The problem with this graphics is that this is absolutely not what equity proponents are doing. What is shown here is individual approach. What equity supporters want to do is to group you according by things like skin color or gender, and provide support according that grouping.

For example, equality in income distribution is when help is given based on income of the individual. Equity is when help is given based on skin color to make average income of all skin colors the same.

[–] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

There's also a conflict of interest that informs these notions, namely that "equality," especially in the economic sense, the one that was invoked by MLK Jr and popular in the Civil Rights era, represents a threat to economic arrangements. Those same arrangements, like employers who purchase services from the diversity industry, inform the type of content that will be most marketable for diversity consultants. A company isn't going to invoke notions of these things that would impact their bottom line. That's why disparity frameworks are the most readily adopted by capital, because the arrangement of individuals in the system doesn't alter or threaten the position of capital. The inverse example of this notion of equity would be, "everyone should struggle for a decent job and quality of life equally." You can even bring this framework to the Antebellum south where, "if we had more black slave owners..."

So I always raise this "yes, and" approach to this subject matter, because it's in the history of this racial order where the more radical and satisfying answers to it are.