Understanding The Difference Between Equality And Equity

In recent years you’ve more than likely heard someone talk about equality and equity. Maybe you’ve even seen the well-known baseball field image that highlights the difference between the two.
But, what does it all mean?

After all, the differences between equality and equity can have major implications for the way a workplace, school, or any other organization operates. Believe it or not, using one over the other can completely change the way funding is allocated.

So, knowing that, this article will define equality and equity, as well as use those definitions to outline how each of these concepts affects organizations and institutions.

What Is Equality?

The Oxford Dictionary defines equality as “the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.” This means that everyone is provided with the same tools for success, and no one receives more than anyone else.

Think of it this way; if two people are applying for a job, an equal opportunity initiative will ensure that both applicants are judged to the same standard. In this instance, only their skills and qualifications would be taken into account, not their race, gender, class, or ideology. Doing otherwise would be considered discrimination.

If this seems normal to you, that’s because this is the standard for most businesses and schools in the United States. It’s ingrained into our culture that equality is the highest and best standard to achieve in the workplace or anywhere else.

But is it?

One of the most noteworthy aspects of equality is that it’s not conditional. Every person receives the same treatment, regardless of income or other inequalities. While this can be a good thing, it can lead to a few issues.

For example, under a principle of equality, if a man who makes $25,000 a year receives a stimulus check worth $1,200, then a man who makes $50,000 a year will also receive the same amount.

You may be able to spot the problem with this right away. Why does the man who needs less support receive the same amount? Well, because equality dictates equal treatment, regardless of any other factors. However, it can be argued that the man with a more stable income didn’t need as much support.

What Is Equity?

According to the Oxford Dictionary, equity can be defined as “the quality of being fair and impartial.” While this sounds similar to equality, the major difference lies in the emphasis on fairness instead of purely equal treatment.

In the context of work or school, this means that every individual is given the specific resources they need to succeed, even if some receive more than others. After all, you wouldn’t provide the 6 ft person a stool to reach the top shelf, but you would provide one to a 4 ft person.

If the 6 ft person can reach the top shelf without a stool, then providing the same stool to both of them would seem silly.

In a more serious context, Imagine there are two students. One has developmental disabilities, and the other does not. The student with developmental disabilities shouldn’t be expected to learn the same amount of material in the same way as the student without disabilities.

Instead, the disabled student might need to receive more resources and more support. While the other student doesn’t receive as many resources, the fact is that they simply don’t need them.

In this case, each student is given what they need to succeed. Therefore, even if they aren’t being treated equally, they’re treated fairly.

Comparing Equality and Equity

Now that you understand the differences between these two concepts, you might be wondering: Which one is better?

There isn’t a definitive answer to that question.

Perhaps there are instances where equality in the workplace is best so that all employees feel as though they are given the same treatment and provided the same opportunities.

For example, if two employees are trying to get the same pay raise or promotion, many would argue that only their qualifications should be considered, and no one candidate should receive a boost based on their background.

But, real-life barriers do exist. Workers and students who come from marginalized backgrounds can struggle to achieve their goals because being given the same resources as non-marginalized groups simply aren’t enough. In these cases, many call for equitable solutions that can help bring everyone to an equal playing field.

As mentioned earlier, giving two people the same amount of money might be equality, but because that gesture doesn’t account for the backgrounds of those individuals, it doesn’t necessarily make them equal in the end.

And because American society is built around equality as the gold standard, that can be a hard pill to swallow.

But, this article is not meant to claim that equity is superior, but rather that equity can actually provide a higher level of equal opportunity in some instances.

Equity vs. Equality in Funding

In many ways, one of the biggest arguments for using policies of equity over policies of equality comes in the form of allocating funds.

Imagine if New York City and a town with a population of 1,000 received the same funding for the sake of equality. That wouldn’t make a lot of sense.

Instead, community resources often go to where they’re needed most. If a town’s roads are falling apart, more money needs to be allocated toward that project over others. That doesn’t mean that funding the town’s schoolyard isn’t important, but rather, that the roads are a more pressing and important issue to be spending money on.

When put into the context of marginalized communities, there are often cases when these communities require more funding to be given the same opportunities as others. For example, you can’t argue that it’s unfair to spend more money on building a youth facility for a marginalized community when the non-marginalized community already has one.

In this case, allocating more money to that project will have a more fair and equal outcome.

Why Equity Is an Imperfect Solution

One of the biggest issues many have with equity is that it requires policy to be enforced by someone, whether it’s the head of a company or legislation written by the governing bodies. Think of it this way: who is deciding which individual groups deserve more tools than other individual groups? Why are these decisions valid?

Let’s say we have two employees at a company, and the company has an equity-based policy that provides extra health insurance options to workers who come from lower-income areas. Employee A comes from a low-income neighborhood and qualifies for the extra benefits that made his recent surgery free of charge.

However, Employee B does not come from a low-income neighborhood and does not receive the same benefits. His surgery costs him thousands of dollars, and because he’s no higher up on the company’s ladder, this expense hits him hard.

In this case, the attempted equity enforced by the company was mismanaged, as it elevated employees based on their background in a way that didn’t make them more equal. In real-life situations, there are so many factors that go into an individual person’s current situation that it’s not always easy to judge who definitively needs more tools than someone else.

In part, this issue is why equality still consistently maintains popularity, despite not necessarily leading to equal outcomes, because when it comes to creating equal outcomes in an authentic and unproblematic way, it’s not as easy as it seems.

How to Solve the Problem of Equality vs. Equity

While it’s difficult to conjure up an answer to the question of how to solve these issues, there are a few things to consider.

First, you need to consider if grouping people together might be more detrimental than assessing their individual needs. While an employer might have good intentions by implementing a policy that prioritizes hiring one group of people over another, this prioritization completely discards the individual needs and background of every candidate.

Every person is different, and communicating those differences, as well as what we need to overcome them, is far more important than arguing over semantics.

Additionally, it’s worth noting that the discrepancies between these concepts wouldn’t have to be so pronounced if workplaces, school systems, and more were fundamentally more fair and equal. If systematic barriers are broken down, then people wouldn’t necessarily need the boost that policies based on equity provide.

The classic example of this is the children watching the baseball game behind a fence. While anyone can argue about why it’s beneficial for the shortest child to receive the biggest boost so they can see over the fence, why not argue a different point? If the fence is removed entirely, then no child needs more resources than another, to begin with.

To use an earlier example, why would a company need to provide different health insurance for individuals of different incomes if health care was free for everyone?

Though that is a rather political example, it is some food for thought.

Final Thoughts

Both equality and equity can serve an important purpose in schools, the workplace, and our society. Trying to crown one as the superior way tends to miss out on all the complexities involved, either at an individual to a systemic level.

However, the pursuit of just, fair and equal treatment will always be a worthwhile endeavor. If you feel as though you’re not being treated fairly or equally in school or the workplace, you should reach out to support groups and do what you can to change your situation.

Author

Jack Flynn

Jack Flynn is a writer for Zippia. In his professional career he’s written over 100 research papers, articles and blog posts. Some of his most popular published works include his writing about economic terms and research into job classifications. Jack received his BS from Hampshire College.