Anonymous wrote:Disagree. The first step is understanding the racism built into our systems and worldview.

Diversity values all people and cultures, even though the system favors some. Equity seeks to redress imbalances based on those systemic biases. Focusing on equity naturally increases and fosters diversity.

This sounds like a chatbot

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except that graphic has little to do with how equity initiatives are implemented and evaluated. The lowering standards has not actually increased equity. Only obscured the lack of equity.

Yeah in a realistic drawing of how schools implement “equity” the shorter (disadvantaged) individual would still not be able to see over the fence and the tall kid (advantaged) would be stuck standing in a hole so he couldn’t see either.

I think OP's point though, is that the graphic doesn't take into account, or does not show, those who have no interest in watching the game or don't care enough about the game to go to the effort of stepping up on the box.

Disagree. The first step is understanding the racism built into our systems and worldview.

Diversity values all people and cultures, even though the system favors some. Equity seeks to redress imbalances based on those systemic biases. Focusing on equity naturally increases and fosters diversity.

BTW I mean "less comparable" in terms of very normal things like - where they live, their culture & all that implies about families, common activities, etc. I DO NOT mean "less comparable" biologically which would be a ridiculous position for anyone to take. So let's stipulate that biologically all these groups are pretty much the same.

Also OP - race & culture might overlap sometimes but I care much more about culture. Like most modern people I don't think the color of your skin, setting culture aside, means very much.

OP here & I understand that graphic perfectly. What I take issue with is the idea that equality of (strictly) economic outcome, when you slice large groups by arbitrary criteria like culture, or race, is "natural" - or even desirable.

Even identical twins don't have equal outcomes. What basis is there for thinking that any larger, less comparable groups should?

Anonymous wrote:Except that graphic has little to do with how equity initiatives are implemented and evaluated. The lowering standards has not actually increased equity. Only obscured the lack of equity.

Yeah in a realistic drawing of how schools implement “equity” the shorter (disadvantaged) individual would still not be able to see over the fence and the tall kid (advantaged) would be stuck standing in a hole so he couldn’t see either.

Except that graphic has little to do with how equity initiatives are implemented and evaluated. The lowering standards has not actually increased equity. Only obscured the lack of equity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP doesn’t understand the definition. Equity doesn’t mean equality. Here is a graphic I use to explain this to 12 year olds. Hope it helps!

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Equality-vs-Equity

This graphic is a cancer

+1. It’s everywhere and has been forever!

Anonymous wrote:OP doesn’t understand the definition. Equity doesn’t mean equality. Here is a graphic I use to explain this to 12 year olds. Hope it helps!

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Equality-vs-Equity

No, I think OP is saying equity is sort of impossible if everybody doesn’t want the same outcome or doesn’t value the same results. I agree. Np.

Anonymous wrote:It seems to me that if you actually care about diversity - diversity of cultures and beliefs - then you can't also take the idea of "equity" seriously.

Different cultures prioritize different things in life, and not all of those choices translate into money at the same rate when comparing (artificial) groups to each other.

In fact, some may translate into other things that are much more valuable than money, but impossible to measure - like close families, robust friend networks, belief in an afterlife, etc.

This seems trivially simple & true, but you don't hear it much.

Am I missing something? It it wrong to apply logic to these ideas?

Oh my. You have a lot to learn.

You seem to be using race & culture interchangeably. Remember that not everyone has the same options available to them to choose from.

Anonymous wrote:OP doesn’t understand the definition. Equity doesn’t mean equality. Here is a graphic I use to explain this to 12 year olds. Hope it helps!

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Equality-vs-Equity

This graphic is a cancer

OP doesn’t understand the definition. Equity doesn’t mean equality. Here is a graphic I use to explain this to 12 year olds. Hope it helps!

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Equality-vs-Equity

Anonymous wrote:It seems to me that if you actually care about diversity - diversity of cultures and beliefs - then you can't also take the idea of "equity" seriously.

Different cultures prioritize different things in life, and not all of those choices translate into money at the same rate when comparing (artificial) groups to each other.

In fact, some may translate into other things that are much more valuable than money, but impossible to measure - like close families, robust friend networks, belief in an afterlife, etc.

This seems trivially simple & true, but you don't hear it much.

Am I missing something? It it wrong to apply logic to these ideas?

“Equity” means different things to different people. I’ve come to understand that most people use it to mean that resources should be allocated in way that is more “fair”, but are very ambiguous about what that means and how to achieve it. I can look at the state of US education system and think it’s not really “fair” that lower-SES children, which also happen to be disproportionately POC, seems to be afforded worse educational opportunities, but not have concrete solutions for fixing it. Indeed, I’ve also come to accept that in a capitalist society, higher SES parents can provide their children better educational opportunities, which they either pay for directly (through private school tuition) or indirectly (by purchasing a house in a higher-achieving school district, likely for more money than a house in a lower-achieving school district). I’m not sure that is a solution—attempts to achieve “equity” will run directly into parents, who will find ways to provide the best education they can afford to their own kids, thus maintaining a divide where higher SES kids get a “better” education than lower SES kids. I just don’t see parent altruistically withholding opportunities from their kids so other kids can have more.

It seems to me that if you actually care about diversity - diversity of cultures and beliefs - then you can't also take the idea of "equity" seriously.

Different cultures prioritize different things in life, and not all of those choices translate into money at the same rate when comparing (artificial) groups to each other.

In fact, some may translate into other things that are much more valuable than money, but impossible to measure - like close families, robust friend networks, belief in an afterlife, etc.

This seems trivially simple & true, but you don't hear it much.

Am I missing something? It it wrong to apply logic to these ideas?