whether they are interested in baseball and regardless of the weight of their wallet, and this is an equality of outcome – that is, the achievement of equity - and the manifestation of justice as understood according to this doctrine of equity. The ideal solution, nonetheless, is to be the removal of the fence and this is called liberation, and you will all be happy.
From the perspective of a defined problem to be solved and solutions – ethical or otherwise, provided for solving such a problem utilising resources invested or allocated for the purpose, this equitising appears attractive, particularly in a context where the owner of the problem and seeker of the solution is also the owner of the resources. However, the unquestioned presumption is that it is deemed to be justice that the three people at the fence are due spectatorship, and equally so, from the authorities in control of another’s capital, the state or by society at large. There is a further presumption that boxes and ramps are available and will continue to be in unlimited supply, perhaps without requiring work to produce them. An even more fundamental and preposterous presumption in contemporary occidental minds appears to be that equality of outcome is an ideal, or even a natural norm, and that it is inequality which is deviant. And that the natural amoral apple tree is a tyrant, and that an organisation may not be organic.
The equity lovers do not take into account that implementation of their solution will result in loss or eventual lack of legitimate spectators thus diminishing revenue for the organisers, and a consequent diminution of funds that are required to maintain the grounds and pay the players – and eventually no more games. The injustice of customers and gatecrashers being granted the same service is not considered, nor that the deprivation of the present entertainment will not cause death to those unentertained. That there is a cost to producing value, and that value will no longer be created when the cost is not borne, goes unrecognised. That value is created when the protagonists have incentive to do so, and that apathy and lethargy replace ingenuity and passion when innovation goes unrewarded and success is unrequited, seems forgotten - as does the possibility that innovation and entrepreneurship when it does occur eventually benefits a broader community and not only the inventor or marketer.
The premise at the fence is that the ticket-holding paying customers watching the game are tormentors who obtain apparently unintentional advantage of intentionally designed social systems rooted in malicious discriminatory practices and beliefs, that reward specific demographics to which they belong - and which thereby produce unequal outcomes. In consequence, such systems need to be toppled, the borders opened and the fences brought down - so that the allegedly oppressed groups may then achieve such outcomes without paying for or earning it, or even being driven to work towards its attainment in the future - by means of intentionally designing systems that would oppress the specific demographics who bought tickets.
Indeed, the equity and justice as demanded by the equitistas will deliberately and systematically spawn unequal outcomes – because, regardless of the absurdity of equity in general, equity advocates demand equity only for certain categories of humanity at the expense of others. The fact that the green man naturally has long legs would be considered an inherited unfair privilege, the legitimate spectators would be despots enjoying what is derserved by those who are not at the match, and the requirement of reasonable qualifications in order to qualify would be considered to be hatred. As long as the woman is blue, she need never consider spending on a ticket, or seeking to earn her place in the arena. It will be the corporation’s, the university’s, the state’s duty to demolish the fence, eliminate the examinations or straighten the apple tree - and kill initiative, creativity and passion that goes into sport, work, public service, entrepreneurship, education and innovation, and every human endeavour.
A distinction needs to be made regarding communal obligation to raise up and support those struggling and miserable at the bottom of hierarchies, or even personal generosity to perform an act of charity to a king. Upliftment of those in need or voluntary acts of love are distinct from equalisation between groups or the destruction of hierarchies. Whether a woman will starve to death if no apple is given, is a question different from whether every lesbian has the right to have the same number of someone else’s apples[2]. Many are deceived when compassion and response rightly due to the starving, impoverished or dejected, becomes deflated and deflected into an attraction towards the ideology of truffles for all – as long as they are pink, their ancestors were yellow, or if they have an inclination to ingest polythene[3].
It is fearful that fences, bicycles and apple trees are not merely examples demonstrating the execution of equity, but that equity seeks to be mandated and implanted via policies and law, and that evidence of inequity will be considered the result of prejudice, systematic or not – and all games will come to an end in more than one sense. It is a counterproductive, indeed disastrous, ideology that is mandated for implementation universally[4] – and followed up with “affirmative action”, in every type of association entity and enterprise, irrespective of its purpose, its membership, its source of funding, its founding principles or objective; and on every scale whether a student society, sports competition, enrollment in a course of education, state and national governments, multinational corporation or international organisation.
Samples from Society
Examining some definitions and various prevalent scenarios used by equitadores to make their point, in order to understand precisely what they mean, indicates that they actually mean it. It is useful also to observe how by use of language whose meaning shifts according to the context, and contexts which arouse emotion, it is easy to be confused, deceived and convinced that the arguments do hold.
Robert Longley[5] writing on education, politics and government, mentions that the US National Academy of Public Administration defines equity as “the fair, just and equitable management of all institutions serving the public directly or by contract; the fair, just and equitable distribution of public services and implementation of public policy; and the commitment to promote fairness, justice, and equity in the formation of public policy.” This definition is tortuous and blatantly circular where equity is defined as being equitable, and also as fair and just – terms intimately associated with each other, but stated separately and evidentently dependent on the equitatoes’ perception of them. Longley makes clear that it is to be interpreted as social systems providing varying levels of support, opportunity and treatment - particularly to select minorities, so that different groups of people attain similar social status. The minority groups he identifies are women, “blacks”, people with disabilities, those with LGBTQ orientations and “genders”, and he also alludes to “religious equity”.
The Milliken School of Public Health of the George Washington University[6] while confirming that society is constituted of groups, that equal resources and opportunities are insufficient and that equity means equal outcome for “marginalised” people, also confirms that social systems have “been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted in discriminatory practices and beliefs”. It is asserted by allusion to a quote attributed to Paula Dressel of the Race Matters Institute, who was not born in Stagira, that it is justice to treat everyone according to their circumstances so that all will get to be equal.
Examples are provided of community centres regulating their operating hours to suit the demand for its services, providing a translation of a communication to those who may not understand it in the original, and of providing social services in neighbourhoods where such services are required. These situations are all related to public service using rightly or wrongly budgeted public funds; and what is referred to as equity in action, is mere economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of resources and attainment of objective, in this case of a philanthropic nature.
These descriptions serve to soften the herd intellect towards the idea of equity, since it is taken for granted that public service - sensible or senseless, is good, that paying taxes to be used for public service is acceptable, and that there are people who need support more than others. Considering thereon that once resources are allocated effective management thereof is good, and if meaningful public service resource management is the manifestation of equity, then instituting quotas for the “marginalised” and grouped, to be represented on corporate boards and at the top levels of every other social institution - to break biases and glass, must also be good, since such would be a mere extension of noble public service.
It follows that Utopia is attained when a snake is on the board of Pigeons Inc, a lion is the provost of the Hircine University, women dominate the Physics Society and the list of the world’s best classical composers has most if not all of the Austrian men removed from it since it is inequitably unfair to be unjustly discriminatory towards the Reich and the Österreich and the pale Caucasians that inhabited it – and the English cricket team will need to include Australians at the next battle for the Ashes. The ideologues do not, however, demand equity among chimney-sweeps, or quotas for lepers. Equitophiles denounce and deem inequitable a class of students who all have the same course material and are assessed and graded according to the same standards[7]. Sic erat scriptum.
Patrick Glynn features Brandon Means, a regional advisor for Insight Global on the DIE themes and an ESG Lead[8] who asserts that employers need to “accommodate” employees “with disabilities, mental health conditions, language barriers, medical conditions” and “others” who need “specific accommodations” so that everyone gets to be as successful as those who qualify for success – presumably because every organisation swims in a shark-free sea. A work-from-home arrangement is proposed for employees with medical conditions, presumably because the work can be done remotely and as effectively. Skills-based hiring is proposed rather than job-specific academic requirements, presuming that those so skilled with be as productive as a specialist.
After mentioning some common sense human resources management and productivity practices masquerading as equity, he asserts that filling quotas for representation of diversity - particularly in leadership positions, is insufficient, as also is mere compliance with the DIE requirements. He goes on to propose extension of diversity criteria selected for consideration, to include “generational diversity” and “neurodiversity” that logically would lead to babies on the executive committee, great grandpa in the squash team and quotas for autistic persons in the governing council for empathy. Means even proposes policies to support those represented into places they struggle to cope up with since they are incompetent for it, and creation of spaces for “diverse” personalities to meet so that they can “formulate initiatives” to suggest to the leadership. Some case studies are referred to, that purport to prove that committing to DIE leads to increased innovation and profitability in business[9].
Essay Notes:
[5] https://www.thoughtco.com/equity-vs-equality-4767021, accessed 7/12/2022
[6] https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/, accessed 7/12/2022
[7] https://www.oregonlive.com/education/2023/10/oregon-again-says-students-dont-need-to-prove-mastery-of-reading-writing-or-math-to-graduate-citing-harm-to-students-of-color.html
[8] https://insightglobal.com/blog/equity-vs-equality/, accessed 7/12/2002
Comments