Unequal opportunity
"All I want in life is a small, unfair advantage."
Hank Greenberg, Former Chair of AIG
Equal opportunity is how we resolve the contradiction between equality and equity.
When we play the game of Monopoly, every player starts with the same amount of money, and none of the property is owned. When we start out in real life, someone owns the railroad and utilities and the properties are developed. The parents of some players own good properties and collect rents. The parents of other players live on low-rent Baltic Avenue or are in jail. The Community Chest cards don't make a dent on that inequality. The Get Out of Jail cards are given primarily to the people who own the hotels.
Yet, amid that reality, we assert that all people are created equal. We want to believe our system reflects that value by offering equal opportunity to all. People have different and unequal needs. A "kinder, gentler" GOP under George H.W. Bush urged that "no child be left behind." Children should have educational accommodations to give them what they needed to succeed. Unequal accommodations created backlash, that is now a significant part of the current populist GOP. The "haves"--including the White working class--say it is unfair to them. Some educators say it is misplaced effort because inequality is baked in the DNA of some people who fall behind.
Today Herbert Rothschild looks at the post that started this discussion, a post by Michael Trigoboff, a now-retired professor of Computer Science at Portland Community College. Rothschild graduated from Yale, then got his Ph.D. at Harvard and then taught English Literature at LSU. He has been an activist, donor, and volunteer for civil rights, the environment, and peace. He lives in Talent, Oregon.
Guest Post by Herbert Rothschild
Michael Trigoboff’s guest post in the January 20th Up Close addressed matters it’s important that our society gets straight--equality, equity and wokeness. His attempt at doing so fell short of helpful, however.
I won’t dwell much on wokeness. Its usage is too unstable to know, until one hears how someone uses it, whether one agrees or not. I think a basic description of it is an acknowledgement of the grievous injustices many groups experienced in the past at the hands of those who held power over them, and an attentiveness to the continuing consequences of those injustices. I don’t see why any fair-minded person wouldn’t agree that wokeness, understood in that way, is a proper outlook.
Equality and equity require more analysis. I’ll begin with a statement Trigoboff quoted with disapproval: "Every talent and ability is [sic?] distributed randomly and evenly among all the different subgroups of the population." Since he didn’t identify the source, I can’t be sure, but I suspect that the writer meant something quite different than Trigoboff took it to mean--not that everyone in any one group is similarly endowed, but that innate talent and ability are distributed in equal proportions in every group no matter what group it is.
For example, there are as likely to be proportionally as many gifted Black scientists as White scientists, female scientists as male scientists, if they have a chance to develop their innate abilities. And the reason it’s important to affirm this understanding of equality is that males insisted in the past that all females by nature are unable, say, to succeed at left-brained work and Whites insisted in the past that all Blacks are intellectually inferior. And then, acting on these unscientific assumptions, institutions controlled by White males provided less opportunity for females and Blacks to develop their abilities, thus fulfilling their own prophecy.
Here is how Trigoboff distinguishes between equality and equity: “Wokeness tells us to forget equality and emphasize equity instead. They reject equal opportunity (equality) and propose the substitution of equal outcomes (equity) instead. Every student should succeed, they insist, regardless of innate ability, level of interest, or willingness to work hard.” I don’t know who Trigoboff’s “they” is, but given his use of the key terms, it’s no wonder that he finds himself unhappy.
“Equity” certainly doesn’t mean “equal outcomes.” Actually, a commitment to equal outcomes falls under the purview of equality. Sometimes that would be a legitimate goal, sometimes it wouldn’t. For example, one would want all children in one’s society reach adulthood in good health. On the other hand, I can’t see anyone wanting every child to reach adulthood weighing 160 pounds. So, reasonable people make careful distinctions about what kinds of equality they seek. (More on this in the last paragraph.)
All of us would agree with Trigoboff that we want equality of opportunity. And not just because it’s fair to individuals but because it’s good for society. The more of us realize our potentials, the better off we all are collectively. I infer Trigoboff doesn’t think in those terms. And I know that he doesn’t recognize that providing equal opportunity requires equity, which (as almost everyone but he understands) means fairness.
Take the instance of dyslexic children. Except in severe cases, dyslexic children have the potential to read. However, teaching them to read requires different methods than are used in the regular classroom. Federal rules rightly require schools to give every child an “appropriate” education. In this case, “appropriate” means instruction in reading appropriate to those with dyslexia. That provision not only ensures equality of opportunity, but also something like equality of outcome--that is, they too will become readers. Will every child be as good a reader as every other child? That is not required. But a democratic society needs literate citizens and should devise policies to foster them.
I could multiply cases. Just one more. Equal access to a public facility can’t exist if we don’t make provide ramps, elevators, etc. for the physically challenged. With passage of the ADA, our society finally acknowledged that there can be no equal opportunity without differential treatment, and equity required that we provide it.
Trigoboff writes, “There are those of us who believe in intellectual integrity and the necessity of competence and excellence in the practice of the crafts we have devoted our working lives to.” Why does he think he’s in a minority? My guess is that the people who believe otherwise are few and far between. I’d be hard put to find anyone who would want me to perform open-heart surgery on their spouse or who would want Trigoboff to start as point guard for the Portland Trailblazers. Knocking down straw men neither advances our understanding of serious subjects nor validates claims of intellectual integrity.