Equity, Equitist, Equitism
You can't debate a movement with no name—or a hundred names.
Egalitarianism vs Who-Knows-What
The titanic social struggle of our era pits those favoring equality (in its traditional sense) against those demanding “equity” (in a sense far from its traditional meaning). One who advocates equality is an egalitarian, and his philosophy is egalitarianism. One who advocates “equity” has no name—or has scores of names; the same is true of his philosophy. This asymmetry of nomenclature and the divergent meanings of “equity” put egalitarians at a powerful rhetorical disadvantage. For effective argumentation, egalitarians need to level the rhetorical playing field, and I believe the most efficient way of doing so is to refer to anti-egalitarians as “equitists” and to their philosophy as “equitism”—as we’ll do here.
Following is an excellent example of how equitists themselves distinguish egalitarianism from equitism:
“Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.”
Egalitarians aspire to equalize individual rights and opportunities, and perhaps to equalize ex post outcomes across individuals via social safety nets. Equitists, well-intentioned though they may be, pigeonhole people by immutable characteristics (race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, disability, etc.) and then seek to equalize average outcomes across groups. Someone in charge (an equitist, naturally) must devise a taxonomy of mankind, assign every individual to some cell in that taxonomy, rank each cell along something like an oppressor/oppressed spectrum, and then allocate rights, privileges, opportunities, and wealth among these cells.
Generally, egalitarians seek to define “equal” objectively (e.g., equal rights, opportunities, access to education, income), whereas equitism’s definitions of “equal” are subjective. Equitism is largely an outgrowth of Frankfurt School critical theory, which rejects the very notion of objectivity. (My “Equity-toonz: One Meme Is Worth a Thousand Pictures” explores how explanatory memes that equitists often employ can mislead readers—intentionally or not.)
The subjectivity of equitism can be seen in “antiracism” guru Ibram X. Kendi’s prescription:
“The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
In Kendi’s formulation, no metric can ever signal that equality (between groups) has arrived. Instead, there is never-ending retribution for ancestral sins, subjectively administered via an authoritarian “antiracist constitutional amendment.”
And yet, as odious as Kendi’s ideas may be, the absence of a word like “equitism” leaves egalitarians flailing. Kendi calls his version of equitism “antiracism,” allowing his enthusiasts to declare that if one is not antiracist, then logic dictates that one must be proracist. This false dichotomy forces egalitarians into convoluted, never-satisfying rebuttals. Declaring one’s opposition to “Kendian Equitism” would present no equivalent difficulties.
And “antiracism” is only one of many names an egalitarian must battle. As the artwork atop this essay shows, these interconnected doctrines have been called antiracism; wokeness; diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); critical race theory (CRT); environmental, social, and governance (ESG); postcolonialism; anticolonialism; social and emotional learning (SEL); safetyism; intersectionality; oppressor/oppressed; white fragility; identity Marxism; identity politics; fighting white privilege; postmodernism; identity synthesis; social justice; critical social justice; political correctness; progressivism; and more. All are closely related, but just different enough to sow confusion, accidentally or deliberately—e.g., “Antiracism is not the same thing as critical race theory, which is not the same as DEI.”
Sun Tzu said, “He who occupies the high ground will fight to advantage.” The absence of an umbrella term for these highly interrelated philosophies hands equitists the rhetorical high ground. The key to cleaning this Augean Stable of lexicon is recognizing that the revisionist definition of “equity” is the one common thread running through every one of these movements or concepts. This simple trio of terms—equity, equitist, equitism—can level that battlefield of ideas.
Name the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It
Many have commented on the absence or multiplicity of names for this anti-egalitarian tendency—and the rhetorical mire this shortcoming imposes on the whole egalitarianism-versus-whatever-you-happen-to-call-it-on-a-given-day debate. On the political right, Thomas Klingenstein said, “Rhetorically, our side is getting absolutely murdered … We have not even come up with an agreed-on name for the enemy.” In the center, Bari Weiss said, “[T]his new ideology doesn’t even like to be named.” On the left, Freddie DeBoer titled an essay (without asterisks), “Please Just F***ing Tell Me What Term I Am Allowed to Use for the Sweeping Political Changes You Demand,” adding, “You don't get to insist that no one talks about your political project and it's weak and pathetic that you think you do.”
Many have suggested names, but none has caught on. This is because an effective name must meet seven separate criteria—and no previously suggested options have checked all or even most of the seven boxes. Here are (1) the criteria; (2) examples of why current terms fail; and (3) why equity-equitist-equitism could succeed.
[1] FLEXIBILITY: There must be a trio of terms naming the aspiration, the advocate, and the philosophy.
If you call the philosophy “wokeness,” then who advocates it? Wokesters? Woke folk? Persons of the woke persuasion? They have no name.
With equity-equitist-equitism, one can say, “Someone who supports equity over equality is an equitist, and his philosophy is equitism.” All grammatical forms are available, and their interconnections are logical and intuitive.
[2] BREVITY: The trio must consist of simple, single, clearly related words.
“Critical race theory” demands three words and seven clunky syllables. Who is its advocate? “Critical race theorist” might describe academicians, but not activists. “Someone who subscribes to critical race theory” entails a mind-numbing seven words and thirteen syllables. “CRT” is brief but obscure.
In contrast, one can easily say, “He is an equitist,” rather than ponderous phrases like, “He is someone who supports the idea of equity over equality,” or the audience-euthanizing, “He is someone who supports equity, but I’m talking about the modern anti-egalitarian definition of equity, not the traditional definition.”
[3] BREADTH: The terms must be applicable to a broad swath of the many allied movements comprising this philosophy.
Enthusiasts swear (sometimes) that CRT is only a legal doctrine and not, say, the clearly derivative concepts taught in K-12 settings. ESG applies only to business investment. You need a term that covers all these related doctrines.
The re-engineered definition of “equity” is the common thread that connects all 21 movements listed above (along with others), and equitist-equitism follow suit. Does any other word fill this niche?
[4] COHESION: The quest for breadth must be offset by parameters that limit the philosophy to a focused topical range.
“Political correctness” may cover many equity doctrines, but it also incorporates lots of barely related concepts—etiquette, scientific doctrines, etc. Maybe SEL derives from postcolonialism, but applying the latter label to the former would likely stall the speaker in a futile argument over arcane lexical points.
Using equity-equitist-equitism limits the conversation to the notion of allocating rights, privileges, resources, and wealth across groups rather than across individuals. It leaves cultural tics and attitudes to other days.
[5] CLARITY: The trio must be sufficiently novel to insulate egalitarians from both innocent confusion and deliberate shenanigans.
To naive listeners, “I oppose Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (the doctrine) sounds exactly like “I oppose diversity, equity, and inclusion” (three separate, benign ideals). This can lead to confusion among thoughtful, well-intentioned listeners and speakers—and it allows some disingenuous “equity” enthusiasts to frustrate meaningful debate by means of motte-and-bailey rhetorical tactics (i.e., using a term that has two meanings—one controversial, and one not).
Equity-equitist-equitism quashes the motte-and-bailey problem. “Equitist” and “equitism” have no familiar, traditional meanings with which they can be easily confused—accidentally or purposefully. The word “equity” remains a problem, but one easily dealt with via scare quotes or quick clarifications like “equity, in the equitist sense.”
[6] FAMILIARITY: The trio must not be so novel as to be incomprehensible to those hearing them for the first time.
Yascha Mounk suggests that these doctrines be referred to together as, “identity synthesis.” But one would need a fairly comprehensive explanation before using such an expression. Terminology, like iPhones, should be usable without requiring an instruction booklet.
Someone who has never heard the terms equitist or equitism can intuitively sense their meanings by thinking about the obvious root word—equity.
[7] RESPECTABILITY: The terms must not be patently frivolous or insulting.
“Wokeness” is widely viewed as an insult and, to be honest, the word is usually invoked specifically to deliver scorn or insult. Yes, “woke” was once a self-description that seems to have originated with blues musician Huddie Ledbetter (a.k.a., Lead Belly), but there is always danger in outsiders trying to co-opt in-group slang.
“Equitist” and “equitism” have a staid, neutral vibe. Equity-equitist-equitism is precisely analogous to equality-egalitarian-egalitarianism. While some equitists will object to being called equitists, their complaint will seem more petty and unreasonable than their current objections to “wokeness” or “political correctness.”
Equity-equitist-equitism has an additional bonus virtue. Google Translate is able to translate all three into at least some other languages. (e.g., Equidad-equitista-equitismo for Spanish; Equité-equitiste-equitisme for French). Since these doctrines are debated internationally, this multilingual flexibility is important. This brings us to the following.
Equity-Equitist-Equitism as Self Description
Interestingly, one can find some (obscure) equitists on the Internet who have suggested calling their philosophy “equitism.” Billionaire entrepreneur Marc Lore aspires to build a visionary city (“Telosa”) based on a somewhat-related concept of “equitism;” Telosa’s website says, “Equitism is inclusive growth,” and speaks of the project’s “commitment to DEI” to be administered by a municipal DEI department. A group calling itself the Atlas Movement (of whom I know nothing) wrote:
“Equitism is the political, social, and economic doctrine promoting the idea that to maximize peoples’ well-being, society must ensure equitable rights and opportunities for all. In short, we want to systematically improve society by applying the value of Equity (from Aequitas, justice & fairness) to all its areas.”
There was also a 2022 opinion column in Ecuador’s El Heraldo: “La filosofía del equitismo” (“The Philosophy of Equitism”). Written by Guillermo Tapia Nicola, who calls himself a legal and political advisor to Ecuador’s National Assembly, here are some relevant passages (translated from Spanish):
“This endeavor … the result of everything that has happened in recent decades, is what has been called ‘Equitism,’ conceptualizing it as a new ideology for a new stage, which is supposed to guide political and social work. ... Then, talking about democratic equity, equity in vaccines, institutional equity, climate equity, or equity in matters of rights, and verifying the actions that are actually taking place on these issues, will no longer sound strange to the ears ... Ultimately, the effort and determination put in by those agents of change, promoters of equitism, could well give us a spark of hope, two years after the pandemic ... In short, it is about maintaining the audacity of those actions that provide balance, and it is only matched by the audacity of that new vision and philosophy. Equitism.”
I agree with these writers. The movement they describe should have a name, acceptable to honorable advocates and adversaries alike, and I believe the best option lies in equity-equitist-equitism.” Apply these words to the proponents of “equity” and to their philosophy, and let the real debates begin—on level ground, at last.
We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.
The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism or its employees.
In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diversity of voices and encouraging compassionate and good-faith discourse.
We are actively seeking other perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day inspired me to ask myself how would Dr. King view DEI. To answer this question, I researched the ideas of Dr. King and W.E.B Dubois (co-founder of the NAACP), and found that both of them supported the concept E.M.C. – Equality of Opportunity, Merit, and Colorblindness. The principles were further supplemented and enhanced by Dr. King’s statement: “The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education.” DEI principles irreconcilably conflict with Dr. King’s EMC principles.
Firstly, “inclusion” is surplusage because it is already subsumed in the meaning of diversity. Diversity is already ‘baked in’ to all of our antidiscrimination laws; and no attorney would recognize the term ‘equity’ as the DEI proponents use it.
Equity as defined in D.E.I. means equal outcomes without equal effort, achievement or merit. DEI is divisive, disruptive, and racist. Equity promoted by DEI has become the antithesis of E.M.C. and all of Dr. King’s principles. DEI calls for color recognition and accordingly segregation, not colorblindness. It divides people into victim and oppressor by race, rather than the content of their character.
DEI perfectly embodies the words of George Orwell in Animal Farm: “Some animals are more equal than others”. It rejects two hundred years of progress, which progress is unlike any other nation’s. We need to be drawn together, not torn apart. In the words of Dr. King: “We may have all come on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.” We need to reject the destructive and negative arc of DEI and return to the values of Dr. King – Equal Opportunity, Merit, and Colorblindness.
To digress momentarily, the Roman Republic was destroyed not by an invading force, but from within. In order to stop the potential tyranny embodied in Julius Caesar’s desire to be dictator for life, thereby making all law arbitrary, a group of Senators arbitrarily and without regard to law assassinated Julius Caesar on the floor of the Senate. Civil war followed, and Rome became an empire ruled by despots.
The principles behind DEI are that to fight racism we must become racists. To abandon equality of opportunity in favor of meritless, effortless equal outcomes coupled with reverting to judging students and people by the color of their skin, mimics the flawed reasoning of the Roman Senators.
I believe that if we all applied critical thinking to DEI and EMC that we would all decide to re-embrace Dr. King in policy and in action, instead of DEI’s empty and perilous policies of meritless promotions and the divisive and invidious advancement of racism.
Secondly, apart from the fact that DEI is racist, divisive, and destructive, DEI also fails when examined from a philosophical or logical perspective. DEI divides our culture into two separate and irreconcilable philosophical paths - those who embrace feelings as the sole influencer of their actions, and those who embrace logic and critical thinking as the dominant force in their decision making.
In the words of a prominent TV producer (a proponent of feelings over reason and logic): “facts are not important, it is the story that matters”. On the other hand, Socrates (a proponent of reason and logic) stated: “I cannot teach you anything, I can only make you think.” Prior to DEI, the Socratic Method was the norm and was the preferred method of pedagogy in Law Schools (where the art of critical thinking once reigned supreme). These two philosophies could not be more different. The crux of the matter is that feelings are subjective while logic and reason are objective.
Feelings have no standards for gauging conduct, as they are ephemeral, mercurial, and chemically driven in the brain (adrenaline, cortisol, dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, and endorphins). Reason and logic as a matter of definition have objective standards, originate in a different part of the brain, and are immutable.
Objective standards mean that the world is on notice of what conduct is expected of each of us. Subjective standards, on the other hand, are a canard as they actually are not standards at all, for feelings cannot, by their nature, give advance notice of what conduct is expected of each of us. Guessing what emotions another might have in any situation is not a viable way to conduct social policy. Emotions are arbitrary and capricious, which, incidentally, is the ground for overruling an administrative agency's rulings. In law it means that no objective standard was applied by the judge.
Feelings, being short-lived and driven by primitive chemistry, are unpredictable, and therefore unreliable.
Reason on the other hand is long-lived (eternal), driven by logic, not by adrenaline, cortisol, dopamine, et al, and is, therefore, not only predictable, but foreseeable.
In sum, ruling by feelings is about power, ruling by reason is about order, and the application of justice is about order which, on a case by case basis, has been tempered by compassion (a singular feeling), while remembering that compassion is a zero sum equation. DEI is therefore only about power.
Thirdly, submitting to another’s feelings means that one is compelled to do as those people wish. In the context of DEI, it is both corrosive and bullying. In other words, the correctness of one’s behavior depends on the emotional whims of another whose feelings are entirely unknown until ‘offended’. One is then left with the conclusion that one can do nothing without first asking permission of the person who is demanding fealty to their feelings.
Being ruled by another’s emotions and being punished for not knowing them, is akin to punishing a person for violating an ex post facto law. One has no notice of what conduct is prohibited. Ex post facto means establishing a rule or law and prosecuting a person for his acts which were committed before the law came into existence; fittingly, this is specifically prohibited by the US Constitution.
With objective standards, one has the freedom to act without worrying whether someone else’s known or unknown emotional aversion to one’s actions will end in a legal or social prosecution. Objective standards (with due notice of them and an opportunity to defend against claims that we may have violated them, i.e. due process) put us all on notice of both acceptable and prohibited conduct; and they alert each of us that our personal emotions must tolerate those actions of others which fit within those objective standards, regardless of whether we emotionally agree with them. Objective standards of conduct governed by logic and reason are therefore the only true “safe spaces”.
Finally, compelled speech and compelled thought, accompanied by social and legal punishments as a consequence of failure to comply, have become the single greatest subversion of the educational system. The loss of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom to remain silent (See the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution) constitutes the key component of any autocracy.
DEI seeks to shut down these essential freedoms by compelling students and teachers to speak in only DEI approved language, while DEI administrators censor, punish, and ‘cancel’ anyone who chooses not to employ such language or who refuses to pledge to do so. We have drifted into primitive superstitions where we throw the virgin minds (and sometimes the bodies) of children into the volcano to appease the gods of ‘social justice’.
DEI ‘as the ruling paradigm’ cannot survive. Emotion may be a great engine of motivation, but it drives like a drunk on New Year’s Eve. Only reason and logic can take the wheel to drive us home safely.
In the words of Dr. King’s: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” Like any other self-destructive addiction, DEI only stops when we just say ‘No’.
Christopher Denton
Progressives play word games with everything. The Diversity in DEI is taken to mean diversity of skin color, diversity of sexuality or preferences, and homogeneity of political thought. This helps explain the absence of any conservatives or moderates, anyone slightly to the political right.
With DEI, Equity has been substituted for the word Equality because Equity means equal outcomes, not equal opportunity. This slight of hand which is not obvious to someone not immersed in the DEI culture allows DEI promoters to verbally side step any accountability for violating the Civil Rights Law of 1964 which prohibits racism in hiring practices. And that is exactly what they do under the cover of anti-racism, which is DEI sanctioned racism.
Inclusivity in DEI, sounds great, but there is no individual inclusivity, it’s all group based. You are not an individual and are expected to fit the DEI criteria and beliefs for your group.