Let’s take another look at the DEI FAQ question about equity. This answer is supposed to define equity, but somehow, it just never gets there:
We’ve already looked at the train wreck that is the first sentence and its use of the Marxist Critical Theory term critical consciousness. Notice that this first sentence fails on two counts: (1) it’s incoherent, and (2) it doesn’t answer the question—i.e., it doesn’t define equity. Best we can extract from first sentence is that equity is a goal. A goal for what? Doesn’t say.
How’s the second sentence? Maybe the second sentence will define equity.
Nope.
“Equity . . . means looking at our systems . . . .” What? You’re telling me that equity is the act of looking? That doesn’t make sense. (Well, it doesn’t make sense unless you’re a consultant trying to justify charging the District tens of thousands of dollars. In that case, yes, equity does mean looking at systems . . . by administering a couple of woke surveys and writing a weak 20-page report. Woohoo! In that case, we can “equity” at those systems all day long!)
According to the sentence, though, what are we looking for? To see if the District is “providing equal opportunities and access.”
OK, that sounds good. We should be providing equal opportunities and access. So the sentence could have read, equity is created by providing equal opportunities and access. But it wouldn’t be applied Critical Race Theory if we weren’t looking at systems. For any DEI consultant worth his salt, he’s got to find that somehow, in some systemic way, the District is failing.
And here’s the kicker. Even with our revised sentence, we still don’t have a sufficient definition of equity. How will we know when we’ve achieved equity? How will we judge? By looking at dollars spent? By looking at classes provided? Notice that the second sentence never explains how we should judge systemic failure.
The author of these sentences is trying very hard to NOT tell us how he wants to measure equity—because in the DEI world, equity is defined by equal outcomes, and that’s not a good thing.
Two professors writing in Newsweek explain:
The words “diversity, equity and inclusion” sound just, and are often supported by well-intentioned people, but their effects are the opposite of noble sentiments. Most importantly, “equity” does not mean fair and equal treatment. DEI seeks to increase the representation of some groups through discrimination against members of other groups. The underlying premise of DEI is that any statistical difference between group representation on campus and national averages reflects systemic injustice and discrimination by the university itself. The magnitude of the distortions is significant: for some job searches discrimination rises to the level of implicitly or explicitly excluding applicants from certain groups.
DEI violates the ethical and legal principle of equal treatment. It entails treating people as members of a group rather than as individuals, repeating the mistake that made possible the atrocities of the 20th century. It requires being willing to tell an applicant “I will ignore your merits and qualifications and deny you admission because you belong to the wrong group, and I have defined a more important social objective that justifies doing so.” It treats persons as merely means to an end, giving primacy to a statistic over the individuality of a human being. [Emphasis added.]
Equity means you don’t treat people equally and you don’t treat them as individuals; instead, you always look for disparate outcomes. Disparate outcomes are proof that the system has failed. Judging equity is ultimately a collectivist game. How do we know if the District is “providing equal opportunities and access”? By looking at the outcomes of the groups.
Equity sacrifices individual agency and meritocracy for the sake of diversity.
Look, School Board, you can go all in on equity even while you avoid defining it. But don’t be surprised when the rest of us reject this collectivist means-to-an-end.
*****
By the way, here’s a disheartening read: As US Schools Prioritize Diversity Over Merit, China Is Becoming the World’s STEM Leader.