Interesting we tackled this issue in 2008 at the San Francisco Department on the Status of Women when were developing out gender analysis guidelines. Here is what we came up with to explain the difference between Gender Equality and Gender Equity.
“It is also important to understand the difference between gender equality and gender equity. The terms are often used interchangeably, but they are not one and the same. Gender equality means that women and men enjoy the same status and conditions and have equal opportunities to realize their potential. It means giving boys and girls, women and men equal opportunities in the utilization of personal capabilities. Gender equity applies to the development of policies and the distribution of resources to differently situated women, e.g., race, class, immigration status, language, sexual orientation, disability, and other attributes. Equity accentuates fairness in process and result, recognizing differences and accommodating them to prevent the continuation of inequitable status quo. The goal of gender equity is to redress historic discrimination and ensure conditions that will enable women to achieve full equality with men, recognizing that the needs of women and men may differ. Gender equity works towards equality by leveling the playing field. Equity can be understood as the means, and equality as the end. Equity leads to equality.”
Thank you for a very interesting and useful discussion. As someone who worked in a Christian faith-based development NGO for 25 years, and now coordinates a Masters programme for faith-based transformational development practitioners, justice, equity, equality are issues of deep relevance to me.
The quote from the San Francisco Department on the Status of Women provided by Ann Lehman gives us a helpful commentary on the interconnectedness between equity and equality. However, I would argue that success in achieving equity does not and cannot automatically lead to equality. What it can do is severely restrict the extent to which poverty and inequality is passed on from parent to child. And that is huge!
Wonder how an article like this written by two non-dominant culture (soon to be no longer) women would play out and if SSIR could publish stats on contributors’ backgrounds?
I was surprised to read the opening assertion that the field “is only recently beginning to explore what it (equity) really means”.
Although current equity conversations may be tied to specific and recent shifts in focus, I think it’s worth noting that that equity and cultural equity initiatives, along with related public conversations, have been trending on and off for some time.
The Association for Cultural Equity became a 501 C3 in 1983, San Francisco’s Cultural Equity Endowment Fund was established in November of 1993, and in 1972, after years of related work, UNESCO published the influential Appeal for Cultural Equity, arguing the right of every culture to express and develop its artistic heritage. Additionally, there have also been scores of related articles, studies, forums, and initiatives since.
While the current equity conversations are extremely important to help insure those with less power are not marginalized by those with more, it is also vital that we acknowledge and learn from previous efforts. By building on earlier work around cultural and arts equity, we stand a better chance of truly moving forward and ensuring that equity initiatives continue to be established, monitored, updated, and successfully implemented.
I really appreciate Dr. Yanique Redwood’s “definition” of the concept of equity because it calls into question the need or subtle assertion that a singular definition is necessary. By necessary I mean that it has to be defined in ways that meet the unwritten standards of “allowable social change” to be valid.
Fundamentally, the concept of equity cannot be an intellectual pursuit and be relevant, or useful, or truly valuable. It has to be actionable in order to have real meaning, because equity’s real meaning has to show up as real live changes in the life conditions of Black people and other people of color who have been intentionally, systematically marginalized throughout the history of this country. Core fundamentals of equity include acknowledgement of historical and contemporary manifestations of systemic racism, and the practical impacts of racist policies and practices in all of our lives. That is the first step. Second, there has to be an understanding that historically marginalized communities of color - Black people, Brown people, Indigenous Peoples, Asian people - have the right to decide how they will live. That’s right! Self-determination is also a key concept of equity. One must divorce themselves from the gut-level, bone-deep level belief that all people want to live and define success and thriving by what have come to be White standards.
I agree with the assertion that we haven’t lived in an equitable society so we don’t know what equity looks like. But I think we must come to appreciate equity by the processes we undergo to change our individual and organizational behaviors, and then we will be better able to imagine an equitable society and work to build it.
Thanks everyone for sharing your perspectives, resources and additional definitions. We certainly recognize and appreciate all of the many organizations that not only work to define equity, but to actively strive to achieve equity every day. This blog post reflects only the findings from interviews with a relatively small number of foundations - which was our charge in creating the report referenced in the post. And while we reviewed many definitions in our own background research, we reported only on the definitions that were mentioned in our conversations.
Neither the report nor the blog post could possibly include all of the current definitions of equity that are in play. And there are many valuable ones (for example, PolicyLink’s Equity Manifesto http://www.policylink.org/about/equity-manifesto). We look forward to learning more and continuing the conversation.
As with the meanings of all words, definitions change over time and no definition can ever be comprehensive. Unless you argued otherwise, it would be unfair for anyone to assume that you and Ms. Russell were making the case for an all-inclusive definition of equity. However, I do take issue with your assertion that “the field is only beginning to explore what it (equity) really means”. After all, struggles to define what equity means, and what it should look like, can often be traced back to some of the earliest campaigns for social justice.
I have been sitting on this post, the responses and the paper to which it references for a few weeks now. This conversation raises for me an array of emotions grounded in my identity as a black hetero woman and professional consultant who has worked in philanthropy for 20+ years. This duality has afforded me a weird mix of privilege and and an array of “isms.”
With all that as context, I hold as core “don’t let perfect get in the way of progress.” The fact that a national foundation invested in a scan of this sort is progress. The fact that more foundations are beginning to explore what equity means to them and their work is progress. The fact that SSIR published a post about this work is progress. The fact that a consultant (white and female) thought this was important enough to initiate conversation with SSIR earlier this summer (I was there) is progress. The fact that people are engaging in a conversation around what this paper says and doesn’t say is progress.
We all know it will take multiple paths and players to rewrite the policies and practices that privilege. So, let’s stay focused on end game.
As a person with “lived experience” in the worlds of poverty, homelessness, “suspect ethnicity” (“what are you?”), invisible disabilities, queerdom, non-Christian, and more and who has worked/volunteered in “social justice” programs for many years, I am assumed to be a straight, abled, WASP because I refuse to be a “token” by wearing my “identities” as a badge.
So I “pass” and frequently get marginalized, by my volunteer/work colleagues and by social service providers who are mostly “progressive” privileged, able, WASP folks in local government and NPOs. We lose many articulate and dedicated volunteers and alienate many clients due to these well-meaning, but rigidly “politically correct” people in power, in their constant pursuit of “diversity” (which often means tokenism and almost always means black even though Native Americans are homeless at higher percentages in our area).
The official organizational mandate for “Race and Social Justice” is equated with “Racial Equity” (nobody can answer what the “Social Justice” part is for) and “equity” only ever means prioritizing for (one) race. When LGBTQ inclusion or equity occasionally gets on the radar, everyone is clueless and that gets equated with “trans”, even though there are 10-30 times as many LGB as “T” in the U.S. and trans does NOT stand in for LGB well in looking at client experiences with providers and programs.
This means “equal treatment” or “to each according to their need” doesn’t happen—only “equitable” *outcomes* are sought…by any means necessary…even to the point of what, even the recipients sometimes admit, is favoritism. So what’s the difference between favoring one group over all others and discriminating against those other groups? The effect is the same…and it is NOT equitable.
We need a clearer, fairer implementation strategy and education for the people most likely to use the word “equity”.
Do you think that ensuring equal opportunity for all,
Regardless of race, class, gender, sexual preference, etc.,
Is the best way to give everyone the chance to reach their
Full potential? Although you have a 50% chance of flipping
coin and getting either heads or tails, that doesn’t mean
That flipping the coin 10 times will result in 5 heads and
5 tails. You couldn’t guarantee equal 50% results every time
Unless you force it and change the results. But perhaps
That’s a poor analogy? It makes sense to me, but it’s hard to
say for sure since there isn’t a clear and concise definition
of equity, at least not one that is universally accepted. What
are your thoughts?
The way I see it, equity must also mean that we are all allowed to speak out on issues according to our interpretation of them based on our personal and background experiences (diversity), as long as what we are saying is not injurious to others. Is it then not a breach of "equity" that I was canceled by "PATCH" Evanston, Illinois because I chastised our Democrat school boards for miss-educating many blacks and hispanics in Evanston, IL by passing them from one grade to the other unprepared (and this defies "equity") and eventually "graduating" them from high school, unprepared (also against equity)? And also for having closed during the 70s their beloved k-5 school that better prepared blacks and hispanics for middle and higher education, on arguments completely contrary to the definition of equity? Meaning white-only school parents would not allow their schools to be closed due to a reduction on student population? Isn’t this a perfect example of acting against all equity?
Some of these definitions sound almost exactly like Kirt Vonnegut’s short story ‘Harrison Bergeron.’ I’m having a hard time spotting differences between these definitions and that story other than the abductions.
Equity has more than one meaning. But a common use of the term is found in the Marriam-Webster Dictionary:
"2a: the money value of a property or of an interest in a property in excess of claims or liens against it
b: the common stock of a corporation
c: a risk interest or ownership right in property
d: a right, claim, or interest existing or valid in equity"
People in finance used this term all the time. It is a reference to the monetary value of something at a given time. The fact that this term is in any way being used in reference to people is quite disturbing.
You can make up any meaning you want, but the connotation will remain. This is a financial term.
E. Bomani Johnson failed to mention the tremendous way out of proportion, black on white, black on Hispanic, black on Asian, black on gay, black on cop, black on the elderly vicious, violent crime happening every day in America. Black privilege is the only true privilege in America today.
COMMENTS
BY Ann Lehman
ON September 15, 2016 02:02 PM
Interesting we tackled this issue in 2008 at the San Francisco Department on the Status of Women when were developing out gender analysis guidelines. Here is what we came up with to explain the difference between Gender Equality and Gender Equity.
“It is also important to understand the difference between gender equality and gender equity. The terms are often used interchangeably, but they are not one and the same. Gender equality means that women and men enjoy the same status and conditions and have equal opportunities to realize their potential. It means giving boys and girls, women and men equal opportunities in the utilization of personal capabilities. Gender equity applies to the development of policies and the distribution of resources to differently situated women, e.g., race, class, immigration status, language, sexual orientation, disability, and other attributes. Equity accentuates fairness in process and result, recognizing differences and accommodating them to prevent the continuation of inequitable status quo. The goal of gender equity is to redress historic discrimination and ensure conditions that will enable women to achieve full equality with men, recognizing that the needs of women and men may differ. Gender equity works towards equality by leveling the playing field. Equity can be understood as the means, and equality as the end. Equity leads to equality.”
BY Steve Bradbury
ON September 15, 2016 04:30 PM
Thank you for a very interesting and useful discussion. As someone who worked in a Christian faith-based development NGO for 25 years, and now coordinates a Masters programme for faith-based transformational development practitioners, justice, equity, equality are issues of deep relevance to me.
The quote from the San Francisco Department on the Status of Women provided by Ann Lehman gives us a helpful commentary on the interconnectedness between equity and equality. However, I would argue that success in achieving equity does not and cannot automatically lead to equality. What it can do is severely restrict the extent to which poverty and inequality is passed on from parent to child. And that is huge!
BY Hiroko kurihara
ON September 15, 2016 04:52 PM
Wonder how an article like this written by two non-dominant culture (soon to be no longer) women would play out and if SSIR could publish stats on contributors’ backgrounds?
BY Mario Davila
ON September 16, 2016 01:01 PM
I was surprised to read the opening assertion that the field “is only recently beginning to explore what it (equity) really means”.
Although current equity conversations may be tied to specific and recent shifts in focus, I think it’s worth noting that that equity and cultural equity initiatives, along with related public conversations, have been trending on and off for some time.
The Association for Cultural Equity became a 501 C3 in 1983, San Francisco’s Cultural Equity Endowment Fund was established in November of 1993, and in 1972, after years of related work, UNESCO published the influential Appeal for Cultural Equity, arguing the right of every culture to express and develop its artistic heritage. Additionally, there have also been scores of related articles, studies, forums, and initiatives since.
While the current equity conversations are extremely important to help insure those with less power are not marginalized by those with more, it is also vital that we acknowledge and learn from previous efforts. By building on earlier work around cultural and arts equity, we stand a better chance of truly moving forward and ensuring that equity initiatives continue to be established, monitored, updated, and successfully implemented.
Mario Davila, MA, CNP
Director of Arts Ed
BY E. Bomani Johnson
ON September 17, 2016 02:37 AM
I really appreciate Dr. Yanique Redwood’s “definition” of the concept of equity because it calls into question the need or subtle assertion that a singular definition is necessary. By necessary I mean that it has to be defined in ways that meet the unwritten standards of “allowable social change” to be valid.
Fundamentally, the concept of equity cannot be an intellectual pursuit and be relevant, or useful, or truly valuable. It has to be actionable in order to have real meaning, because equity’s real meaning has to show up as real live changes in the life conditions of Black people and other people of color who have been intentionally, systematically marginalized throughout the history of this country. Core fundamentals of equity include acknowledgement of historical and contemporary manifestations of systemic racism, and the practical impacts of racist policies and practices in all of our lives. That is the first step. Second, there has to be an understanding that historically marginalized communities of color - Black people, Brown people, Indigenous Peoples, Asian people - have the right to decide how they will live. That’s right! Self-determination is also a key concept of equity. One must divorce themselves from the gut-level, bone-deep level belief that all people want to live and define success and thriving by what have come to be White standards.
I agree with the assertion that we haven’t lived in an equitable society so we don’t know what equity looks like. But I think we must come to appreciate equity by the processes we undergo to change our individual and organizational behaviors, and then we will be better able to imagine an equitable society and work to build it.
BY Kris Putnam-Walkerly, Putnam Consulting Group
ON September 19, 2016 09:37 AM
Thanks everyone for sharing your perspectives, resources and additional definitions. We certainly recognize and appreciate all of the many organizations that not only work to define equity, but to actively strive to achieve equity every day. This blog post reflects only the findings from interviews with a relatively small number of foundations - which was our charge in creating the report referenced in the post. And while we reviewed many definitions in our own background research, we reported only on the definitions that were mentioned in our conversations.
Neither the report nor the blog post could possibly include all of the current definitions of equity that are in play. And there are many valuable ones (for example, PolicyLink’s Equity Manifesto http://www.policylink.org/about/equity-manifesto). We look forward to learning more and continuing the conversation.
BY Mario Davila
ON September 19, 2016 10:15 AM
Dear Ms. Putnam-Walkerly,
As with the meanings of all words, definitions change over time and no definition can ever be comprehensive. Unless you argued otherwise, it would be unfair for anyone to assume that you and Ms. Russell were making the case for an all-inclusive definition of equity. However, I do take issue with your assertion that “the field is only beginning to explore what it (equity) really means”. After all, struggles to define what equity means, and what it should look like, can often be traced back to some of the earliest campaigns for social justice.
In a speech given just last year, Jeff Chang, executive director of Stanford’s Institute for Diversity in the Arts (https://artsinachangingamerica.org/nyc-launch-highlight-the-call/), and in the recent article Making Sense of Cultural Equity (http://createquity.com/2016/08/making-sense-of-cultural-equity/), we see that passionate and thoughtful conversations around what equity means have been occurring for quite some time.
Best regards,
Mario Davila, MA, CNP
Director of Arts Ed
BY John Wilks
ON September 21, 2016 07:25 AM
Ask an Accountant and he’ll give you a completely different meaning.
BY Jara Dean-Coffey
ON October 3, 2016 09:11 AM
I have been sitting on this post, the responses and the paper to which it references for a few weeks now. This conversation raises for me an array of emotions grounded in my identity as a black hetero woman and professional consultant who has worked in philanthropy for 20+ years. This duality has afforded me a weird mix of privilege and and an array of “isms.”
With all that as context, I hold as core “don’t let perfect get in the way of progress.” The fact that a national foundation invested in a scan of this sort is progress. The fact that more foundations are beginning to explore what equity means to them and their work is progress. The fact that SSIR published a post about this work is progress. The fact that a consultant (white and female) thought this was important enough to initiate conversation with SSIR earlier this summer (I was there) is progress. The fact that people are engaging in a conversation around what this paper says and doesn’t say is progress.
We all know it will take multiple paths and players to rewrite the policies and practices that privilege. So, let’s stay focused on end game.
BY Gadfly
ON July 10, 2019 08:10 PM
As a person with “lived experience” in the worlds of poverty, homelessness, “suspect ethnicity” (“what are you?”), invisible disabilities, queerdom, non-Christian, and more and who has worked/volunteered in “social justice” programs for many years, I am assumed to be a straight, abled, WASP because I refuse to be a “token” by wearing my “identities” as a badge.
So I “pass” and frequently get marginalized, by my volunteer/work colleagues and by social service providers who are mostly “progressive” privileged, able, WASP folks in local government and NPOs. We lose many articulate and dedicated volunteers and alienate many clients due to these well-meaning, but rigidly “politically correct” people in power, in their constant pursuit of “diversity” (which often means tokenism and almost always means black even though Native Americans are homeless at higher percentages in our area).
The official organizational mandate for “Race and Social Justice” is equated with “Racial Equity” (nobody can answer what the “Social Justice” part is for) and “equity” only ever means prioritizing for (one) race. When LGBTQ inclusion or equity occasionally gets on the radar, everyone is clueless and that gets equated with “trans”, even though there are 10-30 times as many LGB as “T” in the U.S. and trans does NOT stand in for LGB well in looking at client experiences with providers and programs.
This means “equal treatment” or “to each according to their need” doesn’t happen—only “equitable” *outcomes* are sought…by any means necessary…even to the point of what, even the recipients sometimes admit, is favoritism. So what’s the difference between favoring one group over all others and discriminating against those other groups? The effect is the same…and it is NOT equitable.
We need a clearer, fairer implementation strategy and education for the people most likely to use the word “equity”.
BY Andie
ON July 26, 2020 07:06 AM
Do you think that ensuring equal opportunity for all,
Regardless of race, class, gender, sexual preference, etc.,
Is the best way to give everyone the chance to reach their
Full potential? Although you have a 50% chance of flipping
coin and getting either heads or tails, that doesn’t mean
That flipping the coin 10 times will result in 5 heads and
5 tails. You couldn’t guarantee equal 50% results every time
Unless you force it and change the results. But perhaps
That’s a poor analogy? It makes sense to me, but it’s hard to
say for sure since there isn’t a clear and concise definition
of equity, at least not one that is universally accepted. What
are your thoughts?
BY Margo Hill
ON June 4, 2021 12:26 PM
The way I see it, equity must also mean that we are all allowed to speak out on issues according to our interpretation of them based on our personal and background experiences (diversity), as long as what we are saying is not injurious to others. Is it then not a breach of "equity" that I was canceled by "PATCH" Evanston, Illinois because I chastised our Democrat school boards for miss-educating many blacks and hispanics in Evanston, IL by passing them from one grade to the other unprepared (and this defies "equity") and eventually "graduating" them from high school, unprepared (also against equity)? And also for having closed during the 70s their beloved k-5 school that better prepared blacks and hispanics for middle and higher education, on arguments completely contrary to the definition of equity? Meaning white-only school parents would not allow their schools to be closed due to a reduction on student population? Isn’t this a perfect example of acting against all equity?
BY Nathan Slocum
ON June 18, 2021 05:10 PM
Some of these definitions sound almost exactly like Kirt Vonnegut’s short story ‘Harrison Bergeron.’ I’m having a hard time spotting differences between these definitions and that story other than the abductions.
BY Stephanie Bohrman
ON June 29, 2021 10:38 PM
Equity has more than one meaning. But a common use of the term is found in the Marriam-Webster Dictionary:
"2a: the money value of a property or of an interest in a property in excess of claims or liens against it
b: the common stock of a corporation
c: a risk interest or ownership right in property
d: a right, claim, or interest existing or valid in equity"
People in finance used this term all the time. It is a reference to the monetary value of something at a given time. The fact that this term is in any way being used in reference to people is quite disturbing.
You can make up any meaning you want, but the connotation will remain. This is a financial term.
BY Randall Holmes
ON October 13, 2021 09:04 PM
E. Bomani Johnson failed to mention the tremendous way out of proportion, black on white, black on Hispanic, black on Asian, black on gay, black on cop, black on the elderly vicious, violent crime happening every day in America. Black privilege is the only true privilege in America today.
BY damon
ON December 9, 2021 06:18 PM
This is equity.