zlacker

>>pessim+(OP)
This is what affirmative action should be... helping people out based on their individual situation, not because their skin color or gender.

>>getmei+F5
> what affirmative action should be... helping people out based on their individual situation

Also, just helping them out. Nobody gets hurt. This isn't creating an allotment of seats for foster kids. The selection process, and thus odds, are the same for them and everyone else.

>>JumpCr+r7
This is exactly correct. Fairness and equality.

>>INGSOC+N9
Equality is very different than equity.

https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equal...

>>j45+La
> Equality is very different than equity

How old are these definitions?

I've only seen them used this way in public policy circles, and left-leaning ones at that. It's also totally discontinuous with the treatment of equality in classical literature.

Put another way, isn't equity just a masking term for top-to-bottom wealth transfers?

>>JumpCr+Fb
I think "Equity" was launched to the general public 2-3 years ago.

>>Burnin+sd
In 1968, H. George Frederickson articulated "a theory of social equity" and put it forward as the 'third pillar' of public administration.[4] Frederickson was concerned that those in public administration were making the mistake of assuming that citizen A is the same as citizen B; ignoring social and economic conditions.

Using the term launched, similar to how tech companies launch products, implies a conspiracy to bring this word to the public's attention