3 ms·

A lot of equity talk in there.

User23 6y ago
What exactly is equity in this context anyhow? Is it supposed to be a smarter sounding version of equality or something else? Is the idea for kids to graduate with shares in something?
- kardianos 6y ago
  Equity in this context... is equity in every context, that is equal outcomes for various groups. Equity for Marx was between classes, Equity for Mao was more social, equity from 1960s on is mostly intersectional grouping. Equity is at odds with equality; they cannot exist together. This is why CA fought (and lost) to revoke Prop 209 which guaranteed a certain racial equality. As seen in the recent SF school admission, the board would have prefered a neoracist admission standard, but couldn't do that overtly because Prop 209 still stands, so they changed it from test to lottery. In this context (Math), everything is political, including (especially) math and the sciences. Everything is political because equity theorists say that everything, including math, is socially constructed. So the structural racism (axiom) that is present everywhere must be deconstructed in every classroom and every workplace. It is all neoracist. It is the new, hip, way to achieve segregation and discrimination based on race.
  - jkhdigital 6y ago
    While I do think the term “neoracist” is appropriate for some of the new social justice dogma about race, we also need a term for when these same ideas are applied to non-racial group distinctions.
    - pythonslayer 6y ago
      There is truly nothing comparable to the application of the concept of race. In fact, race is already a catch-all term of sorts for an ideological byproduct of industrial capitalism. See chapter 4 of Barbara Fields’ Racecraft for a history: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kC4oWIwS84gBQaVhJiFmCd42b0eZijR1/view?usp=drivesdk https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kC4oWIwS84gBQaVhJiFmCd42b0e...
  - pythonslayer 6y ago
    Marx’s ideal was far more nuanced: >“from each according to their ability to each according to their need.”
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Equity for Marx wasn't between classes. For Marx, equity was the abolishment of classes, and the outright dismissal of equality of outcome. He thought that there should inequality in society, and that this inequality should be commensurate both to the disproportionate amount of value some people produce, and to the disproportionate needs of some people (ex, those with children, the disabled, etc...). I'm actually going to go on a quote here : "But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. " Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Chapter 1. In this sense it is true that in modern social science, the ideas of equity do come from Marx, as do many things, as Marx along with Durkheim and Weber are the fathers of social science, in the same was as Rahmanujan, Cantor, Galois, etc... are the fathers of modern mathematics. What is meant by equity is explicitly not equality, and even Marx argued against those who tought so. The ideas of racial equality come from a very simple argument that you would have to refute to make your case. The argument is that there is no racial superiority, and thus given equal opportunity, on average, racial groups will come out more or less equal in practice (which they often do).
- Niten 6y ago
  It's a device for smuggling in a new concept (enforcement of equal outcomes) using a word that sounds similar enough to "equality", representing an older and unobjectionable concept (equal opportunity), that it should provoke minimal opposition.

What exactly is equity in this context anyhow? Is it supposed to be a smarter sounding version of equality or something else? Is the idea for kids to graduate with shares in something?

kardianos 6y ago
Equity in this context... is equity in every context, that is equal outcomes for various groups. Equity for Marx was between classes, Equity for Mao was more social, equity from 1960s on is mostly intersectional grouping. Equity is at odds with equality; they cannot exist together. This is why CA fought (and lost) to revoke Prop 209 which guaranteed a certain racial equality. As seen in the recent SF school admission, the board would have prefered a neoracist admission standard, but couldn't do that overtly because Prop 209 still stands, so they changed it from test to lottery. In this context (Math), everything is political, including (especially) math and the sciences. Everything is political because equity theorists say that everything, including math, is socially constructed. So the structural racism (axiom) that is present everywhere must be deconstructed in every classroom and every workplace. It is all neoracist. It is the new, hip, way to achieve segregation and discrimination based on race.
- jkhdigital 6y ago
  While I do think the term “neoracist” is appropriate for some of the new social justice dogma about race, we also need a term for when these same ideas are applied to non-racial group distinctions.
  - pythonslayer 6y ago
    There is truly nothing comparable to the application of the concept of race. In fact, race is already a catch-all term of sorts for an ideological byproduct of industrial capitalism. See chapter 4 of Barbara Fields’ Racecraft for a history: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kC4oWIwS84gBQaVhJiFmCd42b0eZijR1/view?usp=drivesdk https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kC4oWIwS84gBQaVhJiFmCd42b0e...
- pythonslayer 6y ago
  Marx’s ideal was far more nuanced: >“from each according to their ability to each according to their need.”
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Equity for Marx wasn't between classes. For Marx, equity was the abolishment of classes, and the outright dismissal of equality of outcome. He thought that there should inequality in society, and that this inequality should be commensurate both to the disproportionate amount of value some people produce, and to the disproportionate needs of some people (ex, those with children, the disabled, etc...). I'm actually going to go on a quote here : "But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. " Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Chapter 1. In this sense it is true that in modern social science, the ideas of equity do come from Marx, as do many things, as Marx along with Durkheim and Weber are the fathers of social science, in the same was as Rahmanujan, Cantor, Galois, etc... are the fathers of modern mathematics. What is meant by equity is explicitly not equality, and even Marx argued against those who tought so. The ideas of racial equality come from a very simple argument that you would have to refute to make your case. The argument is that there is no racial superiority, and thus given equal opportunity, on average, racial groups will come out more or less equal in practice (which they often do).
Niten 6y ago
It's a device for smuggling in a new concept (enforcement of equal outcomes) using a word that sounds similar enough to "equality", representing an older and unobjectionable concept (equal opportunity), that it should provoke minimal opposition.