Kamala Harris keeps telling us she wants ‘equity’ not ‘equality.’ What does she mean? She is using ‘equality’ to means ‘equality of opportunity’ while (for her) ‘equity’ means ‘equality of outcome’. Harris has said repeatedly that what she wants is for everyone ‘to end up in the same place’. And that means, she says, that some people (the disadvantaged) will need more help (positive discrimination) and others will need less. She sometimes calls this ‘social justice’. But there’s the problem. Justice normally means unequal outcomes. In most court cases, when justice is done, one side wins and the other side loses. The person charged with a crime is found to be ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’. If the prosecution wins, then the defence has to lose. If a complainant sues a plaintiff in a civil case the court will find for either the complainant or the plaintiff. One side wins and the other loses. They don’t ‘both end up in the same place’. The justice system provides equality of opportunity (to present evidence, to argue their case, etc.) but never provides equality of outcomes. And ‘equality of outcome’ can only work in a society if some (the hard working, the talented) are cheated, and others (the lazy, the dull) are given an unfair advantage. Society is ‘unjust’ in the same way the 100-metres sprint is unjust—only one person comes first, others come second or third, or fail to finish in a place. And that outcome is ‘fair’ because they have different abilities. To force them all to ‘end up in the same place’ (all come first, simultaneously) would be unfair. That’s why so-called ‘equity’ (equality of outcome) is a con, a cheat, and damaging to society.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.
Contact Kel at ozwords.com.au
You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first month for free, then just $2 a week for the remainder of your first year.