This post brought to you by our friend TheRealGuyFaux.
Has everyone seen the illustrations used to show “equality” and “equity”? The ones that have the three people, one tall, another medium height, and the last one all trying to peer over a fence? The tall one can do so in any event. The middle one is a bit too short, and the last one is well too short. The cartoon continues in the next panel to show that “equality” would be to give each of them a box to stand on. Tall person doesn’t need it, medium person now can peer over the fence, but Shorty’s still shit outta luck. “Equity,” on the other hand, has tall person receiving no box, medium person still having the one box, and Shorty has two, after which he can now peer over the fence. Tall person’s box has been redistributed to Shorty since “Tall person doesn’t need it, but Shorty DOES!”
There’s another, which shows an apple tree bent over to one side, and Person on left side of the tree in the first panel can reach the branches if he gets a ladder. Person on right side of tree can’t reach the branches even with the same height ladder, but that’s the tallest ladder available. Thus, the solution is to figure a way to straighten the tree, which is what the last panel shows.
Notice how, in the first cartoon, there is no explanation given of just WHY it is SO important for all three of those individuals to be able to peer over the fence? You’re supposed to take it on faith that it IS. Don’t ask, “Do they have the right to do so?”– just assume they do.
Notice how, in the second cartoon, it’s just assumed that both persons have the right to pick the apples– but WHY? And what gives them the right to straighten the tree– is it their tree to straighten? And why is Person on the right prevented from picking some apples from the left side of the tree, anyway?
I’ve written previously about enthymemes, and about necessity-versus- possibility. Both of these rely on loading the question when it comes to appeals to us to “work out the logic.” The unstated premise in the cartoon with the lookie-loos is that there is something all three need to be able to see on the other side. But no explanation is given of what the need is, or why it’s a “need” and not a “desire.”
As far as the apple tree goes (“Garden of Eden” reference”?), No explanation is given of how they’re going to reach the apples on the highest branches, which are still above the highest point they can reach even when the tree is upright– are they going to use long sticks to beat the branches? Can we ensure there are two sticks of equal length? Are they supposed to pick all the apples or not? And most importantly, how did they get the tree upright to where they could buttress one side aid guywire the other? If they had heavy machinery, why didn’t they just, y’know, use it to shake the tree and not need to pick quite so many apples after the loose ones fell, a la Isaac Newton? The unstated premise in the apple cartoon is that there is no other “fair” and “equitable” way to get to the apples besides uprighting the tree and giving both persons an identical ladder to work on opposite sides of the tree. It unnecessarily introduces an element of “necessity,” if you will.
I can get into a discussion of “equity” as a law-school-type concept and how there’s a lot of “smuggling” of other concepts going on in trying to make “equity” into a broader-application “feel-good but meaningless” concept in the political arena, which I will do at a later time. I first wanted you to chew on what I’ve just written now.
