Opportunity Implies Equity
The topic of equality continues to be an important political topic for both conservatives and liberals. Conservatives tend to believe in “equal opportunity” where liberals believe in “equal results”. In reality these are two sides of the same equality coin. To avoid this confusion, the modern liberal has dropped using the term equality and has replaced it with equity. Ibram X. Kendi explains:
Racial inequity is when two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing. Here’s an example of racial inequity: 71 percent of White families lived in owner-occupied homes in 2014, compared to 45 percent of Latinx families and 41 percent of Black families. Racial equity is when two or more racial groups are standing on a relatively equal footing. An example of racial equity would be if there were relatively equitable percentages of all three racial groups living in owner-occupied homes in the forties, seventies, or, better, nineties.
We can clearly see that equity in this context is equality of outcome. However, I will argue that equality of opportunity implies equality of outcome. The Equal Opportunity Employment Coordinating Council at least implicity understands this:
A selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact. Smaller differences in selection rate may nevertheless constitute adverse impact, where they are significant in both statistical and practical terms or where a user's actions have discouraged applicants disproportionately on grounds of race, sex, or ethnic group. Greater differences in selection rate may not constitute adverse impact where the differences are based on small numbers and are not statistically significant, or where special recruiting or other programs cause the pool of minority or female candidates to be atypical of the normal pool of applicants from that group. Where the user's evidence concerning the impact of a selection procedure indicates adverse impact but is based upon numbers which are too small to be reliable, evidence concerning the impact of the procedure over a longer period of time and/or evidence concerning the impact which the selection procedure had when used in the same manner in similar circumstances elsewhere may be considered in determining adverse impact. Where the user has not maintained data on adverse impact as required by the documentation section of applicable guidelines, the Federal enforcement agencies may draw an inference of adverse impact of the selection process from the failure of the user to maintain such data, if the user has an underutilization of a group in the job category, as compared to the group's representation in the relevant labor market or, in the case of jobs filled from within, the applicable work force.
I intend to prove that the implicit understanding of the EEOC is correct. In order to accomplish that, we must first define opportunity. An opportunity is a “set of circumstances that makes it possible to accomplish a goal”. More formally, let O be the opportunity set where O = {x | x ∈ C} where C = {y | y is a circumstance necessary to accomplish goal g}. For example take the goal “to get 100% on an exam” (for the sake of argument, we are assuming that every student has the same goal) and let the opportunity set for this goal be {hours studied, text book, IQ, computer}. This is not an exhaustive list of all the relevant circumstances of getting every question correct on an exam, but it will illustrate the point. Now if any student works weekends, cannot afford the text book, lacks access to a computer or just is not as smart as the other students, then the opportunity is not equal, which is to say that this particular student does not have the same capability of accomplishing the goal of getting 100% on the exam. If, on the other hand, all students had the same set of circumstances, then all students would earn the same grade. This can be generalized for any goal.
Equal opportunity and equal results are really two sides of the same coin. Equality does not exist among individuals or populations in any measurable empirical manner, but this does not mean that we should not strive for more opportunity or more equity. A more charitable interpretation of “equal opportunity” may be focused on a much more limited set of circumstances, such as political barriers to entry. In a limited way we can increase opportunities thus giving individuals a greater ability to achieve their goals.