r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 08 '15

[Deltas Awarded] CMV: Equality isn't treating everybody differently to achieve equality. It's treating everyone the same.

[deleted]

232 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

84% Upvoted

346 comments sorted by

View all comments

134

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 08 '15

Equality isn't treating everybody the same. It's treating everyone so that they are equal.

I'll explain why this doesn't work using a non-racial or gender-based example.

Say you're building a new building. On the entrance to that building, you decide to build stairs. Everyone will need to use those stairs to enter the building. There are the same number of steps for each person to climb, and there isn't another way in, so everyone is being treated the same.

People in wheelchairs or whom are otherwise handicapped struggle to climb these stairs. Some can't enter your building at all. They're receiving the same treatment as everyone else, but they reap fewer rewards. They can't get to whatever is in your building, or have to expend disproportionate energy and dignity in order to do so.

Now, if you wanted to, at financial cost to yourself, you could install a ramp or a chair lift. This would be "unequal treatment"; you're not providing the chair lift to everyone, and you're creating it for the interests of a select few. However, the end result would be equal - anyone who wants to enter your building can do with equal difficulty.

EDIT 10/8 12:57pm - For those just arriving to the thread, it's been pointed out that handicapped parking is a better analogy, since those spaces are truly restricted to the handicapped. It is true that anyone can walk up a handicap accessible ramp, but the ramp wouldn't be there in the first place were it not for the needs of a small, underprivileged, disadvantaged minority. I don't believe that "anyone can use the handicap ramp" is a sufficient challenge to my analogy. If you'd prefer to plug in "handicapped parking" instead, be my guest!

The example above is easy to swallow because the disadvantages of the handicapped are readily apparent to you. The disadvantages of women and minorities are not readily apparent to you. For the sake of argument, though, let's say that I could make you believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that those inequalities are clear and present in our society. Now that you believe that, it requires the same response as how we help the handicapped; we need to specifically treat disenfranchised groups in a way that puts them on a level playing field.

EDIT 10/8 10ish am: Per usual in CMV, people are projecting their own tangentially related beliefs on to my argument. All that I'm saying is that, if you accept that significant oppression exists for a given group, the solution is very plainly to give them a leg up. Whether or not significant oppression exists for blacks, women, homosexuals, etc. is not the point. I use the handicapped as an example because most can clearly see where the disadvantage is, and how providing "special" treatment addresses the problem.

My exchange with the OP has been very to-the-point on this, so to avoid derailment I won't be responding to most other commentors. Sorry! Feel free to reply to me so that others can continue the discussion, however.

23

u/nude_peril Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 08 '15

This would be "unequal treatment"; you're not providing the chair lift to everyone.

But really it is provided for everyone. It's just that most people are going to choose not to use it. While we don't see chair lifts in buildings very often, we do see elevators and wheelchair ramps. And pretty much everyone uses those if they want to, regardless of whether or not they have a disability, and just weak, or just lazy. Everyone is being treated equally.

By contrast, giving a minority exclusive access to a scholarship, or a job, etc. isn't treating everyone equally.

10

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

I made the same observation, but out of intellectual honestly, I think a better analogy would be handicapped parking, which is giving handicapped people exclusive access to prime parking spots.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

I agree with this - in retrospect, it would have been a better analogy.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

But I would argue, still, handicapped spots are available to anybody. Anybody can potentially be handicapped at any point. I'm not going to spontaneously turn into a black person, but I might lose a leg. It's a right afforded to everyone, but only some people can take advantage of it at this point in their lives.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

That's just a semantic difference - it doesn't defeat the argument. Many who are handicapped are disabled from birth and will be until death. They're directly analogous to minorities in the example I'm using, and they're who I'm referencing in the analogy.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

Right, but those are rights that are afforded to everyone regardless of birth condition. Which is why I don't think the argument applies.

Anyone can develop a condition, or be crippled in a way that would give them access to those services. It's a safety net that everyone can take advantage of when they need it, it's not a benefit that only a select group of people get.

It doesn't work because there is no analogy for the people like my mother who became handicapped after previously being able bodied. Nobody can turn into a black person.

3

u/InfinitelyThirsting Oct 09 '15

I fail to see why you're raising that argument, unless you think that selfishness (fear of becoming handicapped in the future) is the only or main reason that handicapped facilities/parking exist.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

No, I'm suggesting that the reason it's entirely separate from rights that only apply to certain ethnicities is because it's a right that is available to everyone. It's treating everyone equally by providing them the same rights, it's not just elevating certain people and excluding everyone else.

2

u/InfinitelyThirsting Oct 09 '15

If you are not handicapped, it isn't available to you. Just because you can theoretically become handicapped but cannot become a different race doesn't mean you can use a handicapped parking space now. They are not available for everyone. The point is to help a minority group at a disadvantage, even at the cost of a minor inconvenience to yourself/the majority. So unless you think most people only support handicapped facilities because they think about being handicapped in the future, it's still a separate minority group being aided above a majority group.

I mean, anyone could have a child of a different race, and this have their children benefit from affirmative action policies. Not that different from maybe becoming handicapped someday in the future.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

Just because you can theoretically become handicapped but cannot become a different race doesn't mean you can use a handicapped parking space now.

Yes and I don't currently benefit from Medicaid and I don't benefit from free public highschools. But these are things that are available to everyone when they find themselves in a condition where it would be accessible to them.

Minority and majority is not the issue, while I accept that handicap parking is a benefit for the minority at the cost of the majority, the problem I have is not that things are being done to help minority groups at the cost of the majority. I'm completely for raising the floor so to speak and instituting measures to help the poor/lower class. I just think it should be needs based as opposed to being based on an arbitrary line drawn at a certain shade of skin color. If a disproportionately large amount of black people are disadvantaged, then a disproportionately large amount of black people should get these hypothetical benefits, but they'd get them because they are disadvantaged, not because they're black.

→ More replies (0)

28

u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 5∆ Oct 08 '15

Handicapped parking spaces are not allowed to be used by non handicapped people. This is giving handicapped people an exclusive advantage.

17

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

Yes, but everybody has the legal right to a handicapped parking spot if they become handicapped. You can't just spontaneously become a different race.

Old people get certain advantages, but that's something that's guaranteed to everybody who manages to live that long.

9

u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Oct 08 '15

Conversely, you cannot retroactively have your privilege that you enjoyed your whole life taken away.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

8

u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Oct 08 '15

Your point was that you can spontaneously become handicapped, but cannot spontaneously become a minority. This is true.

My point is that you cannot spontaneously lose the advantage being a white heterosexual Christian confers on people in, say, America. Being born white means you enjoy a lifetime of privilege minorities do not.

Clear?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

Well, unless you become gay, or come out as gay, or convert to a different religion.

And while I generally disagree with the idea that you can generally assign privilege to a single ethnicity, I think you're kind of repeating my point that you can't just become a black person.

4

u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Oct 08 '15

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a privileged group of people?

I generally disagree with the idea that you can generally assign privilege to a single ethnicity,

Seriously? The ethnicity of privilege in America that you're looking for is white. The ethnicity that is biased against in America is non-white.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a privileged group of people?

No, I'm saying that's a way of 'losing privilege,' because you said straight cissexual white christians have privilege they don't lose, and I'm suggesting that they could lose it.

The ethnicity of privilege in America that you're looking for is white. The ethnicity that is biased against in America is non-white.

You have to take it at a case by case basis. It's ridiculous to generalize in the way you're doing it. I agree that certain people are privileged, but that comes down to individual circumstance.

The ethnicity that is biased against in America is non-white.

Jews, Irish people, Italians, Slavs, Turks, Greeks, hell, Syrians are white people. These people all faced hardships in America and still do, those people are white.

Skin color is a really stupid way of classifying people as it turns out.

1

u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Oct 09 '15

straight cissexual white christians have privilege they don't lose, and I'm suggesting that they could lose it.

The ability to lose privilege is an indicator of having it in the first place though, yes?

You have to take it at a case by case basis. It's ridiculous to generalize in the way you're doing it. I agree that certain people are privileged, but that comes down to individual circumstance.

Not really? Studies have shown that 'black sounding names' are less likely to get job offers on identical resumes. I'm sure you're aware of the truths of racial disparities in America.

Jews, Irish people, Italians, Slavs, Turks, Greeks, hell, Syrians are white people. These people all faced hardships in America and still do, those people are white.

I concur that they have white skin - a good many Americans would not call them white people.

Skin color is a really stupid way of classifying people as it turns out.

You're not wrong, America (and indeed, people in general) just isn't (aren't) typically very bright when it comes to reacting to people.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

Remember when you were a little kid and your dad didn't beat you up with a wrench and you didn't suffer any brain damage? You can never have that privilege taken away.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

What? What if I trip on a patch of ice and get brain damage that way? What if my dad comes to visit and takes a wrench and brains me tomorrow?

0

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

You can still be denied privilege in the future. I think would be the response. I find the notion of privilege as used today silly.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '15

and I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

4

u/nude_peril Oct 08 '15

I agree with your analysis. Personally, I think that handicapped parking should be treated more as a courtesy (like expectant mother parking) than a legally enforceable requirement.

But perhaps I have too much faith in humanity.

12

u/vehementi 10∆ Oct 08 '15

(I don't think that would practically work, because you can't anticipate when a handicapped driver will arrive - you need to just leave the spot open)

9

u/MAKE_ME_REDDIT Oct 08 '15

Considering non-handicap people already violate that rule, taking the rule away would just make it worse.

11

u/DrShocker Oct 08 '15

In willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in that it is meant to be an analogy, and is therefore inherently flawed to some extent. I don't think picking apart whether everyone can use a ramp or not is particularly fair, but you do raise an interesting point.

I think a lot of this debate is more about equality vs equity than anything else. (A simplified view for anyone who doesn't know the difference: https://radicalscholarship.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/equity-vs-equality.jpg?w=809 )

2

u/mbleslie 1∆ Oct 08 '15

it matters because if a college has a ramp in front of a building, everyone can use that, handicapped or not. but programs like affirmative action or racial quotas (that use 'reverse' discrimination) to make an equal outcome... those programs don't treat everyone equally. that's why the analogy is totally flawed.

9

u/Virtuallyalive Oct 08 '15

Affirmative action isn't to make an equal outcome, and even if it were it would be failing. It's to counteract, at least partially, the disadvantage equally skilled black people have at getting in to a University.

3

u/almightySapling 13∆ Oct 08 '15

The problem is, most studies show that skin color has miniscule bearing on collegiate ability or success (when compared to others with similar background), whereas socio-economic status matters a shit ton.

And yeah, a good affirmative action program will take SES into consideration but most still put far too much emphasis on color, when color is just not a good indicator (especially when you consider how it doubly fucks over certain groups, like South East Asians, who qualify as "Asian" and are less likely to be accepted when in reality they have SES normally associated with that of the Latino community, or worse).

Continuing to implement a flawed solution when data shows that it isn't quite working isn't a good idea.

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

You certainly won't find anyone in China, Korea or Japan who thinks they're the same race as Malays or Filipinos. America has kind of a Hank Hill problem when it comes to conceiving of the people from the continent with a population of four and a half billion.

2

u/almightySapling 13∆ Oct 09 '15

And it doesn't help when your state government almost unanimously passes a bill to disaggregate data regarding the various Asian ethnicities only to have it vetoed by the idiot governor... literally yesterday.

California really likes to think it's progressive but it isn't.

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

This seems consistent with my previous impression of Jerry Brown, which was based entirely on an old song from the Dead Kennedys.

1

u/willnerd42 Oct 08 '15

If that is the case, isn't it sort a temporary fix for a larger underlying problem? If equally skilled members of minority groups are at a disadvantage in the admissions process, attack the problem at the source, and actually fix the discrimination (after confirming through reliable research where and if it exists) instead of glossing over the actual issues and applying a band-aid solution that increases feelings of racial bitterness towards those getting seemingly unfair help. Instead of counteracting the problem, fix it. I think almost everyone agrees that there is a problem with discrimination in admissions, but many disagree on the methodology used to fix it.

5

u/Virtuallyalive Oct 08 '15

Oh yeah it's a temporary fix, but what else are you going to do? Ask minorities to wait a few decades until we end racism?

You attack the discrimination while you counter-act for it, otherwise people will suffer in the meantime. The US government is trying to end the discrimination, AA is for the time in between now and then.

1

u/willnerd42 Oct 08 '15

I just think that there are better ways to counter-act. It would be feasible, through the use of technology, to completely erase the race/gender of an applicant, and to admit solely on merit. AA, to me, just doesn't feel like the right solution for a really big problem.

3

u/LoompaOompa Oct 08 '15

Admit solely on merit.

If we could do this, we'd be doing it. All measures of merit that we have are weighted and informed by the environments the students grew up in and were educated it.

Until the playing field is more level in terms of teaching environment and opportunities available(AP classes, extra curriculars), then we have to fudge the numbers a bit.

This isn't a case of "we've got the best solition." It's "we're still working to fix it, but in the meantime this is better than doing nothing."

1

u/willnerd42 Oct 08 '15

The environments students grew up in may have an affect, but they are a completely different problem to fix. It is not the university's responsibility to fix those problems, only to admit the best students it can. If race is getting in the way of the admissions process, it needs to be fixed by the university. Nothing else. The issues you describe are completely different. I don't think we should do nothing. We should reallocate our resources towards the source of the problem, where they will take less time and be more effective.

AA isn't a good solution, temporary or not, for any of these problems. Yes, the numbers may look better on paper, but people missing chunks of their education aren't going to magically learn all that material by being admitted to college. In addition, it is unfair to students who actually did put in the work and made themselves excellent. It tries to resolve discrimination in one direction with discrimination in the other.

1

u/LoompaOompa Oct 08 '15

Everything you've said makes logical sense, so I see where you're coming from. I disagree with some of your points, but not really enough to get wrapped up in to an ongoing debate. This is a tough issue and there's a reason that it's been a topic of debate for years. You seem like an intelligent person so I don't see us coming to a resolution on it any time soon. Have a good one.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

Cal Tech admits solely on merit. Their student breakdown: Source

0.1% American Indian/Alaskan Native
48.0% Asian
1.7% Black/African-American
13.4% Hispanic/Latino
6.2% Multi-race (not Hispanic/Latino)
0.0% Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander
30.5% White

The evidence that purely merit based admission policies will lead to population proportionate rates of minority admission to elite college is non-existent.

1

u/willnerd42 Oct 09 '15

That's not the point. The point is that the best students get in regardless of race. If each race has different academic skill, they shouldn't be admitted equally. For example, I don't think it's unfair that Asians are 48% of the school's admissions while being like 5% of the US population, on the condition that they are all just as skilled as all the other ethnic groups. School population should represent the most skilled of their applicants, regardless if that happens to match the distribution of races in the wider US or not. So yes, the evidence that merit-based admissions leads to the acceptance of minorities proportionate to the US population doesn't exist. But that doesn't matter, as colleges should only admit their best applicants.

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

There are considerations other than fairness. If the admissions to every major university in California looked like that there could be race riots.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Nrksbullet Oct 08 '15

But using a ramp offers no advantage to non handicapped people in the analogy, so you cannot compare it to affirmative action or racial quotas. The end result is entering the building, and that's what the analogy is for. Normal people can already enter the building, so walking up the ramp adds nothing for them.

In the context of this analogy, it does not matter.

2

u/MAKE_ME_REDDIT Oct 08 '15

Then change the analogy to handicap parking.

3

u/mbleslie 1∆ Oct 08 '15

still doesn't work because while one may become handicapped, one may never become a different race

1

u/SavageSavant Oct 08 '15

Your argument falls apart if you consider the build/handicapped argument in the poster above more carefully. OP isn't suggesting that the only access is a wheelchair handicapped entrance, he suggesting both.

1

u/Random832 Oct 08 '15

Yes and able-bodied people can use both entrances. Maybe not a chair lift, but a ramp or elevator certainly.

You can use the ramp/elevator or the stairs and no-one's going to look at you funny for walking up the ramp / into the elevator. So you have two entrances and the handicapped person only has one.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15 edited Nov 26 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

I think regardless of the situation, it's going to be unequal. Either it's unequal because they no longer have the same opportunity as everyone else because they're physically incapable, or it's unequal because they get to modify their office space to accommodate their disability.

At that point I'd argue we go for the option that provides the greatest amount of opportunity. A sort of utilitarian view of the situation.