Equality Vs. Equity Viral Visual

Equality vs. Equity Graphic

"There seem to be only two kinds of people: Those who think that metaphors are facts, and those who know that they are not facts."

Most of us, some much less ignorant than others, are aware of the problems facing underserved communities, minorities, and oppressed groups today. 

I've seen this graphic floating around social media for a good while now, and I can see how, in some respects, this visual could apply- but I've always found it much more offensive and problematic.

The main problem with this graphic is the whole premise of the argument, that was very apparent to me. In this visual the illustrator is comparing three different children of different heights- the white boy being the tallest, the white girl being medium height, and the black boy being the shortest- trust me, the race and gender of these characters are intentional. I've seen this visual on numerous pages where people share it and say, "WOW, this is so powerful." The problem is that, the black boy is, inherently, or permanently, short, and the white girl is inherently shorter than the white boy. They, without a shadow of a doubt, can not and will not grow anytime soon. Their biological makeup is wired to make them whatever height they are at that moment.

This metaphor can only be used if we are talking about something as simple as height. Sure, if someone is short, give them a stool to stand on to reach the line. But, people are not sharing this and talking about height when they refer to this graphic. Instead, they are using this metaphor to apply to society, and how society should operate. So, using this particular metaphor, I would have to assume that those very happy, seemingly friendly people, who believe that this metaphor is so powerful and accurate, also believe that some humans, based on race, gender, etc. are inherently, permanently, inferior- I believe we have names for these people such as "white supremacists," "racists," "bigots," etc. 

Quick Points:

1) This is not applicable to whole groups of people. Considering there are people of all different backgrounds, races, and genders that may want (and, yes, I am using the word want and not need, because no one based on the above criteria is inherently more or less capable of achieving success) a little extra support, this graphic should never be used to depict whole groups of people.

2) Why are we not giving Jack, Jill, and Harry the same foundation? Why are they not all equally being equipped with high standards, great teaching, and individual support? Does Jack not need great teaching and individual support too? And does Jill not need individual support as well? Oh, right. This goes back to the idea that the white children are inherently superior to the black boy. (Side Note: As a black woman, I must be at the bottom of the biological totem pole. *cue the violins*)

3) You can, absolutely, not use this graphic to try to depict why any sort of legislation needs to be passed in order for us to live in some socialist utopia. By doing so, you would then be asking for the government to acknowledge some sort of inherent incapability that certain groups of people are biologically born with. Which, I'm pretty sure, is the exact thing so many have fought against.

All in all, this graphic metaphor does nothing but generalize whole groups of individuals using adorable children characters, and, in turn, making very ignorant and bigoted assumptions while, also, encouraging a victim mentality. So, if you believe that there are humans out there, based on race, gender, class, etc. that are inherently inferior or incapable of attaining any kind of success on their own, or without government interference, go ahead and continue sharing this dumb, oversimplified graphic.

I happen to believe otherwise.

Signed,
MOTS