5 ms·

It seems to me that the term "equity" triggers a lot of people. As someone who only sees it as a positive term, can you explain the skepticism around this? I un

It seems to me that the term "equity" triggers a lot of people. As someone who only sees it as a positive term, can you explain the skepticism around this? I understand that there are quite a lot of controversial things related to racial justice -- many of which do seem to be clearly controversial -- but I don't understand how this relates to the idea of equity. I would appreciate an explanation. (I'm not looking for a heated conversation here, just trying to understand different perspectives!)

tenaciousDaniel 5y ago
Sure thing, I don't like heated conversations either. To explain it succinctly, I've become wary of a certain group of people attempting to use subtle language choices to slip in their controversial ideas without being noticed. Equity sounds very much like equality, and therefore people are more likely to sign up for it without understanding the difference. It's a weasel word.
- boplicity 5y ago
  That's interesting. Personally, I like the term equity specifically because it is not equality, which has a problematic history and doesn't actually tend to make sense in terms of actual policy.
  - tenaciousDaniel 5y ago
    Bridging the gap between our perspectives would take more time and effort than I'm willing to commit, but I do appreciate being able to converse like this without descending into a heated argument, so thanks for that.
knubie 5y ago
The term "equity" is part of a suite of coded jargon that is often used by members of the so-called critical social justice movement. It is a loaded term that in most cases means "redistribution," or as a sort of antonym for "meritocracy." For example if current grading practices are based on merit, then it is not equitable, as some students will naturally have higher grades than others. The solution, then, is to change the grading system so that good grades may be "redistributed" to lower performers and achieve a more "equal" outcome.
- professoretc 5y ago
  I heard a few faculty suggest that at my school and my reply is always, if I fail everyone, isn't that also equitable? (I.e., if "equity" in final grades is your single goal, adding 100 points to everyone's grade, and subtracting 100 points from everyone's grade will have the same effect.) And of course people react with horror and talk about how unfair that would be, revealing that deep down, they really do believe that grades should be tied to student performance.
  - simiones 5y ago
    But that's just it: this is a misunderstanding of what "equity" means, and it is certainly a misunderstanding of what the author/interviewee meant by it. The article is strongly about more performance-oriented, meritocratic grading, not less so. It considers this to be a problem of equity since current grading practices (in the opinion/experience of the author, at least) disadvantage certain students who perform better than others but have other problems (less access to tutors, less time for homework, less preparation before class etc).
- boplicity 5y ago
  > The solution, then, is to change the grading system so that good grades may be "redistributed" to lower performers That's interesting, because this idea is so completely counter to what is proposed in the linked article. The article, if anything, is advocating for grades to be more focused on actual learning outcomes (performance) than is the current default. Many of the solutions proposed (such as getting rid of averaging over the entire course) have the goal of making it based more on merit, not less. I think this gets to the difficulty, in terms of the overall discussion about race, equity, etc. There are some people who really abuse these terms, and others who simply don't know what they mean, or simply have very different ideas of what terms like this mean. (I see this from people with a variety of ideologies and backgrounds.) My general conception of equity is about adjusting the system in order to remove unfair (and un-necessary) burdens on certain groups of people. For example, equitable access to real food requires actual groceries available to people. I used to live in Park Slope, Brooklyn. There were literally five high quality grocery stores within a ten minute walk. Contrast that to other parts of the country where there is no easy access (at all) for people to buy fresh produce. That's not equitable. Similar for grading: If you go into an algebra 101 class, and you do very badly in your first few weeks, simply because you have a lot to learn, you should still be able to get an 'A' in the class if you fully master the material. Otherwise, it's not equitable. Equity specifically isn't (and shouldn't) refer to equality, IMO. It should be about removing the often arbitrary burdens that disadvantage some people, and the unfair advantages that only serve to put people in an advantaged position (such as providing better grades to people who already know the material in a class, when final learning outcomes are no better.)

tenaciousDaniel 5y ago

Sure thing, I don't like heated conversations either. To explain it succinctly, I've become wary of a certain group of people attempting to use subtle language choices to slip in their controversial ideas without being noticed. Equity sounds very much like equality, and therefore people are more likely to sign up for it without understanding the difference. It's a weasel word.

boplicity 5y ago
That's interesting. Personally, I like the term equity specifically because it is not equality, which has a problematic history and doesn't actually tend to make sense in terms of actual policy.
- tenaciousDaniel 5y ago
  Bridging the gap between our perspectives would take more time and effort than I'm willing to commit, but I do appreciate being able to converse like this without descending into a heated argument, so thanks for that.

knubie 5y ago

The term "equity" is part of a suite of coded jargon that is often used by members of the so-called critical social justice movement. It is a loaded term that in most cases means "redistribution," or as a sort of antonym for "meritocracy." For example if current grading practices are based on merit, then it is not equitable, as some students will naturally have higher grades than others. The solution, then, is to change the grading system so that good grades may be "redistributed" to lower performers and achieve a more "equal" outcome.

professoretc 5y ago
I heard a few faculty suggest that at my school and my reply is always, if I fail everyone, isn't that also equitable? (I.e., if "equity" in final grades is your single goal, adding 100 points to everyone's grade, and subtracting 100 points from everyone's grade will have the same effect.) And of course people react with horror and talk about how unfair that would be, revealing that deep down, they really do believe that grades should be tied to student performance.
- simiones 5y ago
  But that's just it: this is a misunderstanding of what "equity" means, and it is certainly a misunderstanding of what the author/interviewee meant by it. The article is strongly about more performance-oriented, meritocratic grading, not less so. It considers this to be a problem of equity since current grading practices (in the opinion/experience of the author, at least) disadvantage certain students who perform better than others but have other problems (less access to tutors, less time for homework, less preparation before class etc).
boplicity 5y ago
> The solution, then, is to change the grading system so that good grades may be "redistributed" to lower performers That's interesting, because this idea is so completely counter to what is proposed in the linked article. The article, if anything, is advocating for grades to be more focused on actual learning outcomes (performance) than is the current default. Many of the solutions proposed (such as getting rid of averaging over the entire course) have the goal of making it based more on merit, not less. I think this gets to the difficulty, in terms of the overall discussion about race, equity, etc. There are some people who really abuse these terms, and others who simply don't know what they mean, or simply have very different ideas of what terms like this mean. (I see this from people with a variety of ideologies and backgrounds.) My general conception of equity is about adjusting the system in order to remove unfair (and un-necessary) burdens on certain groups of people. For example, equitable access to real food requires actual groceries available to people. I used to live in Park Slope, Brooklyn. There were literally five high quality grocery stores within a ten minute walk. Contrast that to other parts of the country where there is no easy access (at all) for people to buy fresh produce. That's not equitable. Similar for grading: If you go into an algebra 101 class, and you do very badly in your first few weeks, simply because you have a lot to learn, you should still be able to get an 'A' in the class if you fully master the material. Otherwise, it's not equitable. Equity specifically isn't (and shouldn't) refer to equality, IMO. It should be about removing the often arbitrary burdens that disadvantage some people, and the unfair advantages that only serve to put people in an advantaged position (such as providing better grades to people who already know the material in a class, when final learning outcomes are no better.)