The Great ‘Equity’ Myth

Every day I learn something new. And everyday I forget ten other things that I already knew. But the new things that I learn always amaze me. I have learned that equality, as we know it, has been stretched to other meanings and has become almost interchangeable with equity, in some minds. In truth, these words are actually at odds with each other. A great piece in the America First Policy Institute recently did a deep dive into the issue.

After the election of President Biden we began to hear a lot about “equity” and “fairness” and not so much about “equality”. Equality sets ground rules for everyone to even the playing field. Equity creates the same outcomes (enforced by outside entities) and doesn’t consider individual choices. Who decides what’s equitable and what’s fair? Certainly not you and me.

Merriam Webster definition of equality is “the quality or state of being equal”. Merriam Webster defines equity as “fairness or justice in the way people are treated”. Sounds good as it is written but there are alternative definitions that confuse the issue. The Milken Institute at George Washington University uses definitions that seem close to the newly adopted definition in reality. “Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.” In other words, equality means fair and equal opportunities; equity means sameness in outcomes and regardless of individual efforts and choices, everyone should have the same outcome. Most people don’t agree that is fair. The American way has always been, if you work hard and make good choices, you can achieve your dreams.

A Wall Street Journal article a few weeks ago unveils the details of New York states’ newly issued Covid treatment guidelines. Since the monoclonal antibody treatment is in scarce supply, there’s not enough for everyone who becomes ill. The guidelines state that people who test positive for Covid should be eligible to receive treatments if they have “a medical condition or other factors that increase their risk for serious illness.” Included in the list are age and other illnesses such as diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc. They have also included those who are of “non white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.” These factors “should be considered a risk factor, as long-standing systemic health and social inequities have contributed to an increased risk of severe illness and death from Covid-19.”

The article makes a comparison of a wealthy Columbian born investment banker who goes into a Manhattan physician office with Covid. A laid off factory worker shows up in a doctors’ office in Rochester who is of Italian ancestry. The wealthy banker will qualify for the treatment while the factory worker will not. This has to be a Bridge too far for most of us.

The idea that people of non white or Hispanic/Latino origins have worse health outcomes is the guiding principle. Sensible people can surmise that it really has to do with socio economic status and not race or ethnicity. I’m betting in the scenario just given, all wealthy bankers have better health outcomes than a poorer factory worker, regardless of race. Those statistics are not factored into the data as it relates to the NY guidelines. Many think that this policy will be found illegal. I thought we had abandoned the notion that people should be treated differently because of the color of their skin. Silly me.

Our founding documents are clear that “all men are created equal”. In the Federalist papers, James Madison warned that the most dangerous threat was factionalism. He warns about government being taken over by a faction and using their power to promote their favored group.

Equity based policies have been a failure everywhere they’ve been tried. Rent control is one example. (I’ll save that for another day.) Another example is Race-Norming that became a policy during the Jimmy Carter years. The Department of Labor, under Carter, determined that aptitude tests used by many states for employment were unfair to black applicants. The Carter administration began adjusting test scores for black applicants in order for the average score to match the average white applicants score.

The Supreme Court has upheld using racial considerations in university admissions. Although many think the court has erred in that opinion. In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said, “It never ceases to amaze me that the courts are so willing to assume that anything that is predominantly black must be inferior.” He also said in another opinion, “The Constitution abhors classifications based on race. He further stated, “not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives.

Race based policies, dividing Americans into classes, is not what our country is founded upon. It is not what our founders intended. “We are endowed by our creator, with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

We just celebrated the birthday of Martin Luther King, who famously said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” What would he think of the way things are now?

People are still being judged by the color of their skin. But now the colors have changed. If being judged by skin color is wrong, it shouldn’t matter what the color is.