Kamala Harris underscores why we need equity, not just equality.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s rise to the Democratic Presidential campaign would have been impossible without equity. ?

Despite her impressive experience, Kamala Harris’?equal?opportunity to run for President in 2020 didn’t get her past the primaries. Yet when the Democratic Party exercised equity in 2024, the VP became the?Democratic Presidential nominee. Her path to the presidency demonstrates the critical difference between equity and equality.

Equity and equality are fundamentally different; unfortunately, our society has confused the two as almost synonyms when, in fact, the former is the means to the latter.

Equality refers to being equal, where everyone is treated the?same and?given the?same?resources, rights, or opportunities without accounting for any differences in circumstances. Equity recognizes that individuals have different circumstances and requires specific provisions?for an equal outcome.?It involves distributing resources and opportunities based on each individual's situation.

During the 2020 Presidential campaign, the Democratic Party seemed to recognize the significance of the historical underrepresentation of women and people of color in high political office and the unique barriers faced. Kamala Harris’ pre-primary presidential campaign exemplified what happens when anyone who identifies as something other than cis hetero white male campaigns within an “equal” race. Harris was forced to drop out in December 2019 despite being considered a strong contender and having experience as a California Senator and Attorney General.

However, selecting Kamala Harris as Joe Biden’s Vice President and running mate was a specific provision made for a deserving candidate. It provided access to resources and experiences that can only come from the White House, significantly increasing her chances for a future Presidential candidacy.

Furthermore, during?the 2020 campaign, throughout her tenure as Vice President, and now in her Presidential campaign, we have seen VP Kamala Harris being?Kamala Harris.?Through specific, tailored strategies, Harris had the support and resources that were?authentic to her. She didn’t have to play down any part of her identity and wasn’t forced to assimilate.

By comparison, subtle?and?explicit pressures forced Hillary Clinton's campaign to strike an impossible balance between asserting strength and authority while avoiding coming off as cold or unlikable, avoiding any emotional expression, and even changing her tone of voice.

As recently as 2016, even someone like Hillary Clinton was forced to assimilate, shrink, and change herself to fit the masculine norms that we expected from female candidates. Yet over the last eight years, we have expanded our cultural aperture of what a leader in high office looks like with an over 40% increase in the number of women represented in national legislative office (albeit still very far to go).

While Clinton’s campaign required her to change?herself?for an equal chance in 2016, in 2024, we see examples of equity as?our political leaders within the system make specific changes and provisions by recognizing, embracing, and?celebrating?the power of the individual.

This ain't rocket science, people.

Now, lest you think Biden’s 11th-hour dropout and quick endorsement of Kamala Harris was simply a lack of democratic process, a limitation to policy debate, or a missed opportunity for new leadership. Lest. Think. Again.

This Yoda (or?Biden, in this case) JEDI master political move was straight up,?no cap,?one of the most excellent exercises of equity in U.S. History.

Given that women only account for about 25-30% of all candidates in U.S. political races and less than 2% of presidential candidates, eliminating these huge barriers women face in elections was critical for Kamala Harris to have?any?semblance of?genuine equal opportunity.

For those who may believe that Kamala Harris circumvented the system or that her nomination was some covert operation, you are 100% A+, gold-star-sticker correct.

By all traditional patriarchal definitions of what's right and normal in politics (the ones where "fair" = a system that upholds men's systemic dominance over women, justifying male superiority and rejecting equal structures), this political Master move was HELLA covert, calculated, timed, orchestrated, a system circumvention.

IT HAD TO BE.

Equity is often confused as unfair because?it's not about not treating everyone equally.

Instead of giving everyone?the same?resources (equality), equity recognizes that people, in general, and in this case, specifically women in politics, have different starting points and barriers. Therefore, it requires provisions, systemic changes, and support to level the playing field, i.e., a covert or unfair-appearing path for an equally qualified Presidential candidate by addressing?systemic barriers (woman, Black, South Asian, has a human-like laugh),?fighting for what we hope will be a fair outcome, and working towards true equality.

??????