Equality vs Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)

What exactly do these terms mean?

Diversity – the presence of more than one form, type, method, and/or identifying factor

Inclusion – individual membership in a greater group

Equality – measurable equivalence of value, effort, result, or opportunity

Equity – parity of relative value, effort, or opportunity

Most understand what diversity is, especially as it is applied to diversity of opinion and diversity of membership. Similarly, most also understand what inclusion is, in the sense of including an item or a person as part of a larger group. However, there is vast debate around the concept of “equity.” In my opinion, most of the problem/debate is as a result of unscrupulous individuals and groups intentionally redefining terms—unbeknownst to the general public--in order to advance a hidden agenda. This adds confusion to the issue that engenders angst.

However, even with this said, the concept of equity is every bit as important of a concept as diversity, inclusion, and equality--if for no other reason than because the concept of equity captures circumstantial aspects of justice that we inherently think are important, but that we seldom take the time to consider more deeply. Moreover, equity addresses circumstances in a manner that mere equality does not--and cannot--address. For this reason, it is expedient to go further into detail on the specific difference between “equity” and “equality.”

Equality simply means that every individual in the target group gets an identical amount of whatever the resource is being meted out. For example,

1. If it refers to getting money, then equality means everybody gets exactly the same amount of money, regardless of their respective needs.

2. If it refers to paying taxes, then equality means that everybody pays exactly the same amount of taxes, regardless of their resources.

3. If it refers to classroom time, then equality means that every student population receives the same contact hours of classroom time, regardless of student competence and abilities.

4. If it refers to clothing—such as uniforms--then equality means that everybody gets the same clothing, regardless of climate.

5. If it refers to healthcare, then equality means that every enrollee gets the same allotment of dollars that everyone else gets—regardless of illness, acuity, or circumstance.

6. If it refers to assessment, then equality means that everyone receives the same grade, regardless of effort, accuracy, or circumstance. (This is the notion that “everyone gets a trophy.”)

In short, equality means “equal” in the most tangible and technical sense.

In contrast, equity takes into account situational aspects that would render mere equality infeasible, unfair, and/or unjust. For example,

1. In a welfare state, those with high incomes who are not in need of social welfare (e.g. Social Security, Bridge, WIC, SSI, Title I, etc.) would not be eligible for receiving such. But, those under a certain threshold, and with identifiable and challenging life circumstances, would be eligible for those benefits. In this sense, under the premise of equity, our society would be taking care of perhaps widows, orphans, the disabled, aged, and the like with dollars that would disproportionately go to those populations--and away from populations not in as great a need. Social welfare initiatives of this sort are inherently equity initiatives.

2. When paying income tax, a graduated or progressive tax means that tax rates increase as a person or institution’s taxable amount increases. Hence, those with higher incomes would pay a higher percentage than those of lower incomes—not on a flat scale, but rather on a progressive or graduated scale. In this sense, there is an inherent equitable premise that the amount that is require of an individual or entity, will be fairly represented in the amount that would be required of them.

3. If we are talking about the allocation of school personnel resources, then student populations that are academically challenged--perhaps due to developmental disabilities, etc.--would receive a higher ratio of time with teachers and staff than students without those special concerns. In this situation equality would fall far short of what would be necessary for even a modicum of education to occur for the most challenging special needs population. The practice of unequal, overallocation of resources to the population most in need, is an expression of equity.

4. If uniforms are required, then students in warmer climates would likely need fewer layers of clothing than those in colder climates, thereby creating a disparity between Districts/Regions where clothing dollars are spent. Again, this is an issue of equity, where equality would either render students in colder climates ill-equipped or students in moderate climates over allocated, if not for an equitable reallocation.

5. If is it healthcare, then enrollees with less severe medical conditions would functionally get less healthcare benefit, while those with extreme acuity would get more funding. In fact, the entire insurance industry relies on the concept of equity, rather than equality, with regard to services rendered.

6. With regard to assessments, equity requires that each student be afforded adequate resources to reach mastery level achievement. This application of equity illustrates access to opportunities, not prescription of outcomes (as some try to argue). In fact, the notion of prescribed outcomes more closely aligns with equality than it does equity.

Make no mistake. All of these examples represent applications of the concept of equity, where functional equality would be logically infeasible, harshly unfair, and/or simply unjust in a pluralistic society. The point is to realize that every day we make decisions based on equity instead of equality. We do so for pragmatic reasons, religious reasons, out of basic concern for humanity, etc. But, the fact that we all do this is irrefutable. So, let’s not get on the bandwagon of people who default to the position that all equity initiatives are bad. Equity, in and of itself, is a useful and desirable quality of a pluralistic society. The problem is when unscrupulous individuals and groups co-opt the concept of equity for nefarious and surreptitious purposes. That is what gives equity initiatives a bad name.

What are Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives?

DEI initiatives are intended to address and rectify areas of societal practice that unnecessarily limit the progress of an individual and/or group. As such, DEI initiatives aim to identify areas where progress is being impeded, and then subsequently put in place policies, programs, and practices that remove unnecessary impediments to individual and/or group progress. DEI initiative are foundationally no more, or less, than that.

It is understandable that some areas of impediment--and proposed resolutions thereof—are sometimes questioned and debated. However, this reality is no more divisive than any other topic that would be questioned and debated in the public square. We could just as easily put Welfare Programs, Affirmative Action, firearms restrictions, public health mandates, abortion restrictions, euthanasia, etc. into this same “debatable” category.

Is DEI the same as Critical Theory?

In short, the answer is, “No.” Although many Critical Theorists utilize DEI initiatives surreptitiously to advance Marxist ideas, DEI initiatives are not fundamentally the same as Critical Theory initiatives. The one thing to remember is that nefarious actors will utilize any method or avenue at their disposal to advance hidden agendas, and DEI initiatives are no exception.

How are DEI initiatives often misused?

There is nothing inherently wrong with diversity, equity, or inclusion, but nefarious actors often co-opt generally acceptable terms, such as DEI, and redefine them without the general population knowing it. They, then, surreptitiously advance their agenda(s) under the cloak of those terms, and push initiatives associated with those terms. I am often amazed at the lengths to which people will go to twist words and concepts to fit a narrative that is as far from a word’s original intent as one could image. Realizing that there are many good and honest people involved with DEI initiatives, the only sure way to filter the honest from among the nefarious is to look at their actions and the results of their actions.

Surely, any initiative is subject to being co-opted by opportunistic people, but perhaps the most insidious practice in this regard, is the mixing of accepted ideals with invasive, harmful agendas in the same initiative. This represents the proverbial “snake in the grass” approach, and it is used vastly in today’s easy media. The unassuming are caught up with the acceptable and admirable goals and language of an initiative, while tacitly complying with hidden agendas that are unacceptable, because they societally destructive. For example…

Unacceptable: Deter the progress of higher achievers, so an achievement gap is less likely

Acceptable: Address achievement gaps between demographic groups by meeting deficiency needs

Unacceptable: Quotas – tacitly encourage organizations to make hires primarily based on minority status

Acceptable: Affirmative Action – when all foundational criteria are equal, hire the minority candidate

Unacceptable: Utilize reverse discrimination to atone for past generations of inequality and inequity

Acceptable: Provide equal access regardless of ethnicity

Unacceptable: Surreptitiously intentioned “professionals” control local educational curricula

Acceptable: Tax-paying families control local educational curricula

Unacceptable: Restrict the use of foundation allowance funds to only public schools

Acceptable: Give student families access to the best choices in education

Unacceptable: Deliberate agenda to foster gender neutrality and the disparaging of the nuclear family

Acceptable: Every assimilated family and student should be welcomed in a public school

Unacceptable: Deliberate disparaging of particular political choices and religious convictions

Acceptable: Student/family choice with regard to political persuasion and religious affiliation

Unacceptable: Cancelling points of view that do not support a pre-determined narrative

Acceptable: Freedom of expression

Unacceptable: Assess a person by the group in which she or he is a member

Acceptable: Assess a person by the content of her or his character

Unacceptable: Crouch family problems primarily in terms of external factors

Acceptable: Crouch family problems primarily in terms of personal responsibility

Unacceptable: Focusing on our differences, which fuels on-going divisions

Acceptable: Honor the reality of our differences, and at the same time focus on that which we share in common—those things that make us alike as well as those things that we can accomplish collectively through mutual sacrifice.

How do we determine the success of DEI initiatives?

As with most initiatives, the only way to determine the success and appropriateness of a DEI initiative is to be pragmatic. More specifically, a set of intended outcomes needs to be established that are observable, measurable, repeatable, and falsifiable. In other words, in our pluralistic society, the results need to be subject to the normal, universally recognized, Scientific Method. This is the only reasonable way to reach collaborative consensus in a fundamentally secular, pluralistic, global society. It is also why nefarious actors repel and cancel honest scientific approaches--because science often refutes a propagandist’s narrative.

Again, a successful DEI initiative must pragmatically show acceptable results, supported by scientific practice. And, if the tangible results are not supported by scientific methodology, the DEI initiative should be shuttered.

https://sites.google.com/view/bobsaadforschoolboard