This is Pastor Tim’s Article which appeared in the Evening Leader on Tuesday, Feb 4, 2025
There have been a few vocabulary words that have been thrown around in the news media over the past few weeks. I would like the chance to define these words to help you understand some of the conversations you may be hearing. I am doing this because there are people in the media who will use these words as interchangeable terms when they are pushing an agenda. It isn’t until it is too late that you realize what they have sold you is 100% the opposite of what you thought you were agreeing to. The main two terms I would like to define for you are equality and equity. I know, they sound a lot the same but what I am going to show you is that the way these two terms work makes them polar opposites of each other.
These two terms have as their base the word equal. To be equal means that two things are the same. 2+2 equals 4. It does not matter what context you are using the term equal, it always means that two things are the same.
As Americans, we believe in all things being equal whenever possible. If we perceive something is being unequal, we consider it unfair. We feel this way because it is the right way to feel. Americans are wired to have fairness as a core value. We can debate on what is fair and what is not, but an American will be glad to punch you in the nose if you are not being fair.
So we like the word equal, but how does that root word relate to the terms equality and equity? This is where we run into a major problem. In a nutshell, equality evaluates where we start and equity evaluates where we finish. Let me give an example
Suppose I was going to race an olympic sprinter in a 100 yard dash. Equality says that the sprinter and I start on the same line 100 yards from the finish line. We fire the gun and start running. We cross the same starting line at the same time, that is equality. But to no one’s surprise, the olympic sprinter is going to cross the finish line and I am not even halfway there yet.
This is where equity comes in. Equity demands that we both cross the finish line at the same time. So to begin the race with equity, I am going to need at least a 75 yard head start. So in an equity race, the olympic sprinter and I do not start on the same line. The sprinter starts at the line 100 yards away, but I start 75 yards closer to the finish line. The gun is fired and we both start running and (God willing) we cross the finish line at the same time. That is equity.
This is where the current big debate comes in. As Americans who desire fairness in all things, which of these two terms means equal? Are we committed to equality where we all begin at the same place or are we committed to equity where everyone’s outcome is equal? That is the debate between equality and equity.
Here is the problem with the debate. If we happen to be running a race like my example above, then I think equity is a good idea because there is no scenario where I am going to be able to compete with anyone when it comes to running. So if we are running a race, I want equity. But in areas where I have some God given gifts and a ton of training, say preaching sermons or Bible trivia, I want equality because I am going to dominate, with great humility of course, but still dominate.
When our government hires people, do we want equality or equity? Do we want them to hire people based on talent, motivation and results or do we want to hire based on some other standard? If you are hiring based on any other standard than qualification, then you are by definition not hiring the most qualified person. This is where questions about D.E.I. and Affirmative Action come into play. Do we want to give preferential treatment to people based on characteristics and identities that have nothing to do with the job? How do we assure that everyone has equal opportunity? Do we do that by giving everyone the same change (equality) or do we make sure the final results are equal (equity)?
I just can’t get the sound bites out of my mind of the Fire Department in Los Angeles bragging about their diverse department. I don’t know for certain that the fires would have been better contained by a group hired based on qualifications alone. But what I do know for sure is that the fire could not have cared less how diverse the fire department was. The fire burned until manpower and resources were sufficient to put the fire out. To me, that is proof that there are some jobs that society needs done by the most qualified person no matter who that person is.