Equality vs Equity
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Which is better and what's the difference between the two? |
Anonymous
| Equality is better |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
| Equity is SJW buzzwords. You should support equality like MLK truly intended |
Anonymous
|
Equality means everyone has the same opportunity but outcomes are different.
Equity means outcomes are the same. It will never be, and it sets everyone up for failure . |
Anonymous
Lots of people would say equity means everyone has the same opportunity. Really depends on what you mean by opportunity— see the cartoon above and the famous quote about the law forbidding both rich and poor from sleeping under the bridge. |
Anonymous
|
With equity you have to actively knock down/undermine the ones on top to raise the bottom ones up. Equality means the ones on top stay there and the ones on the bottom could possibly rise up depending on circumstances.
A person's opinion in which one is better is based on if they are in the top or bottom of society. |
Anonymous
No, it’s based on the amount of empathy they have. Or guilt. |
Anonymous
No. It doesn’t mean that every individual has equal outcomes. It means achieving more aggregate equal outcomes, I.e. women get paid the same as men, blacks have equal levels of home ownership, there is less income inequality across races, etc. People who say it means equal outcomes for everyone have a narrow understanding of the concept. But they are tend to be the type of people who are frequently wrong but rarely in doubt. |
Anonymous
Stop co-opting and corrupting MLK. You don’t know sh** about him except for a few lines from a few speeches. |
Anonymous
|
Equity = from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
You can see how it worked out in practice. |
Anonymous
| Equity should mean giving everyone the support they need. The problem that cartoon shows is that it actually gives some absolutely nothing. They aren’t allowed equal opportunity to advance beyond where they are. |
Anonymous
Anonymous
Because the support given is relative to the goal. It's okay if not everybody "gets something" if they don't need it to try to achieve the goal. If the goal is to see over the fence to watch the baseball game, of course the tall kid on the left doesn't get anything to assist him, because he doesn't need it. He already has everything he needs with his two long legs. When you go to the movies, some people sit in a chair and listen with their ears, some people sit in a chair and listen to audio description because they are visually impaired, and some people sit in their wheelchair in a designated space to watch the movie. Let's use an educational example. When students attend college, some students need assistance to be successful their first year. Universities offer tutoring, counseling, and career counseling to help students when they need academic and social support. When I taught years ago, there was also a specific program designated to support migrant students who had not had consistent schooling. It provided academic and social support from people who were familiar with the needs of that specific population. That has since been merged with a multicultural assistance program. There are also programs that provide supports to veterans and students with disabilities. There are supports for everyone, and supports for some that need them. It takes nothing from one group to offer assistance to the other. |
Anonymous
| It should be equality. Everyone has different strengths, weaknesses and talents to the extent I believe it is impossible to ensure identical outcomes. |