3 ms·
This boils down to equality vs equity [0] It starts with the belief that minorities have been systemically discriminated against for all of our history, and ar
by jedberg 3y ago
This boils down to equality vs equity [0]
It starts with the belief that minorities have been systemically discriminated against for all of our history, and are at a systemic disadvantage today, even if some (or even all) of those systems are removed.
Equality means treating everyone the same, equity means treating people differently based on their needs and history.
If you think everyone should be treated the same, then you agree with the plaintiffs. If you think everyone should be treated differently so that they can all experience the same outcome, then you side with the defendants.
And if you think systemic discrimination isn't a thing, maybe this will change your mind:
Imagine a building owner who hates people in wheelchairs, so they build their building with no ramps, only second floor entrances with stairs. After a while they sell the building and the new owners come in. They have nothing against wheelchairs, but their building is still inaccessible to wheelchairs. So the discrimination is gone, but the system that was in place in the past still affects the people in wheelchairs. The only way to fix this problem is it dedicate resources to building ramps, which means treating people in wheelchairs differently by spending extra resources to accommodate them.
Do you think the folks in wheelchairs should be accommodated?
[0] https://www.rwjf.org/en/insights/our-research/infographics/visualizing-health-equity.html https://www.rwjf.org/en/insights/our-research/infographics/v...
- rjbwork 3y agoDo you think the folks in wheelchairs should be accommodated? Yes. But I don't think you should be able to build an apartment building and then explicitly ban non wheelchair users. It's a two way street.
- esalman 3y agoThe irony is lost on you.
- rjbwork 3y agoApparently. Can you elaborate?
- esalman 3y agoPeople have always built buildings and then banned wheelchairs. Given the opportunity, they'll do it again. That's why we have a push for equity.
- rjbwork 3y agoYes and we fixed the problem by passing the ADA and ensuring that people get reasonable accommodations. We didn't build wheelchair only apartment buildings.
- SenAnder 3y ago> Equality means treating everyone the same, equity means treating people differently based on their needs and history. > If you think everyone should be treated the same, then you agree with the plaintiffs. If you think everyone should be treated differently so that they can all experience the same outcome, then you side with the defendants. This is a moral argument. However, legally, the Civil Rights Act doesn't have any exceptions allowing racial discrimination as long as it's for a "good" purpose. > The only way to fix this problem is it dedicate resources to building ramps, which means treating people in wheelchairs differently by spending extra resources to accommodate them. Those ramps are available to everyone, whether they need them or not. I wouldn't call this discrimination, any more than a store that sells cheese discriminates against the ~65% of the world population with lactose intolerance.
- kcplate 3y agoi get the intention of the example, but I think you would probably need to describe the ramps inaccessible and unavailable to the non-wheelchair users to better describe an equity example. Just an equal opportunity via to reach the stairs that others (not in wheelchairs) could also use is more an example of equality of opportunity.
- raxxorraxor 3y agoThis is just your perspective. You don't treat them differently, you treat them the same. You could also say you provide access for everyone and that would include that entrances that accommodates tall, big and disabled people. This also differentiates equality and equity. Equity could also mean that everyone has to use a wheelchair.