Equity — such a benign and fair-sounding word, valuing equal outcomes and success for all. Why would anyone be opposed to it? While it sounds intriguing, the devil’s in the details.
The idea is not new; it’s Marxism renamed. The Chinese and Russians tried it approximately 100 years ago, and it led to a half-century of misery and poverty for both countries. What they reluctantly discovered was that incentives resulted in better outcomes for society overall, even though it resulted in inequality. This is simply human nature. If you work twice as hard as your neighbor and end up with the same rewards, why put in the extra effort? Although the standard of living has since improved in both countries, authoritarian governments with limited freedoms remain. Sadly, this seems to be the path we are on.
Perhaps we can do it better in the USA. Yet, we also tried it when the pilgrims first arrived on the Mayflower, leading to similar results. They set up a communal system in which all capital and profits remained in the “common stock” for the first seven years, with all property and “profits” belonging to the collective. This system of government failed miserably, leading them to embrace individual ownership with more inequality but better results overall. Cuba and Venezuela have also tried it, and they, too, are suffering the consequences.
How exactly would equity work in our schools? It seems as if there are only two ways to accomplish equity: Penalize the achievers or elevate the underachievers. I sincerely hope we are already doing everything we can to help underachieving students, regardless of the cause of their underachievement. So if our educators are already doing all they can, then do they have something else in mind? This is where I see the problem with equity in education.
Educators promoting equity see truth as a value-laden construct of culture. They view the scientific method as organized in a way that serves the interests of the powerful people who established it: White Western men. These educators view reason and science as just one way of knowing and view it as oppressive. Instead, they favor the lived experience.
While this is a great feel-good exercise that makes us all equal when considering our lived experiences, it is both negligent and dangerous. Building anything requires the right answers, which are not racist or sexist. You cannot build a bridge, a building, a computer or a cellphone, or send a rocket into space without the right answers. We live in a globally competitive society, and while we are considering giving credit for the lived experience, our competitors are creating things the world wants.
Continuing on this path will bring equity but not the kind we want. We will become a country that places little value on the type of knowledge that produces progress. It will lead to us being equally ignorant and poor, as our global competitors overtake us in everything we do well today. We should learn from history and the mistakes of others, not repeat them with our own lived experience.
Hylton Phillips-Page
Rehoboth Beach
