Equity: a misunderstood but surprisingly uncontroversial idea
Over the past couple of weeks, I've seen a number of posts on social media sharing old Kamala Harris interviews where she discusses the concept of equity. There's a phrase she repeats -- equity means “everyone should end up in the same place” -- that people are interpreting to mean she holds extremist, and even Communist views.
The reactions to this quote reflect a common misunderstanding of equity, and get to the core of the anti-DEI sentiment I’ve seen over the last year. But when we define it clearly, I think most people are aligned that equity is a good thing.
Does equity mean everyone should end up at the same place?
In my view, her wording is inartful. I don't think she means that every individual should end up in the same place as every other individual. Instead, what she’s talking about is what should happen in aggregate - at a societal level. If we built a truly fair and meritocratic society, we would expect to see similar outcomes, in aggregate, across demographic groups. In such a world, your gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. wouldn’t predict things like whether you’d be hired into a given role, how much money you’d make, how likely you’d be to die in childbirth, how likely you’d be to get pulled over by police, and on and on.
Unfortunately, identity does predict outcomes in our society. Significantly. Believing in equity means believing in everyone having a fair opportunity to do their best. A fair shot to get hired, get promoted, get funded, get a mortgage, get ahead.
Is equity at odds with meritocracy?
In my view, equity is a prerequisite to meritocracy. How can we possibly hope to have a meritocratic society or meritocratic organizations if we’re not judging people by the same standards? If some people are running uphill while others are on a racetrack? If we want outcomes to be based on merit, we need to make sure people have an opportunity to compete.
What does this mean for companies?
At Paradigm, we do this work in a corporate context, so I think a lot about what role companies can play in expanding equity. Take one example (a real one). Imagine a tech company that’s growing quickly. They’re hiring quite a bit, and they find that candidates who are referred to the company make it through their hiring processes at far higher rates than candidates who come in any other way.
领英推荐
There are lots of reasons that might be true. But one hypothesis could be that referral candidates just have a lot more knowledge than non-referrals about what to expect in a hiring process and how to perform well. That knowledge might create an uneven playing field that allows candidates who aren’t actually better to perform better. Not equitable. Not meritocratic.
An equity-minded approach would be to acknowledge this uneven playing field, and ideally try to do something about it. In this case, the company created an overview of their hiring process and what candidates could expect in interviews. They shared it with all candidates, with the goal of democratizing access to information. Guess what happened?
The gap between referred and non-referred candidates shrunk. Is that extremist? Leftist? Communist? Obviously not. It’s a decision the company made to give itself the best shot at hiring the best people, by acknowledging that people had different starting points and proactively solving for that.
The concept of equity is neither new nor especially controversial
While extremists are trying to paint equity as some new leftist fad, there are many areas of society where we already take an equity minded approach - we acknowledge that people experience the world differently, and we do something to try to make things a bit more fair.
We give paid parental leave to people who have kids. We give parking spaces closer to a building for disabled people. We allow military service members to board airplanes early in gratitude for their service. (Thanks to Robert Livingston for these examples.)
We can debate what it looks like to create fair opportunity, and how best to go about it. We can debate how much effort self-interested companies should invest in trying to correct for external inequities. But whether equity is a worthy outcome shouldn’t be all that controversial.
What I think most people would agree on is that seeing comparable outcomes across demographic groups in aggregate would suggest we’ve created a more fair society where the best people actually can rise to the top. Ability, effort, resilience, and even luck would then be the biggest predictors of success, instead of identity.
Why wouldn't we all want that?
Chief Diversity Officer @ Department of Child Support Services | DEI Strategist, Community Builder
2 个月One of the things that I find most interesting is how the root principle of equity is not new. Varying situations and circumstances require different solutions. To your point Joelle, we have veteran affairs agencies, unhoused population strategies, FMLA, ADA, etc. are all key examples of how specific populations need specific support and resources that few complain about. Additionally, the merit argument is also slightly absurd. Not the intent of a merit system, but the legitimacy of its veiled usage. How often do we ever question the legitimacy of merit's use? Bias can easily creep its way into merit-based processes that must be accounted for. Discretion with no accountability, microaggression, outright discrimination, and injustice often travel together.
Experienced Freelance Developer with expertise in Access, Excel, (MS Office) Database Development, VBA and JavaScript for MS Office and Google platforms.
2 个月Kamala, a history of failure - Blatantly lied about Joe’s condition and continues to defend that lie with unwavering conviction. - Audaciously lied and claimed the border was secure while criminals and fentanyl flooded into the country unchecked, laughing off any responsibility or concern for the chaos. - Every problem she and her deceitful running mate Tim now promise to fix, she and Joe have caused over the past four years in an administration marred by failure and staggering unpopularity. - Has repeatedly dodged tough questions from real journalists, opting for a single taped softball interview that allow her to peddle false narratives unchallenged. - Has championed every radical idea put forth by the far-left, only to pretend she's now flipped, all while insisting she remains true to her so-called values. ?- Is the product of a failed liberal experiment in San Francisco, a city once beautiful but now decimated by the very policies she espouses—policies that have driven a historic exodus. ?- Proposed economic "strategies" are nothing more than gimmicks—reckless giveaways designed to buy votes—dismissed by economists as foolish, inflationary, and dangerous.
Culture Transformer | Talent Cultivator | Capability Builder | Board Director | World Marathon Majors Finisher
3 个月I think the political discourse is lacking clear examples that the everyday American can relate to. The ones listed in Joelle Emerson’s post are the type that have the potential to change how equity is defined and perceived
Chief Counsel, Litigation & Commercial Transactions | Energy | Board Advisor
3 个月Excellent points.
Vice President at Toyota Motor North America, Inc
3 个月May we repost with attribution on Dei, Esq?