Equality, Equity, & Freedom

… all men are created equal …

Human equality, and its resultant human rights, are loudly, proudly, and persistently touted as a founding concept of western civilisation.

The United States Declaration of Independence, adopted in 1776, contains the following statement :

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

But, the idea, and even the legislation of human equality has existed for far longer than that.

In 1215, in England, the Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Liberties) was adopted. It legislated some human rights for the baronial class, as protection from royal abuse. Unfortunately, neither side honoured it, and it was soon scrapped by the Pope.

The Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1780 BC) lists punishments for abusing the rights of men, women, children, and even slaves. Some historians suggest that limited human rights were legally recognised even 500-years earlier than this.

I’ll not delve any further into the history of human equality at this point. My purpose here, is to show that the idea of human rights/equality has been around almost as long as humanity itself.

The idea that all humans have rights, and thus some basis of equality is nothing new.

So, when is equality not equality?

The short, but sad answer is, “Almost always.”

Firstly, we need to be careful of the idea that equality means we’re all the same. In reality, we are all born with different innate/genetic talents, skills, and abilities. Just as obviously, we all have different social, economic, or educational advantages and disadvantages.

Human equality doesn’t mean we’re all the same. Human equality says we all have equal value as human beings.

So, how has that equal human value played out — both historically, and in the present?

What If You’re A Slave?

The US Declaration of Independence, including the previous quote, was written by Thomas Jefferson. Yes, that’s the same Thomas Jefferson who owned about 600 slaves during his lifetime. But wait, didn’t he list liberty and the pursuit of happiness as basic human rights?!

It took another hundred years (approx) for Britain and the USA to legislate an outright ban on slavery. That was only just over 200-years ago.

I’m not singling out the UK, or USA. I’m just using them as best-known examples. Many other nations followed your good examples in banning slavery.

Anyhow, I can’t brag. South Africa, after centuries of slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid, is still battling with the absolute basics of human equality.

Okay, so slavery, until quite recently, gave the lie to any ideas or legislation of human equality. Fortunately, that’s all sorted now though, right?

Uuuummmmm … think again!

Current estimates (UN, and other) place the number of modern-day slaves at between 21 & 46-million. Modern slavery is estimated to be a $35-billion per annum industry.

Slavery is alive and flourishing.

So, on the one hand, we justifiably push for human equality and its resultant rights. On the other hand, slavery is still a flourishing, growth industry.

The fact that people have and do promote human rights while simultaneously owning slaves, tells us something important. Slaves weren’t/aren’t considered human — or at least, not fully human. That is still no-doubt true for those who support the modern slave trade, in any way.

We humans have shown ourselves willing and able to put human equality aside when it suits us.

What If You’re Not A Man?

Over the years, much has been said about "gender-neutral" use of words like “man”, “men”, and “mankind”. Let me make my opinion on this quite clear. “It’s all absolute BS!” And please do quote me on that.

It suits men to define general humanity by means of masculine pronouns. It allows them/us to unsubtly, label women as a subset of humanity - which is defined by masculine labels. So, women, by linguistic definition, are a subset of men.

Do you think I’m taking things too far?

As humans, we define our world by labelling it with language. Language is far more powerful than most of us think.
(have a look at my article, The Meaning & Power of Words)

It’s all very well for Shakespeare to say, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. But, if roses were called weeds, you’d be cursing their thorny presence in your garden — no matter what they smelled like.

All the English words for “women”, label them according to some relationship to “man”, or as a diminutive form.
Wo-man.
Wo-men.
Fe-male.
The word “woman/women” comes from the Old English “wifmann”, which indicated someone who was, or could be the wife of a man. The linguistic roots of the word “female”, in both Latin and Old French are all diminutive forms. i.e. intimating a smaller, lesser, weaker type of hu/man.

(I say this as a linguist, not a feminist — although I’ll happily own that label too)

This idea, that women are labelled by men, as “lesser” beings, holds up historically. Slavery was banned in the UK and the USA a considerable time before women were allowed to vote. Even then, those rights were severely limited, and were not truly equal. It was 1928 — after the 1st World War — before British woman achieved equal voting rights with men. Switzerland only gave full, federal voting rights to women in 1971.

In most countries, women have equal rights in the work place; at least theoretically. Yet, figures from the USA show, that on average, they earn 20% less than men — for the same jobs. Here in South Africa, we’re looking at an average pay difference of about 27% between men and women. Some nations are a little better, and some are worse. But, as far as I can tell, woman are not financially equal in the workplace.

Racism, religionism, ageism, … the list is almost endless. I could go on for ages, giving examples of inequality in our world. But, I’ll assume you’ve got the message, and stop here.

My point is this : Actual equality is rarer than sparkly unicorn poop.

So, What Is Equity?

The picture at the start of this article is one of the best, and clearest comparisons between equality and equity.

Equality says that we’re all the same — even though we clearly aren’t. Equality says we all deserve to receive the same, no matter what. Equality says that we should all be judged by the same, arbitrary standard/s, no matter what. (as in the other cartoon, above)
i.e. equality, as practised, tells most of us what we’re bad at.

Equity, on the other hand, aims to level the playing fields. As illustrated in the title-cartoon, the shortest person should get the biggest boost, so they can see over the fence.

Equity recognises our differences — innate and environmental — along with our equal, human value, and acts accordingly.

Equity recognises that human equality only applies to our innate, equal value as humans. It further recognises that we all have different skills, talents, strengths & weaknesses. Equity admits the reality of people being differently skilled, abled, and privileged. It also recognises the damage done by under-privilege, abuse, etc.

Equity acknowledges, and attempts to rectify the imbalances of life, in order to more fully express our equal humanity.

Equity gives spectacles to the short-sighted, hearing aids to deaf, and pacemakers to stumbling hearts. Equity assesses each of us by different, individualised standards. Equity values our strengths, and strengthens our weaknesses.

Equity recognises historical, racial, gender, and age inequities that continue to create unequal playing fields. Equity speaks in terms of recognition, restitution, assistance, and reparation. Equity realises that true equality requires different treatment.

Equity recognises more than an equal humanity. Equity recognises a shared humanity.

Equity moves out of the realm of individualistic equality, and into the shared, communal reality of humanity. Equity recognises that individual strengths and weaknesses provide opportunity to express our humanity together.

Equity puts the creativity into equality.

But, What About Freedom?

Surely, you may say, “If I’m properly recognised as equal, and equity is being applied to my life — then I must be free?”.

Well, you might think that. In fact, most people do think that. In some ways, it’s even true.

Let me use the title-cartoon to illustrate why it’s not completely true :

• equality = we’re all the same, so we all get the same
• equity = we all have equal value, so our differences must be taken into account to express equality

However, that particular version of this cartoon places equity as the ultimate goal. Now, I’ll happily agree that both equality and equity are, and should be important goals. But, what about freedom?

To put it simply. The three people in the cartoon, even after achieving equity, are still stuck behind the fence. They are forced into a spectator role. They are not permitted to be a part of the game.

Freedom occurs when equity is taken into the realm of participation.

In other words, you are not only enabled to see the game, but to play the game. Freedom uses equity to make allowances for different skills, advantages, strengths, etc., within the game.

Think of a childhood game of soccer, cricket/baseball, or touch-rugby/football, as opposed to a professional match.

In the childhood games, everyone was welcome. Sure, you might get picked last (like me), but you played. If you had really good friends, they might even have bowled/pitched a little slower when you were batting. i.e. providing equity to promote your freedom to participate. Even if they didn’t go easy on you, you were still part of the game. There is also equity in willingly lowered expectation, based on known ability.

Okay, let’s move away from sports, and into “real life”. Democratic politics tells us we’re all equal & free. Education tells us we’re all equal & free. Economics and business tells us we’re all equal & free. Even religion tells us we’re all equal & free.

So, do democratic politics provide equity? Oh hell no! Politics is an out and out popularity contest — wherever you are in the world. The winners are those with the most affluence, influence, and popularity.

Well, then surely a free democracy provides freedom. Yeh … not so much. If we don’t have access to the money, the influence, the charisma, the popularity — we’re all stuck behind the fence, watching the “game”.

Education doesn’t even really pretend to achieve equity. It just shouts louder and louder, that it provides equal opportunity. Our education systems don’t care if you’re a fish, fowl, or ape — you will be judged on your ability to climb a tree. (as in the other, earlier cartoon)

The education system (the vast majority) doesn’t really care if you have a high EQ (emotional quotient), allowing you to understand, empathise, and get on well with others. No, you will probably be punished for talking when you’re supposed to be quiet. You will receive less positive attention from teachers, because you’re not particularly good at academics. IQ rules the world of education, because it fits the current system.

Ah … but surely we all have equal opportunity for economic success. Don’t we? Well, that is the fairy tale that we are all told — or sold. It is particularly the theme of all self-made, rags-to-riches success stories. Now, don’t get me wrong. Some people do overcome their innate and/or environmental challenges, and succeed. I genuinely honour them for that. However, that cannot be taken as a sign of equality, equity, or freedom for all within economics/business.

Yes, we are all “free” to participate in business. However, without equity, most of us will fail. Without equity, that participation is a false hope — a false freedom.

Let’s suppose you, or I am given freedom to play professional baseball/cricket at the highest level. However, our continued freedom to play depends on our performance in comparison to the pros around us. In such an instance, our freedom to play, merely exposes our inadequacies in this particular field. (pun intended)

It works exactly the same in the market place. Unless you’re good at the “game”, have the right skills and coaching, and possess the proper tools/kit — you will almost definitely fail.

Our “freedom” is, all too often, freedom to fail — due to lack of equity.

True freedom builds on human equality and shared equity, by means of freedom to participate.

Okay. I know this may seem pretty negative so far. Sorry, but I had to lay out the ground-work. I’ll be going further with this next week.

In the meantime, here are a couple of questions for positive, creative contemplation and action.

• How can I provide equity to others and/or myself?
  Yes — you can provide equity for yourself and others. How about beginning to explore ways to do this.
• Is there some way that we can claim true freedom, even in the absence of externally supplied equity?
  Yes — you can claim true freedom without externally supplied equity. Start to find ways to provide equity for yourself. This can be challenging, and goes against much of what we are taught. Next week’s article focuses primarily on this.

Now, here’s the thing. Other than those two very enthusiastically positive answers, I need to stop here. The next step is going to require an article of its own.

I will however give you a little teaser of where I’m going next, with this.

Next week, I’ll be writing about working with your “strengths and your weaknesses”.

Here’s another little teaser : — It may not go quite how you expect it to.

Thank you for reading. I know this was quite a bit heavier than my last few articles. I hope you’ll stick with it anyhow. I think it will be worth your while.

Please do clap, share, and comment. As always, thoughtful disagreement is just as welcome as agreement, or praise.