Equity, Equality, and Outcomes
Social engineering is folly
The latest buzzword on the lips of liberal politicians and political pundits is the word Equity. It is tossed around to justify almost any social program’s purpose, from homeowner rates amongst different ethnic groups, admission to top performing academic schools, and even the recent comments from Vice President Kamala Harris regarding federal funds to assist low-income Floridians affected by Hurricane Ian. What does it actually mean though?
This website points out the definition of Equity as:
“Equity refers to social justice or fairness, and is one of the central pillars of many health, education and livelihood programs…Equity focuses on eliminating differences between groups, when those differences can be addressed…inequities may be rooted in social, economic, demographic or geographic differences. Social differences are differences due to caste or tribe; economic differences are based in wealth; demographic differences may be due to age, gender or race, while geographic differences could be between countries, regions, or urban and rural areas.”
A blog on workplace inclusion cuts to the point of using Equity to achieve an unobtainable goal:
Equity differs from equality in that it accounts for specific disadvantages and obstacles that certain groups or individuals may experience on the path to obtaining the same outcome. (Bold Italics added for emphasis.)
The idea that using Equity to reach equivalent outcomes amongst different groups of society is on its face a preposterous concept. Where are the examples of this ever occurring naturally in the real world?
From grade school classrooms, sports, colleges, corporations, entertainers, and even within families with multiple siblings, the outcomes are never identical. So many factors that are known as well as unknown go into the outcome of an individual. These include environmental factors such as socio-economic status, customs and traditions in the home, and resources available.
This is not to imply that we as a society should leave the less fortunate in our population wholly to their own devices when it comes to achievement. A brutal Malthusian existence is not what any reasonable person would prefer to have a successful civilization. This is why there are a multitude of organizations and programs already in place to assist the population. For all the talk of diversity, it is conveniently forgotten that this will include a diversity of outcomes.
Some sanity has been restored in parts of the country. New York Times recently reported that academic standards for admission are making a return. “In a Reversal, New York City Tightens Admissions to Some Top Schools.” From the article:
New York City’s selective middle schools can once again use grades to choose which students to admit, the school chancellor, David C. Banks, announced on Thursday, rolling back a pandemic-era moratorium that had opened the doors of some of the city’s most elite schools to more low-income students.
Selective high schools will also be able to prioritize top-performing students.
The sweeping move will end the random lottery for middle schools, a major shift after the previous administration ended the use of grades and test scores two years ago. At the city’s competitive high schools, where changes widened the pool of eligible applicants, priority for seats will be limited to top students whose grades are an A average.
The question of whether to base admissions on student performance prompted intense debate this fall. Many Asian American families were particularly vocal in arguing that the lotteries excluded their children from opportunities they had worked hard for. But Black and Latino students are significantly underrepresented at selective schools, and some parents had hoped the previous admissions changes would become permanent to boost racial integration in a system that has been labeled one of the most segregated in the nation.
“It’s critically important that if you’re working hard and making good grades, you should not be thrown into a lottery with just everybody,” Mr. Banks said, noting that the changes were based on family feedback.
This is encouraging news that demonstrates the importance of having set standards to reach if one wants to attend an academically rigorous educational institution. The New York City Library branches out to 92 locations across the city. A NYC library card is free, and plenty of resources are at the disposal for prospective students who desire to excel. No one should be barred from attending these schools due to their race or ethnicity if they have the test scores and aptitude required for admission. Representation at an institution based on race negates the purpose of having the rigorous standards.
Not everyone welcomed this announcement. From the article:
“It’s just a resounding disappointment,” said Nyah Berg, the executive director of New York Appleseed, an organization that pushes for integrated schools. “To put it on such a short timeline with like no guardrails, I just can’t see and can’t fathom how there could be an equitable community engagement process.”
Once again, Equity expects equal outcomes despite multiple factors involved.
Equity vs. Equality
To understand equity, it is important to distinguish it from equality. Equality implies that each individual or unit should receive the same.(Bold Italics for emphasis)
Imagine you are a renowned scientist and professor in the field of Chemistry. You have high expectations and standards, for not only yourself, but also the students taking the Organic Chemistry course you teach. A course that is considered a crucial test of whether someone should pursue a career as a medical doctor due the academic rigor and foundational knowledge it represents.
At N.Y.U., Students Were Failing Organic Chemistry. Who Was to Blame?
Maitland Jones Jr., a respected professor, defended his standards. But students started a petition, and the university dismissed him.
In the field of organic chemistry, Maitland Jones Jr. has a storied reputation. He taught the subject for decades, first at Princeton and then at New York University, and wrote an influential textbook. He received awards for his teaching, as well as recognition as one of N.Y.U.’s coolest professors.
But last spring, as the campus emerged from pandemic restrictions, 82 of his 350 students signed a petition against him.
Students said the high-stakes course — notorious for ending many a dream of medical school — was too hard, blaming Dr. Jones for their poor test scores.
Dr. Jones, 84, is known for changing the way the subject is taught. In addition to writing the 1,300-page textbook “Organic Chemistry,” now in its fifth edition, he pioneered a new method of instruction that relied less on rote memorization and more on problem solving. (Bold emphasis added)
After retiring from Princeton in 2007, he taught organic chemistry at N.Y.U. on a series of yearly contracts. About a decade ago, he said in an interview, he noticed a loss of focus among the students, even as more of them enrolled in his class, hoping to pursue medical careers.
Should these students have had at least some expectations that this class would be a challenge? Surely the knowledge was widely known that the instructor was a former Princeton Professor and wrote the textbook on the classes subject. A first year science course intended to weed-out those who may lack the aptitude and acumen to continue a path to medical school is challenging by design.
The article continues:
“Students were misreading exam questions at an astonishing rate,” he wrote in a grievance to the university, protesting his termination. Grades fell even as he reduced the difficulty of his exams.
The problem was exacerbated by the pandemic, he said. “In the last two years, they fell off a cliff,” he wrote. “We now see single digit scores and even zeros.”
After several years of Covid learning loss, the students not only didn’t study, they didn’t seem to know how to study, Dr. Jones said.
Hmmm.
Therefore, a conclusion that can be drawn so far is that these students were not prepared for college, must less Dr. Jones Organic Chemistry course. Too bad he could not think up any additional ways to help his class be less intimidating. Wait; there is more from the article:
To ease pandemic stress, Dr. Jones and two other professors taped 52 organic chemistry lectures. Dr. Jones said that he personally paid more than $5,000 for the videos and that they are still used by the university.
Firing a competent, (overly so) Professor because of the dullards who could not pass his course has to be a sign of the approaching Idiocracy this country is headed towards, if not already there.
The provisions set forth by the terms of Equity and Equality need to be intensely scrutinized when they appear in public policies as the goal. How they are defined can be the difference between honest assistance to help society, or granting the tools for authoritarianism in a misguided attempt to create a dystopian future of (mediocre) Equity & Equality.