In a previous post, I quoted a statement by Hamline president Fayneese Miller referring to “a purported stand-off between academic freedom and equity.” This got me thinking about the way some have tried to change the meaning of the word “equity.” It’s hard to tell what Miller meant, since she’s the only one doing the purporting. Others, though, have tried to shift the meaning of “equity” from its traditional one.

The Merriam-Webster definition of “equity” gives several technical meanings in law and finance, as well as “justice according to natural law or right; specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism.” Equity means applying the same standards to everyone; it rejects, for example, laws giving special privileges to the nobility or denying rights to people on the basis of their appearance, sex, or religion.

Some people want to make the word mean the leveling of outcomes. There’s the widely distributed picture which shows three people of different heights placed on staggered platforms so that their heads are at the same level, labelled “Equity.” The classic story of this kind of “equity” is Kurt Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron,” in which people with unusual ability are forced to wear handicaps to bring them down to everyone else’s level.

Following the classic idea of equity means recognizing that unjust barriers lie in the way of some people and looking for ways to remove them. A prime example is barriers to entry in work and business that exist only to restrict the market and benefit the insiders. Examples of these barriers are arbitrary requirements to have a degree or go through a long apprenticeship. The new “equity” picture, though, portrays people’s capacities as basically immutable, like height, and implies the “shorter” people need outside help to achieve as much as the “tall” ones do. This is at odds with the idea that people can grow in capacity and achievement when given the opportunity, and it suggests that they can reach the heights only when somebody else compensates for their innate lack of capacity. It condescends.

In other words, the new idea of “equity” is that people are inherently unequal and need to be equalized. It regards the “short” people as inherently short and in need of a boost. In practice, the boost isn’t so simple as giving them a block of wood to stand on; it entails taking from the productive and giving it to those who are deemed incapable of productivity. That’s the exact opposite of “justice according to natural law or right.” It divorces reward from merit.

More precise words for the actions comprising this kind of “equity” include “leveling” or “redistribution.” Or if you want to be blunt, “theft.”