Every semester when I teach about education and justice, and even in most semesters when I don’t, some student sends me some version of this cartoon:
I’m usually good humoured about it, but the cartoon drives me a bit nuts. Both pictures depict equality — one depicts equality of a resource (milk crates), the other depicts the equality of an outcome and, frankly from my point of view, not a particularly wonderful outcome — its not as though they’re watching a cricket match or something enjoyable like that. [1]
So: does ‘equity’ mean ‘equality of outcome’? Not according to the people who use the term in relation to education. In fact… well, people use the term to mean a wide variety of different things, sometimes even offering contradictory definitions in the same document. The multiple ambiguity of the term has bothered me for a long time. Meira Levinson, Tatiana Geron and I have written a shortish paper analyzing how the phrase gets used in educational contexts, using the cartoon as a kind of touchstone. We don’t usually promote our journal articles here on CT, but I’m making an exception in this case because the paper is open access, and was written for a very wide audience. It was also, as you can probably tell if you read it, enormous fun to write. Ideally it would be required reading for everyone who looks at the cartoon! The html version is here and the pdf/epub version here. Both are free. Enjoy!
[1] The cartoon actually has a fascinating history, described here.
{ 40 comments }
Sashas 09.21.22 at 3:44 pm
That was a very enjoyable read. Thank you for sharing.
However.
While your argument and conclusion are philosophically sound (you’d know better than I, obviously, but I can still agree), I think you’ve completely missed the most important point.
“What is educational equity?” may not have a simple answer, but that’s almost never the actual question. The actual question is “Are we doing [equity] right?” The comic’s answer is, if you stop at equal distribution, simply “no”.
Keith 09.21.22 at 3:53 pm
Don’t the boxes represent leverage rather than equity?
LFC 09.21.22 at 4:58 pm
This comment is slightly off-topic, since it doesn’t address the article’s conceptual analysis, but it may be worth noting that, in the U.S. context, the effects of two Sup Ct decisions from the 1970s, still on the books as governing precedent, have greatly reinforced educational inequities (however precisely defined) in recent decades.
1) San Antonio v. Rodriguez, upholding property taxation as a, or the, main funding basis for public education.
2) Milliken v. Bradley, prohibiting all or almost all non-voluntary (i.e. court-ordered) cross-district urban-suburban busing for desegregation where there is no de jure segregation (i.e., where segregation is the result of economics, demographics, and discrimination in housing and lending etc., rather than the result of statutorily-mandated dual school systems of the sort that Brown v Bd. outlawed).
Harry 09.21.22 at 5:39 pm
The actual question is “Are we doing [equity] right?” The comic’s answer is, if you stop at equal distribution, simply “no”
Yes, and other iterations of the cartoon (which I didn’t know about till we researched this) get more sophisticated.
However… as some of the stuff we quote suggests there are lots of practical and quite bad attempts to be more precise than that, and those attempts often reveal and/or sow confusion. Nearly daily I read something new which uses the term ‘equity’ where the person writing clearly thinks it means something more than what you’ve just said, but couldn’t say what, and, worse, thinks that everyone they’re talking to has the same conception as they do.
John Quiggin 09.21.22 at 7:09 pm
I haven’t thought about this specifically in terms of education policy, but I’ve long argued that equality of opportunity isn’t sustainable in the absence of substantial equality of outcomes
https://johnquiggin.com/2003/12/17/outcomes-and-opportunity/
John Quiggin 09.21.22 at 7:11 pm
Looking more specifically at the cartoon, it seems as if this might be better addressed using ideas about capability. Ingrid might have something to say about this.
reason 09.21.22 at 7:54 pm
My favourite article on this topic: https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2006/10/against_equalit.html
Chris Corrigan 09.21.22 at 8:08 pm
I have seen lots of versions of this cartoon too, but I have not seen any versions that represents either equality or equity in a changing and dynamic context. For example, what happens when a ball is hit over the fence and the kids all run to see who can get it first (which, for you cricket fans, is actually a thing that happens in baseball where, in the professional game at any rate, you get to keep the ball). Suddenly the context has changed and none of the criteria with which we evaluate the situation are relevant any more. Should the kids all have an equal chance at snagging the ball? Should everyone get a ball when one is hit over the fence? What happens when the context changes? Does the outcome on the right give us any information whatsoever about how equity will play out the moment the situation is altered? I like how you address this ontological issue in the paper. Going to give it more thought so i can find ways to teach this myself.
Peter Dorman 09.21.22 at 8:40 pm
The article is wonderful; I agree with pretty much all of it. The problem as I see it is that a different language game is being played in DEI trainings and other initiatives. Equity is a deliberately vague term that is counterposed to equality in order to gain rhetorical support for measures that might be opposed on more traditional distributive or value grounds.
“Equality” is a stand-in for liberalism. We’ll give everyone a box and call it a day. Equity is the label for a claim that conventional concerns, like equal resource distribution or attention to other educational outcomes, have to be put aside in favor of programs that “center” compensatory goals. That they are ill-defined and not even necessarily opposed (the article makes that clear) is sort of beside the point.
I recently attended a mandatory DEI training (the only such noninstructional mandate of my institution) where the equity/equality distinction was used in this way. No effort was made to be precise about it, acknowledge differing interpretations or otherwise explore this space; it was entirely symbolic.
This is why, as wise as it is, the essay will have no effect on the ground. Anyone who voiced such thoughts in our training would have been completely out of place. It’s painful even to imagine it.
(And that wasn’t the worst of it, not even close. For me, the low moment came when the trainer flashed the sentence “Perception is reality” on the screen, asked “Do we all agree?”, waited a nanosecond, and then said “Great, so let’s move on.”)
engels 09.21.22 at 10:22 pm
US PMC leftism: take a word everyone understands and put the stupidest possible interpretation on it so you can force them to use your new jargon instead (and maybe even charge them to educate them about it).
Slanted Answer 09.22.22 at 1:49 am
The place I’ve seen this cartoon used most is in diversity trainings. If I understand the point in these trainings, the distinction between the two is that “equality” means treating people the same regardless of relevant differences between them, whereas “equity” means taking those differences into account and treating people fairly.
The point is usually driven home with criticism of the claim some people make “not to see color” in regards to race, which, the trainers argue, counts as equality, not equity.
Whether “equity” in the sense given in these diversity trainings counts as equality of outcome, I don’t know.
Gareth Wilson 09.22.22 at 1:58 am
You’re means-testing the box benefit, with strict criteria for eligibility? Sounds rather neo-liberal to me.
J-D 09.22.22 at 5:46 am
To me, the fact that people disagree about what’s equitable seems neither more nor less surprising, neither more nor less philosophically problematic, and neither more nor less evidence of bad faith, than the fact that people disagree about what’s beautiful or about what’s disgusting.
engels 09.22.22 at 10:51 am
I.e. the advantage of “equity” for these people is that nobody knows what it means unless they’ve been to a “training”.
Mike 09.22.22 at 12:38 pm
Spot on, J-D @ 13.
I view this cartoon and its extensions as a progressive statement: identifying ways that outcomes would be better. No deeper than that. Arguing over the labels obfuscates the message.
Removal of the barrier as liberation and adding more boxes (which could be interpreted as greater costs or as more wealth) both are also alternative progressive views, with better outcomes than the first panel.
John Quiggin @ 6: that’s a great insight. I’d think that capabilities and progressivism go hand-in-hand, with capabilities as one fine goal-setting rubrik for progressivism.
LFC 09.22.22 at 12:54 pm
Without wanting to defend DEI trainings or how they (apparently, to judge from previous comments) use the distinction, I would suggest that one reading of the cartoon maps onto arguments for (what is now called) affirmative action or at least certain forms of it (I don’t know whether the article makes this point bc I didn’t read it that closely).
It goes back to LBJ’s well-known speech where he said that you don’t take contestants in a race, put them at the same starting line, and claim you’re being fair when some of the contestants have been, in effect, in chains for the past x years. (That’s a very loose paraphrase; I forget the exact language.) From this angle, the cartoon is not saying something about “equality” and “equity” but about fairness: it’s not fair to give people of different heights the same box to stand on, where height here is a proxy for facts about society or individuals that are, in Rawlsian language, morally arbitrary.
engels 09.22.22 at 9:17 pm
LFC, good point and it also has points of contact perhaps with Marx’s objections to equality which I have previously tried to press against Harry Brighouse in these pages. But in context, in practice and with the silly “equality/equity” coinage I think it was used by centrists/DEI minions to squelch Sanders supporters/redistributionists.
J-D 09.23.22 at 1:12 am
Several dictionaries define ‘equity’ as ‘fairness’. Who is defining ‘equity’ as something different from ‘fairness’? To me, it seems that when people disagree about what’s equitable, they disagree about what’s fair.
Timothy Scriven 09.23.22 at 2:20 am
In my experience, “equity” is used to mean “the good, sophisticated one” and equality is used to mean “the bad, regimented, making everyone the same one”. Beyond this, there is little consistency.
I’ve often said that one of the finest signs of someone who thinks they’re more learned than they really are is that they will insist that ‘morality’ and ‘ethics’ mean different things. You can tell this because people who insist on this distinction never agree among themselves what the distinction consists in. The difference between equality and equity is another such trap, for those pretending to subtlety.
Timothy Scriven 09.23.22 at 2:21 am
Re: What’s really going on with morality and ethics. They mean the same thing, but one has a slightly negative-disparaging connotation whereas the other has a slightly positive connotation. From this people have, futilely, tried to draw out numerous subtle distinctions about what each ‘really’ means, vis-a-vis the other.
engels 09.23.22 at 8:26 am
I also agree with Timothy Scriven about bogus distinction-drawing: one of the earliest examples I can remember is a schoolteacher who insisted that “facts” were objective but “the truth” was just whatever people believed.
Bernard Williams, who popularised the morality/ethics “distinction”, actually titled his first book “Morality: An Introduction to Ethics”.
J-D, why not just say “fairness” in that case? It’s far more widely understood.
Ingrid Robeyns 09.23.22 at 1:59 pm
Sorry to be late to the party but I was with some bug (though luckily not Covid) in bed.
To my mind, John @7 is right.
I agree with Harry that this is not a very helpful Cartoon, since in some version ‘equality’ equals ‘Equity’. Equity is used by policy makers and part of social scientists as their favorite word for [socio-economic] “Justice”. But let’s stick with their favorite term for now.
Here’ s how I would read this:
the picture on the left-hand side is equality of resources not taking differential needs into account, and hence creates BOTH inequality in opportunities as well as outcomes. (the capability approach would say “different conversion factors, leading to a different ability of those three people to convert a resource into a valuable capability).
The situation on the right represents equality of opportunities in the sense of capabilities, since all three persons now have equal access to/freedom to/opportunity to see the game. But, I assume, they could also go away and do something else, so it’s a freedom or opportunity. Yet, the situation on the right ALSO creates equality of outcome, because they used that opportunity/freedom/capability and all can see the game.
Perhaps someone here can draw a better cartoon, or we can photoshop this and and change the words and circulate that new version…
MisterMr 09.23.22 at 4:34 pm
@Ingrid Robeyns 22
I think the way you use the terms you are conflating opportunities with outcomes.
I think the general idea in this distinction is that there are a set of factors that are external (the opportunities), and then each person interacts with these through other factors that are internal, and since these internal factors are different the result will be unequal outcomes for equal opportunities.
Now what counts as an internal factor is different: for example a kid whose parents both have a STEM degree might unconsciously put more effort in studying math than a kid whose parents do not have a degree, so that the stem kid in the end becomes better at math. Is this difference in effort an internal factor or an external one?
(this kind of differences IMHO explain a lot of “class” difference in acedemic success).
The implication is that different endowment of external factors (opportunities) has no moral value, but different endowment of internal factors has moral value (sloth is a sin) and thus should be punished/praised as needed.
If you see all factors as external, then the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes disappears; but then why wouldn’t different height be considered an internal factor?
Ingrid Robeyns 09.23.22 at 5:42 pm
MisterMr @23,
the way you draw the distinction may perhaps be one way in which the distinction between opportunities and outcomes are made, but I’m using rather different concepts than the ones you lay out.
In the capability literature (which is what I’m using here), a capability is an opportunity that is determined by the combination of internal and external factors. In that literature, and in much (perhaps most?) of contemptorary political philosophy, the distinction between opportunities and outcomes lies in states one can choose or not choose for (=opportunity), versus things that are realisations (=outcomes).
engels 09.23.22 at 9:36 pm
why wouldn’t different height be considered an internal factor?
It’s external to a widespread (modern/liberal) view of the self as essentially something that reasons and chooses.
notGoodenough 09.24.22 at 10:44 am
It is interesting to see people declare there is no difference between distribution of resources irrespective of circumstance and distribution of resources accounting for circumstance.
I do seem to recall once hearing something about “to each according to their needs”, but perhaps such notions are unfashionable these days…
J, not that one 09.24.22 at 1:50 pm
The word “equity” is used in school district communications, and the parents have no trouble understanding it even if we haven’t attended (recent) diversity trainings. I suppose it helps that it’s attached to specific policies that can be compared to earlier policies.
J, not that one 09.24.22 at 1:57 pm
As a parent would love a philosophical analysis of the differences between grit, growth mindset, and whatever teachers used to do, frankly, which seems much more confused to me than the schools’ use of “equity” and significantly less effective.
LFC 09.25.22 at 3:06 am
notGoodenough @26
“It is interesting to see people declare there is no difference between distribution of resources irrespective of circumstance and distribution of resources accounting for circumstance.”
I’m not sure whether anyone said this. I certainly didn’t.
engels 09.25.22 at 11:00 am
I do seem to recall once hearing something about “to each according to their needs”, but perhaps such notions are unfashionable these days…
It’s a good slogan (or will be, after capitalism has been smashed) but it has nothing to do “equality vs equity”.
Chetan Murthy 09.25.22 at 8:15 pm
Huh. I’d have thought that it’s pretty obvious that unless you’re a literal eugenicist who believes some gene lines are intrinsically inferior, then you MUST expect that in a truly equal world, within some bounded variation, we will get equality of outcomes.
I know you’re not a eugenicist, so why does this bother you? Is it that the equality of outcome we see …. too bounded? B/c I’d think that the variation in outcomes we see in the US/UK would be …. opprobrious to our sense of fair play and equality, b/c it would be prima facie evidence of lack of equality of opportunity. Unless, again, we believe that the children of bankers and Ivy-League professors are genetically superior to the hoi polloi.
J-D 09.26.22 at 1:13 am
I am not sure what this is a response to, but read by itself it puzzles me. I can easily imagine a long discussion of the issues raised, but it seems to me it would be nothing to the point here.
The relevant point, the way it seems to me, is that we know that social opportunities are unequal and that this alone justifies the effort to reduce that social inequality. It doesn’t make any difference to this point how much inequality of outcomes is affected by factors apart from social inequality (whether those other factors are genes or anything else). We might say ‘So long as outcomes remain unequal, we are justified in trying to reduce social inequality’, but since outcomes for humans will surely remain unequal, in one way or another, until humanity becomes extinct, the qualification is rhetorical only. An insistence that genes play no part is not a requirement for the conclusion, and neither is an insistence that perfect social equality will be evidenced by equality of outcomes, since perfect social equality is a chimera, not an attainable goal.
This, on the other hand, seems exactly right to me.
notGoodenough 09.26.22 at 8:56 am
LFC @ 29
You have my apologies for any misunderstanding or uncertainty my previous comment has caused – it was not intended as a response to you (I think that what you said in 16 is a not unreasonable interpretation, and one which I would not necessarily significantly disagree with). Instead, my comment was intended to convey my surprise over other comments which, it appeared to me (perhaps or perhaps not incorrectly), seemed to be arguing that there is no useful distinction to be drawn between “equity” and “equality”.
notGoodenough 09.26.22 at 8:57 am
More generally, following my comment @ 26:
As a follow up, it seems I should elaborate to better explain my reasoning. I have a degree of confusion regarding some comments on this thread. My understanding from the OP (and perhaps this is incorrect) is that there is a degree of disagreement over what exactly people mean by equity and equality, and over how exactly equity and equality might be applied to the real world in a practical sense, but that these words are not completely devoid of any meaning whatsoever.
First, if I may, an analogy (while the comparison is not exact, I hope it is sufficient to illustrate my point despite not covering every possible salient feature or being an exhaustive and definitive use of the terms in this analogy). It seems to me that religious belief may mean many different things to many different people (for example, to some a general sense of “there was a creator”, to others a directly interventionist agent with a large beard sat on top of a cloud throwing down thunderbolts, etc.), and there may be considerable disagreement over the details and specifics. Atheism may also mean different things to different people (for example, to some it means an absolute belief in the non-existence of any gods, to others a rejection of god-claims but not an assertion of the contrapositive, etc.), and there may be considerable disagreement over the details and specifics. However, although there is a lot of discussion over the nuance of what these terms mean, there is some degree of thematic consistency in the concepts behind it (e.g. one is about “accepting” some form of “god claim”, whatever that may mean, and one is about “rejecting” some form of “god claim”, whatever that may mean). It seems reasonable to me, therefore, to argue that these terms are imprecise, or that explanation may be needed when using these to avoid confusion. However, I think it would be unreasonable to assert that there is no meaningful difference between “religious belief” and “atheism”, or that to attempt to draw a distinction between the two is a trap. Were someone to suggest that inconsistency of exact meaning leads to there being no difference between “religious belief” and “atheism”, and thus any attempt to draw a distinction a trap, I would infer that the interlocuter is implying there is not meaningful distinction to be drawn between the concepts of “accepting a god claim” and “rejecting a god claim” (because while the exact nature of what that means may be disputed, these seem to be the general concepts most commonly meant by people using these terms). Perhaps this may be an incorrect inference on my part, but that does seem to me to be the implication such an assertion would carry, and I don’t believe my inference is completely unreasonable.
As far as I can tell, the cartoon referred to in the OP – and the most common way I’ve seen equity and equality used when compared to each other – is in reference to how to ensure “fairness” (whatever one may mean by that). When a contrast is being made between equality and equity, it is typically to draw a contrast between an equal distribution and an unequal distribution of something (whether that be material resources, some form of support or aid, or something else entirely). The notion, it seems to me, being that something (whatever it may be) when distributed equally may not be as “fair” as when it is distributed unequally but in a more targeted fashion. While certainly there seems to be a lot of discussion over the nuance (and indeed many people extend the discussion beyond these terms to include other, potentially “fairer”, concepts), it does seem to me that there is a thematically consistent concept behind this – people may mean different things by “equality” and “equity”, but they do not generally appear to mean completely opposing things to the things other people mean when using those terms. When a comparison is being made between equity and equality, I have not, for example, seen “equity” commonly used to mean “things should be distributed to people irrespective of any other consideration” and “equality” used to mean “resources should be distributed with considerations in mind” (though people might suggest that that is the result of the specific approaches, it does not appear to be used to intentionally mean that when such a comparison is being made). When it is suggested, therefore, that inconsistency of exact meaning leads to there being no difference between equality and equity, and thus any attempt to draw a distinction a trap, I infer that the interlocuter is implying there is not meaningful distinction to be drawn between the concepts of “equal distribution” and “unequal but more targeted distribution” (because while the exact nature of what that means may be disputed, these seem to be the general concepts most commonly meant by people using these terms). Perhaps this may be an incorrect inference on my part, but that does seem to me to be the implication such an assertion would carry, and I don’t believe such an inference is completely unreasonable.
To me, and this is purely a personal opinion of course, the concepts of “religious belief” and “atheism” (as generally commonly used) may be useful (if not universally so), and that there is some distinction between these to be found. Similarly, the concepts of “equality” and “equity” (as depicted in the cartoon, and as generally commonly used) may be useful (if not universally so), and that there is some distinction between these to be found.
Of course, perhaps what was meant by the lack of meaningful distinction between “equality vs. equity” is not the concepts (as depicted in the cartoon, and as generally commonly used) that those words point to, but rather in the words themselves. But “there are meaningful differences to be made between the way distribution of something (whatever that thing may be) as depicted in the cartoon and generally commonly used, but the confusion over nuance renders the use of these particular words difficult to employ without clarification – perhaps making the use of alternative, more well defined words instead a preferable option” does not appear to have been the sentiment expressed; again, the argument (as I, perhaps incorrectly, infer) seems to be that the thematic concepts themselves (however vague or disputed they may be) are not sufficiently meaningfully distinct.
To me, as I intended to suggest, even if “equality” and “equity” are confused terms, there is some degree of thematically different concept being expressed (even if that consistency is just that one “is making everyone the same” and the other is “more sophisticated”), and that this difference is sufficiently as to make comparisons useful (if not universally so). There are, after all, many terms which are surrounded by confusion and used inconsistently, yet that does not make the terms completely useless, nor does it mean that those trying to use the terms are attempting to pretend there is a degree of subtlety which does not, in fact, exist. To me, there is an obvious difference (as depicted in the metaphor) between giving everyone the same number of crates, and giving different quantities of crates to different people depending on their height. I believe one may reasonably argue a great deal surrounding this (e.g. regarding the validity of the approach, whether any given practical implementation results in the intended “crate distribution”, whether an alternative approach – such as burning down the fence – is preferable, etc.), but I find it odd when it is asserted (as I have taken it to have been) that there is no meaningful difference between giving everyone the same number of crates, and giving different quantities of crates to different people depending on their height.
To further extend this, it seems to me not unreasonable to conceptualise that “equality” is most commonly used to refer to “equal distribution” (whatever it may be which is being distributed, and however that may be undertaken), and that “equity” is most commonly used to refer to “unequal, more targeted distribution” (whatever it may be which is being distributed, and however that may be undertaken). To me, it seems this is not completely conceptually different to the notion of distribution irrespective of, or according to, needs (even if there may be considerable argument over what those needs are, whether it truly does result in the desired distribution, whether it is desirable, whether it is possible/practical/feasible, etc.).
And, to me, distribution irrespective of needs or according to needs (even if there is a great deal of argument over the nuances of what “needs” and “distribution” may mean or how it may be implemented) are concepts which are well worth making a distinction between.
Of course, I may well be wrong – perhaps “equality” and “equity” are not generally most commonly used to refer to “distribution”, or perhaps I am overinterpreting meaning, or perhaps I have misunderstood the OP or some of the subsequent comments. These things are all possible – everyone makes mistakes, after all – but while I may well be incorrect, I don’t believe I have been unreasonable in my interpretations. I hope this explains (if not, to everyone, justifies) my reasoning and previous comment.
Trader Joe 09.26.22 at 2:36 pm
I’ve always been amused by this picture and its many iterations and would say that I agree with the points raised in the related paper (which I took to be let’s spend less effort debating brain teasing words and spend more energy on delivering improved outcomes).
I always find it remarkable what a wide range of conclusions people draw from this particular iteration of the picture. Three that are rarely mentioned:
1) All three individuals are in some respects stealing. They have not paid for consumption of the baseball game, yet they are watching it. No one seems to question why it is “fair” that they should not pay to see the game that others have paid for. The team is perhaps not that upset by it or they would have constructed a fence that would have precluded persons of any size from seeing over it irrespective of milk crates. Why does no one object to the lack of equity inherent in their theft?
2) It appears in the left hand picture that in fact all three individuals can see the game despite the way the crates are allocated. Person one has no difficulty irrespective of crates. Person two is the only one properly served by a crate and it appears person 3 is able to see through a crack in the poorly maintained fence. Person 3 shows no appearance of not reaching his goal of seeing the game though he surely has a limited view. The faulty conclusion is that he sees nothing and is just foolishly looking at a fence two inches from his nose rather than, perhaps, seeking help from one of the other two people or simply finding something more productive to do.
If we’re worried person 3 can’t see the game – why aren’t we getting him a ticket to the game rather than simply reallocating recourses to keep him on the outside but with a better view (doesn’t that feel like a welfare state – a presumption that the person is helpless absent a willing crate provider)?
3) Who provides the milk crates? Presumably society at large since they are not naturally occurring. Perhaps there should be less discussion of what constitutes equity or equality and more discussion on the right number of crates and their allocation. If there was only 1 crate only person #2 could benefit – what would we do then? (or maybe person #3 if you subscribe to the view that there was a crack in the fence at just the right height). If there were 5 crates two would be redundant in all scenarios.
I like the point made above (Ingrid I think) that its all but impossible to create equal outcomes – there will always be differences and circumstances evolve – but you can maximize capabilities. That seems a more relevant and action based discussion than debating esoteric words that few will agree upon.
engels 09.26.22 at 6:45 pm
All three individuals are in some respects stealing. They have not paid for consumption of the baseball game, yet they are watching it.
Lol. Even on the most deranged right-libertarian view there’s nothing wrong with watching a baseball game from outside the stadium.
J-D 09.27.22 at 12:46 am
If one person says ‘J-D is ugly’ and another says ‘J-D is not ugly’, it would obviously be true to say that those two people disagree about me, but it is not equally obvious that they disagree about what ‘ugly’ means. If one person says ‘this sample is deer scat’ and another says ‘this sample is not deer scat’, it would obviously be true to say that those two people disagree about the sample but it is not equally obvious that they disagree about what ‘deer scat’ means.
It’s possible for people to agree about the intension of a term but disagree about its extension; the fact that they disagree about extension doesn’t prove that they disagree about intension. It’s possible for people to agree about the connotation of a term but disagree about its denotation; the fact that they disagree about denotation doesn’t prove that they disagree about connotation. It’s possible for people to agree about the sense of a term but disagree about its reference; the fact that they disagree about reference doesn’t prove that they disagree about sense.
Trader Joe 09.27.22 at 11:32 am
@36 Engels
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of metaphor? The point is they are outside the system. They are participating but not via the accepted convention. Stealing may not be the perfect word but I struggle to find one better to get at the idea that arguing about fairness of allocating milk crates overlooks the fact that the better solution is to find a way to get them into the stadium, not outside of it.
This picture is often shown in the context of education and used to justify or garner support for incremental resources for schools that have high ratios of minority or low income students. The notion being that schools collectively usually work just fine but for some reason (pick any of hundreds) these schools have fallen outside the expected outcome and accordingly should be provided the necessary resources to achieve equality. To carry out the metaphor – I don’t begrudge the provision of milk crates, but the solution is fixing the problem about why they are outside the stadium rather than inside enjoying the game.
J, not that one 09.27.22 at 12:51 pm
In practical terms, what equity comes down to, to repeat myself, is “everybody can read the school missives in English” versus “we’re going to pay actual people to translate the newsletters and to translate in Zoom calls,” or “every parent can find out about the gifted program and if they do can recommend their kid, and every kid can wait until their teacher thinks they should be evaluated for it” versus “we’ll automatically evaluate every kid.”
On the probably less nice side, it comes down to, “the logistical ability to do homework is unequally distributed, so equity demands elementary schools not assign it.”
Both of these are not quite “should we use more $$$$ on educating poor kids than everybody else?” But then education doesn’t happen by sprinkling money in the air and letting it settle into the kids’ brains as knowledge.
engels 09.30.22 at 7:09 pm
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of metaphor?
No, and you make some good criticisms; I just don’t think the freeloading line is one of them.
Comments on this entry are closed.