Equality vs Equity
Debunking the Myth of Racial Equilibrium as Provided by Equal Treatment
by 'equity', i meant proportional representation across the board.
i've often argued against anti-affirmative action arguments which made
gratuitous use of over-production. i've also often considered the idea
of 'racial equilibrium'. so in looking at one particular program, in
particular quotas and set-asides, i'm concerned not at the fairness of
that individual program per se, but its fairness in the global
context. but i should be more concrete...
imagine the following scenario:
candidates: (400b, 400w)
100 seats available.
1 year program.
all candidates are equally qualified.
on the other side of the program are:
graduates: (800w, 200b)
therefore in the total population is:
1200w, 600b.
in the post-graduate population the b's are 25%
but in the pre-admission population the b's are 50%
in the overall population the b's are 50%
if you admit, over the next 4 years an equal number of b's and w's
through the 100 seat program the end result will be:
candidates(200b, 200w)
graduates (400b, 1000w)
in the graduate pool, b's are still underrepresented by 10 percentage
points. the past 4 years of equal b & w matriculation has perpetuated,
although at an attenuated rate, the fundamental inequity of year 0.
so in order to equalize the post-graduate representation, the
matriculation criteria must be modified such that the injustice at
year 0 is eliminated as soon as possible.
the point of my bringing up the model was to illustrate the effect of a barrier with
respect to equity vs equal treatment. i think it is particularly appropriate to note a
couple other mathematical things.
1. what i didn't factor into the model because i thought it was obvious bears explaining.
with regard to net economic or political power, those who have passed the barrier hold the
lion's share, and their share of power emphasizes the importance of the barrier.
say the barrier is considered the one between 'haves' and 'have-nots'. the net
accumulation of power of the haves, which is imbalanced with respect to overall
representation is a hard knock against the credibility of a 'fair' and 'equal' standard at
the barrier. that is why i use the term *equity* rather than 'equality'.
what is the chance, given the equality of those below the barrier that they will recieve
benefits commensurate with their *demonstrated* potential? it is equal. (if one presumes
that all 'haves' are equal). but that equality is counterbalanced (actually overwhelmed is
a better word), by the inequity systemwide. mathematically:
'have-nots' annual income = 20M/year
'haves' annual income = 60M/year
at year 0 (400b, 400w)
havenot(b) = 8MM/yr
havenot(w) = 8MM/yr
haves: year 0
(800w, 200b)
have(b) = 12MM/yr
have(w) = 48MM/yr
overall(b) = 20MM/yr
overall(w) = 56MM/yr
i've put the simulation in a spreadsheet here under Equality vs Equity
the end results show that the accumulation of assets (which can safely be assumed to be
true of other types of power that can accumulate - political, cultural, etc) ends up not
at 2:1 as you might expect with numerical headcount, but at about 2.3:1