3 ms·
With "equity", your talent, merit, assertiveness, skill, charisma or just plain luck do not matter. Outcomes should be equal regardless of any of that. How ver
by fleddr 5y ago
With "equity", your talent, merit, assertiveness, skill, charisma or just plain luck do not matter. Outcomes should be equal regardless of any of that.
How very exciting that young children are forcefully rewired to adopt this idea that undermines the very basis of our society.
The message to the kids that were dominant, most active, passionate, hardest working or simply cruel on legotown is quite clear: don't bother next time, they'll take it away from you. And a similar message to the disinterested or submissive: don't bother, you'll get your share anyway, or nobody gets anything.
You could also just let children play and fend and negotiate for themselves. Something they'll have to do as adults. If one or two kids are cruel or hoard everything, force them to share a bit. A minor correction, you don't have to inject full blown Marxism into their veins.
If I'm wrong about this, then how about we apply some equity to the teachers and parents, very rich white people from Seattle. Walk the talk. Hand over 90% of your wealth right now if you care about equity.
- crooked-v 5y ago> talent, merit, assertiveness, skill, charisma or just plain luck One of these things is not like the others. The thing that's not like the others is also effectively the same as the primary factor noted in the article (age differences). > teachers > very rich Teachers already sacrifice significant earnings just by choosing to be teachers, then spend even more on top of that out of their undervalued salaries purchasing classroom equipment and supplies. In other words, just being a teacher is a significant commitment to equity (especially that of poor children).
- fleddr 5y agoI must have hit a nerve with some teachers. "One of these things is not like the others." Intentionally so. To go into your example, age difference. Age matters in the real world, so pretending it can be nullified is a delusional "lesson". Your parents have power over you. Your teachers do. Your manager at work. Older people have most wealth and political capital. Age matters whether you like it or not. Same for other aspects, like luck. Other kids can be lucky to have rich parents, or to have been born with superior talent. They're going to do better compared to less fortunate ones. Pretending all these factors do not exist or aggressively wiping them out in a playful scenario is not the lesson these kids need.
- cecilpl2 5y agoSeems like a pretty positive lesson to me: teaching kids that these power structures exist, are harmful, and that they need to be mindful not to take advantage of power; that they should instead strive for equity.