[mynameisvlad]

If someone (a sympathetic public servant) is doi g something to fight inequity, they would not be a "major source of inequity" themselves, no.

That isn't to say that corrupt public servants don't exist, and that they don't look nearly identical if you were to take a brief glance of their actions without looking at their reasoning, but that doesn't mean they're the same people or causing the same end effect.

[stavros]

I think the problem in this comment, and the mistake many others make, is that they consider their viewpoint canonical, and everyone else's viewpoint wrong.

"Sympathetic" and "source of inequity" are subjective. Letting someone get extra points on their test because of their race is equitable to some, unequitable to others. Who decides?

[aidenn0]

There's an argument to be made that differing opinions of equity spread across many dozens of public servants might be a better approximation of true equity than a single opaque model embedded into a computer and applied to all.

[stavros]

Yeah, I'm a big fan of having people be people, as it's much harder to change an ossified computer model.

[mynameisvlad]

Equity is not the same as equality and was never intended as a way to gauge equality.

Equity, by its very definition, is unequal. Every single thing done in the name of equity is unequal. On purpose. Because the "job" of equity is to right inequalities in the system.

[stavros]

Ah, well, as long as there's a single objective definition that all humans can agree on, sounds like a plan.