For this second post of the series, let's look at the terms "Equity" and "Equality". They seem more clearly distinct than the terms of our first post ("Complex VS Complicated"), but their use can prove just as subtle when choosing one or the other. It all started with a simple image that struck me:
But let's get back to the basics and unroll our analysis.
Etymology
- Equity: From Latin aequitas
- Equality: From Latin aequalitas
First surprise for these 2 words which seem so distinct to us: they share the same Latin root. Would their use therefore be more subtle than we think? Let's have a look.
Aequita is a derivative of aequalis, commonly translated as "equal" — it's the context where it's used that guides us to its deep meaning and makes us understand all the subtleties of this catch-all term.
- Time: "contemporary, …"
- Quality: "similar, alike, even, …"
- Measure: "of the same level, similar, …"
- Nature: "constant, invariable, uniform, …"
As an anecdote, Aequitas is itself a derivative of Aequo as in the expression "exaequo".
Definitions
Let's see what the current definitions of these terms give.
Equity
Disposition de l’esprit consistant à accorder à chacun ce qui lui est dû. Manière de résoudre les litiges qui consiste à reconnaître impartialement le droit de chacun, sans faire acception de personne et sans obéir à d’autres principes que ceux de la justice distributive. Source
Here we have notions of justice, of what is due, of dispute, of impartiality. That makes it a term heavy with meaning.
Equality
Qualité de ce qui est égal. Qualité de ce qui ne varie pas Source
Well, a little detour to know what they say about the term "equal" seems necessary.
Semblable soit en nombre, en quantité, soit en nature, en qualité. Semblable à lui-même, qui est toujours le même, qui ne présente pas d’inégalités. Personne qui a le même mérite, les mêmes droits, le même rang social qu’une ou plusieurs autres.
So a meaning easier to grasp and use.
Shedding light
Equality seems the simplest term to use, and it well is. Its practical application follows a simple logic, quick to set up. In our way of thinking, we'd relate that to the intuitive, reactive mode.
One might say that equity is preferable to equality, more fair, but not necessarily. Let's imagine a train is stuck, with its passengers, for several hours. The railway company offers compensation for this "lost" time. The first reflex would be to assign the same compensation to everyone, whereas equity could be to differentiate 1st and 2nd class. The former having paid more for their ticket.
Equity requires a work of observation, analysis and reflection far greater than equality. The cognitive, analytical mode of our brain. On top of that, the meaning of equity is not unique and uniform, everyone being able to have their own criteria and priorities to judge this notion. Equality shrugging off all these issues, it can become acceptable when time is short ... pending a better, more equitable solution.
Examples
Let's start with a simple example. The fuel discount at the pump that the government introduced for a while was perfectly egalitarian. Its replacement by a fuel voucher was, instead, equitable, being modulated according to a well-defined criterion.
In the mathematical field, equality in the arithmetic sense of the term is self-evident, but can equity venture there? Well, yes! It's an active research field, one of whose best representatives is the "Fair division" problem, where the whole issue is to find a way or algorithm for a division to be as equitable as possible. A simple resolution for 2 players is "I cut, you choose". But you can make the game more complex by adding players and why not different priorities. Does that sound abstract and not really useful to you? Then imagine the pickle it must have been to carve up Berlin between the Russians, Americans, British and French after the Second World War.
"Liberté Égalité Fraternité", the motto of the French Republic, includes the term "égalité"; one could wonder whether "équité" wouldn't be more appropriate, but one must not forget that it refers to equality before the law. An area where this term and its meaning are perfectly appropriate.
FAQ
Do these two terms exclude each other?
Distributing croissants with the rule "1 per person" is egalitarian while being equitable. So no, the 2 terms don't necessarily exclude each other.
Is their field of use the same?
As shown with the mathematics example, there is no field where equality or equity has no place; they often remain complementary.
Is the expression "That's not fair" relevant?
Children love this expression to express great frustration. However, they refer more to their morals facing a situation that seems unbalanced. The distinction between good and evil is a difficult exercise, which is why justice, with the laws, exists. So, in the way it is used, this expression is misleading, but remains relevant to make oneself understood.
Benefits
In projects in a complex environment, where reactivity is as essential as the right decisions, knowing how to distinguish equity from equality is indispensable. Challenging options that are too simplistic or too complicated is a precious skill. Your features will take on their full value if you manage to properly exploit the particularities of your personas (hoping the latter are as fair as possible). Your ability to deliver a quick answer by designing egalitarian solutions will let you get ahead of your competitors and satisfy your users.
Opening up
People often conflate equity and justice although there is a clear division between the two. Justice applies the law ... and nothing else. If a law is absurd or even immoral, it will be "just" to apply it. For example, for our spectators from the beginning of the article, justice would look more like this:
Laws are a set of rules, often written, imposed or not, shared by all members of the same community.
I alluded to morals when speaking of justice, and these two notions are much closer than one thinks. Morals are a set of rules, often oral or tacit, respected (by force or not). But unlike laws, they are extremely variable according to very many criteria (era, culture, religion, location, weather, ecological considerations, …). You may not have the same morals as your neighbor, but that doesn't prevent you from living side by side.
But that would deserve another full article of its own ...
