Dakota Beacon

Let’s talk “equity” versus “equality.” Previously, The Passing Scene gave glancing overview to these words alluding to a false sense of equivalency between both terms. They do not hold the same meaning especially in contemporary parlance.

Society’s casual acceptance of word meanings clouds the legal ramifications of public policy. Blurring word meanings is an old tactic used to fuel social change.

On January 20, 2021, President Biden defined the term “equity” on his first day in office. Executive Order 13985 “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government” reads in part: “The term “equity” means the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.”

This sounds good, but, look again. The definition contradicts itself. On the one hand, equity promises “impartial treatment.” On the other hand, equity identifies specific groups of people to the exclusion of others.

“Impartial” hints that “equity” is similar to “equality.” Most people understand that equality, not equity, before the law underscores our legal system and that the law should be no respecter of persons. The force of law remains applicable to all regardless of identity, status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or any category invented or otherwise disallowed.

Biden’s definition of “equity” singles out identity and status as a qualification. The words “fair” and “just” subtly endorse the concept of “social justice” and the bias in favoring outcomes. “Equity,” therefore, does not mean treating all individuals the same. It means that the government will treat individuals differently so that all groups will arrive at the same outcome -- especially in terms of material wealth.

Restating the issue, equality specifies an equal start point for every individual. That was the intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Every person was guaranteed the opportunity to advance and make of their life what they chose to the best of their ability. The outcome of that opportunity, on the other hand, would depend upon a multitude of factors including proficiency, intelligence, incentive, initiative, circumstances, attitude, world view, and many other tangible and intangible factors. In the end not everyone would arrive at the same outcome even though they began with the same opportunity. That premise, together with its risks, influenced legal immigration to America for the past two hundred years.

Alternatively, equity, through government coercion, inevitably sets one group at a disadvantage to another in an endeavor to social engineer the outcomes. That’s neither fair nor equitable. From the very beginning some groups are given an advantage over other groups. Some groups are more favored than others. Not everyone starts the race at the same point. Obvious questions are never addressed. Who establishes the criteria? Which rules apply equally to all – and which rules do not? Indeed, the Democrats finally acknowledged their admiration for the most repressive system of organizing society

A third restatement of the issue occurs in the following paraphrase from an article by Thaddeus G. McCotter appearing in American Greatness, July 9, 2021.

Our founders’ goal was the expansion of human freedom; the aim of our Ruling Class today is the curtailment of human freedom. Diversity, inclusivity, and equity (DIE) becomes the Trojan horse used to coerce the citizenry. Once in place, this DIE ideology reduces the individual to a collective. A subjective ranking of physical characteristics -- intersectionality -- (another word to explore at a different time) rather than the content of a person’s character determines a person’s status. This results in the erosion of rights and, finally, loss of freedom for the individual. DNA is destiny. The Ruling Class will decide whose DNA is more favored than others on the intersectionality spectrum of grievances and victimhood.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) made the case for what could only be construed as a socialist ideology. Two days before the November 2020 presidential election she posted a video explaining the difference between equity and equality. Her conclusion? “Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.” No bones about it. Before the election and through her argument the public was forewarned.

In his lighthearted book, The Devil’s Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce defined language as “the music with which we charm the serpents guarding another’s treasure.”

Want to change the culture? Change the language and the culture is yours for the taking.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).