OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Equality or Equity?

Entry 2071, on 2020-08-21 at 12:30:49 (Rating 5, Politics)

There has been a lot of talk recently about equality and equity. Sometimes these words are used interchangeably, but usually they have different meanings. Here's a common interpretation I found on the internet: "In the context of social systems, equity and equality have similar but slightly different meanings. Equality refers to a situation in which all parts of society have the same levels of opportunity and support. Equity extends the concept of equality to add provision of varying levels of support based on individual need or ability."

I think that is what a lot of the debate between the left and right in politics comes down to. Effectively equity is just the application pf the same old "affirmative action" policies which have been around for decades. These have always been favoured by the left, but they have always been controversial.

Attached to this is the concept of the "soft bigotry of low expectations". Essentially this states that if we have reason to believe a certain group can't compete evenly with others for some reason, then we have to give them extra assistance. That might sound quite fair and reasonable, but the implication is that the group is deficient in some way (that's the low expectations part) so needs extra help (that's the "bigotry" aspect). The usual justification is that the group involved is disadvantaged through no fault of their own (making the bigotry "soft").

A common situation where this issue arises is with enrolment into advanced education. In the US, black students have traditionally had more trouble getting into university courses, compared with others such as white and Asian students (note that the Asians are well ahead of most others in achievement in this area). What is the solution here?

Well, if we want a solution based on equality we should allow all students equal access to that education based on attributes which are fair and relevant, such as tests of ability, intelligence, etc. If that results in more of one group than another being accepted then (as long as we are certain that the rules really are fair) that should be acceptable, because some groups are just better, according to those measures, than others in that particular area.

But if we wanted a solution based on equity we would calculate the proportion of students in each group in the general population and have entry criteria which ensure the number of students in that education system matches that proportion. That might mean that someone who is naturally better at that particular activity is rejected in favour of another person who gets to participate purely because of an attribute which is not relevant to the type of education involved (such as race, gender, ethnicity, etc).

To be more specific (and to open myself to inevitable accusations of racism), here is what is happening in the US (and elsewhere) at the moment: black students are being allowed entry into many university courses even when their grades are significantly inferior to those of Asian people. In many cases the black person doesn't cope and leaves the course, and the Asian person is either forced to apply at a lesser institution or abandon their education completely.

These are facts, but there is some nuance. It is probable that part of the reason the black students aren't doing as well is that they start from a less favourable position, particularly in terms of wealth. And further, it is possible that this position of disadvantage might be at least partly due to societal bias or (OK, let's just say this) racism.

So is it OK in that situation to let the disadvantaged black student join a course that he/she is not technically entitled to join? Well, that's the big question, isn't it? There is one additional point that I should mention before giving my opinion here. That is that for every student enrolled who is below the usual standard, someone who is above that standard has to be rejected, and those are often Asian students. Plus the student enrolled who is below standard is unlikely to achieve to a high level, and will often withdraw from the course.

So if a higher education institution having a proportion of black students below what we would expect from the proportion in society as a whole is deemed racist, how is not allowing students of another race to enter a course they are better suited to not racist?

It seems to me that the attempt at equity here is not a credible action, but there is one other factor which makes this even worse: the unevenness of its application.

In popular American sports, such as basketball and football (the crazy American version, not real football), there is a much higher proportion of black people involved and a lower proportion of Asians, in relation to the population as a whole. Is there an affirmative action program there designed to allow more Asians to participate at the expense of blacks? Well, if there is it is well hidden, because I couldn't find one.

And if you say black people deserve to be over-represented in basketball because they are just naturally good at it, then you make my case for me, because I would say Asian people deserve to be over-represented in academia for the same reason!

Also, look at the history of Asians in the US. They have been the subject of systemic disadvantage in a similar way to blacks - this is especially true for Japanese people before and after World War II. Has this reduced their ability to participate in society? Not now. Clearly historical biases against a group are not an inevitable source of disadvantage today.

Just a small aside here, too. I was thinking about what other groups of people have experienced major disadvantages yet still contribute greatly to society and I thought of Jews. Look at their history and its hard to think of any group who have been more persecuted in the past (and even to a lesser extent today) yet they make the most incredible contributions to society in areas such as medicine and science. Again, your past doesn't have to define your present.

Finally, what if there is an innate problem with some aspects of black culture and behaviour in the US, and which at least partly leads to the problems they experience today? What is the best way to fix that? Is it best to pretend society is entirely to blame, and to give them privileges other groups don't have, and as a result create genuine biases against other groups? Why not accept the facts instead and try to fix the real causes of the problem?

Oh, no. I forgot that we can't do that. That would be racist!

Comment 1 (5555) by Anonymous on 2020-10-25 at 14:34:38:

Well done OJB. You are racist to both Asians and PoCs. You must be so proud!

Comment 2 (5556) by OJB on 2020-10-25 at 15:24:44:

The problem is that I can't discuss this (which is a significant issue in modern culture) without mentioning specific racial or ethnic groups. If that counts as "racism" to you then that's your issue. I would prefer if you told me exactly what I said which you feel is racist. It would also help if it is untrue. So, what have you got?

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.