The Injustice of “Equity”

With a twist...

The subject of “Equity” has been on my mind a lot these past few weeks.  It has come up regarding the current Paris Olympics.  This is the first Olympics in history  which has  gender parity.  It also has a record number (193) of LGBTQ athletes.  It had three Drag Queen Torchbearers and a controversial Drag Queen tableau that was similar to DaVinci’s Last Supper.  Female boxers were pummeled, some say dangerously,  by opponents of questionable biology.  It seems as though social justice has overtaken the stage from athletic excellence.

At least the current Olympics has been spared, for the most part, the topic of unfair advantage of sex over gender that has plagued athletics in non-Olympic competition.  Women’s Cycling, Swimming, Basketball and Volleyball all have had significant controversies because of “trans women” dominating the sport.  Although many claim “transwomen are women” and should be allowed to participate as women, it is interesting that there is no counterpart with “transmen” competing in men’s sports.  Doesn’t that seem a bit strange?  If there is no biological component in sports and it is all about gender and not sex, where are the transmen?

But it is not just in athletics that equity has become front and center.  An article in a major medical publication has decried “ableism” and urged that, in the name of equity, physicians with mental, emotional, physical or cognitive disabilities be given the necessary accommodations to allow them to practice and retain their “well-being”. 

There is a common thread in both these situations:  In athletics, “non trans women”, some of whom have trained hard for most of their lives to follow their dream, are expected to forget about their own “equity” in the interest of others. In medicine, where is the “equity” for the patient?  Do they have a say in who will treat them and what level of performance to which their physician is subject?  Apparently not.  Patients are there to insure the equity of the physician. Some bizarre twist on the Hippocratic Oath…

While we are at it, maybe we need to address “ableism” in athletics!  Fifty years ago I was a competitive fencer.  I also had dreams of one day competing in the Olympics.  Unfortunately, I was not that good.  Should “accommodations” have been given to me so that I could also have had the Olympic experience?  Maybe I could have started the bout with 4 touches against my competitors.  Or my epee could have been 6 inches longer or that of my opponent 6 inches shorter. Or both! Or maybe if they were really good, they should have been forced to hop on one leg.

What exactly is “equity” anyay?  Kamala Harris recently explained it:

So there’s a big difference between equality and equity. Equality suggests, “oh everyone should get the same amount.” The problem with that, not everybody’s starting out from the same place. So if we’re all getting the same amount, but you started out back there and I started out over here, we could get the same amount, but you’re still going to be that far back behind me. It’s about giving people the resources and the support they need, so that everyone can be on equal footing, and then compete on equal footing. Equitable treatment means we all end up in the same place.

If we all should end up at the same place, what is the point of The Olympics or any athletic contest??  Why do we watch football? Hard work and excellence have absolutely no meaning.  Moreover, genetic and physiologic characteristics are unfair.  If one is just naturally faster or stronger, should they be penalized so we could all compete on the equal footing emphasized by Kamala Harris?

Then it hit me: absolute equity IS ultimately possible for everyone because of One Man. 

He described it this way:

A landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard.  He agreed to pay them $100 for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right. So they went.

“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received $100. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received $100. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner.  ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for $100? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

My point is NOT to urge that “equity” be the measure of our human actions. Whether or not it has any place is debatable. For sure, it should not be a part of athletic contests and it certainly has no part in how physicians are treated. It is not “just” nor “fair” and should never be represented as such. 

Far from it.  My point is that we should be exceedingly thankfully that when it actually counts, we are NOT treated justly nor fairly.  We do NOT get what we deserve, but we are given a gift of true equity. We can indeed all end up at the same place, but it is not automatic.  We must be thankful and accept the gift.  And that, unfortunately, is too difficult for many because pride gets in the way.