I recall hearing a news story a few years ago about the Chinese government’s ban on billboards that glorify royalty and lavish lifestyles.  What got my attention was a comment about a wealthy young man regarding the huge divide between rich and poor in China today.  The young man blithely said that the rich deserve to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor because they rich work hard and the poor do not.

I’m not sure you could find a wealthy American who would plainly and publicly say what the Chinese young man said; however, I suspect there is a fair percentage of Americans that believe in that basic sentiment; life is basically fair in its distribution of gifts.

I think that is nonsense.  Life is not fair.  I was born into the family of an up and coming engineer in the United States; did I somehow deserve that fate as opposed to being born to an impoverished family in Bangladesh?   Of course not.  That family of birth and the genetic gift of IQ has given me options that only a very few in this world enjoy.  My mother and father were both born to poverty, but in the United States where their natural gifts of intelligence allowed them to rise into the middle class.  Again, had they been born in another place or with less intelligence they would not have been afforded that opportunity.   Any effort to rationalize the distribution of ability and opportunity is doomed to failure; there is no reason for it.

Equity is not the same as fairness. Equity has three domains, each with a different meaning: equity of worth, equity of opportunity and equity of results.   In an egalitarian society, as the United States purports to be, there is absolute equity of worth. As the Declaration of Independence boldly states: All men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights…”.  Of course, even here this ideal was not the norm, even as the statement was being written; but that does not make the statement untrue, only difficult to carry out in a real world situation.   Being reared by parents who grew up in poverty, it was drilled into my character that I should look every man in the eye and never believe anyone is lesser or better than myself.  No matter their social status, income, race or creed each human deserves to be treated with respect. The converse is equally important;  I should expect respect from others no matter their social status, income, race or creed.   Equity of worth is a moral value to which all ‘civilized’ people should strive.

Equity of opportunity, that is different. It is not the way of nature.  All people are not born with the same genetic gifts. Neither are all people born into equivalent circumstances.  Those are just plain truths.

So does that mean we, as a society, should just accept the inequities of one’s birth? Do we take, as a society, the position that people born into a life of poverty are simply destined to stay there? Do we, as a society, take the position that a person born with genetic conditions that make success more difficult should just be allowed to wither on the vine?

I say no!   We, as a society, must strive to provide the support necessary to allow each person to thrive.  Yes it is true some are born with a lower ability to master math or language or logic than others; but that does not mean they lack other abilities from which they can derive life satisfaction.   Yes, many are born into environments that, due to a variety of circumstances, do not promote their instinctual, social and emotional growth they need to achieve their potential.   To strive to provide the opportunity to each and every child to achieve that growth is one of the basic obligations we have when we join individuals into a community or society.  This is another value to which we must strive.

In this I sharply differ from the laissez-faire political right wing.

Equity of results is the third type of equity.  Unlike the other two, this is not properly a goal of society. In this I sharply differ from the command and control political left.  Life is about choices, and those choices have consequences both good and bad.  Certainly it is not fair that many of those choices come rapid fire for people who are young, immature and impressionable as they enter adulthood, but there is no helping that.

Two teenagers from similar homes may make different choices. One may choose learn wood carving and spend their time becoming a master. While a second might study computer programming in college.    The second will be rewarded financially for his choice and the first will be rewarded in different ways for that choice; but it is not society’s role to ensure the second person gets the same rewards that the other more financially focused person receives down the road.   Low income however does not mean low ambition, only low focus on monetary reward. In my case, I made a choice to follow the path of “saving the world” rather than enriching myself, it is not society’s responsibility to buy me a big house and expensive car.  This is important in that fairness requires allowing people to reap what they sow.  Some people will be motivated by self-interest to seek to increase their long term financial condition, while others will choose a different path to personal fulfillment.  Thus fairness of outcomes would eliminate the possibility of personal choice.  The Chinese (and other communist countries) tried the route of fairness of outcomes and it only led to equal poverty and oppression for all, which itself is unfair.

I conclude that although there is no way to make life fair, we as a society can and should give everyone equitable respect and, as much as we can, give all children an equal opportunity for his or her self-fulfillment. How the individual chooses to find that fulfillment is up to them, not the larger society.  Thus, in public policy fairness must be defined as opportunity not outcomes.