[JumpCrisscross]

> Equality is very different than equity

How old are these definitions?

I've only seen them used this way in public policy circles, and left-leaning ones at that. It's also totally discontinuous with the treatment of equality in classical literature.

Put another way, isn't equity just a masking term for top-to-bottom wealth transfers?

[j45]

Hm, if you’re looking at left or (by your own omission right) and don’t have one to share yourself I’d be thinking about the why behind your common.

Would you say Equality and equity are the same?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Would you say Equality and equity are the same?

It depends on with whom I'm speaking. Even the Wikipedia page for the former is a disambiguation [1].

The historical (and international) use of the former is closer to that of egalitarianism [2]. I fail to see what is gained by redefining equality and creating the term equity when equal opportunity vs. equality of outcome has decades of scholarship behind it, to say nothing of being clearer on first glance.

I don't know enough to render judgement. But it smells like the tail-chasing semantics the social sciences love, randomly re-appropriating jargon instead of debating the underlying problem.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

[j45]

Appreciate the response!

In any conversation, inter-discplinary or not, agreeing on what a word means is important.

For me, there is a difference between equity and equality.

As you mentioned, people will hammer on the lens of the interpretation without being aware of it, or not being able to explain the core of it.

I would start with the idea of access to education and access to opportunity to apply education to uplift current and future generations.

Removing built in barriers that have been in the public education system (based off the industrial education system to keep turning out reliable and obedient factory workers by omitting certain information) is one place to start.

Still, not every baby starts at the same start line, and not everyone has the same headwinds, or tailwinds. Some argue its impossible to make everyone equal or equitable, but there are some parts of that spectrum that will never be able to to even be close to equals in average, and the conversation starts around that, and those who are in a position to more default succeed by failing upwards, and those who are not.

There's a lot of focus on breaking ceilings. I often wonder about how it looks for the average person, however that is defined to access opportunity compared to someone who is not a part of the majority, for example.

The interpretation on whether this should be made equitable for everyone, or only to a certain degree is definitely a topic of discussion.

[BurningFrog]

I think "Equity" was launched to the general public 2-3 years ago.

[themitigating]

In 1968, H. George Frederickson articulated "a theory of social equity" and put it forward as the 'third pillar' of public administration.[4] Frederickson was concerned that those in public administration were making the mistake of assuming that citizen A is the same as citizen B; ignoring social and economic conditions.

Using the term launched, similar to how tech companies launch products, implies a conspiracy to bring this word to the public's attention

[BurningFrog]

All I know is that this word used to mean "shares in a company", and then, over a month or two, it meant "everyone having the same outcomes".

[j45]

Equity is a stake in something, for its outcome.

Investment is one a thing.

Having access to opportunity is another

[JumpCrisscross]

> Having access to opportunity is another

This isn’t what equity means, according to this socioeconomic model. It’s equality of outcomes.

[j45]

It’s still only 2-3 years old on the meme learning platforms