Equity

The other day Craig on his blog talked about equity. Well, now, I've written a few things lately about equity, too, so we're on the same topic, right? And the correct answer is "No." You see, Craig was talking about "the monetary value of a property or business beyond amounts owed on it" and I was talking about "the quality of being fair or impartial." Two absolutely correct but very different definitions. You can see, then, that without being prejudiced, sacrcastic, alarmist, or whatever other extreme you might assume, it is important to understand what we're talking about before we ... talk about it.

So, the big topic of the day -- on everyone's lips, it seems -- is equity. Not the monetary version; the "fair or impartial" version. Maybe it's racial equity. Maybe it's sexual equity. I think those are the two big ones right now, although -- and I don't know the term for it -- equity for the LGBT crowd is in there, too. "Oh," you might think, "so now we have that definition nailed down and we can discuss it." Not so fast. What do you mean by "equity" in this context? I talked about "equity of opportunity" vs "equity of outcome" recently. These are two very different things. Which is it? But, more importantly, how do you define this "fair and impartial"? Is it in terms of equal -- the same -- or some other "equitable"?

You see, in today's world, you had better not suggest that a man can do something better than a woman. Women can do anything a man can do and likely better. And if you hint that men can do something better than a woman, you're a sexist pig, and that's not "equity." Interestingly, if you suggest that women can do anything a man can do and probably better, now you're simply approaching "equity" even though you just indicated that the one gender -- female -- is superior to the other. Not equitable. And, look, reality is always a problem in these types of discussions because the truth is that women can have babies far better than men can and, alternatively, men are much better at impregnating women than women are. That is, nature is clear; women do some things better and men do some things better and that has no bearing on equal worth. But, there, I went and did it. I said men are better than women at impregnating women. Clearly I'm a sexist. I was not a sexist for suggesting that women can have babies better than men; that's just fact.

You see, we're all excited over equity -- fair and equal -- but we don't even know what we're talking about. Is it "equal" as in "the same" or is it "equitable" as in "fair"? And who gets to define "fair"? Does racial equity mean that white people and people of color should have the same number of people in, say, CEO positions? Or is it a percentage? You know, 70% of Americans are white, so 70% of CEOs should be white and so on? And you know it doesn't stop there. Factor in income, housing, standard of living, location, power, health care, education, and so much more in question, and it just gets too confusing without a definition. Equal opportunity, they tell me, is right out. It has to be equal outcomes. But what does that mean? And how is it equal when the solution is to minimize (discriminate against) those who are perceived to have "too much" (whatever that may mean in the context of the complaint)?

We keep using that word. I don't think it means what we think it means.