Equality v. Equity
The Super Bowl, Equity and Why Equality should be the Goal.
For the past 50 years, the Civil Rights movement has been focused on obtaining equality for African-Americans and other minority groups. Equality, the belief that one should be race-blind and treat all people with the same level of dignity and respect, has allowed all to agree on a common goal, achieve a certain level of progress and highlight vividly where deficiencies exist and where we need to improve.
Following the George Floyd event, a huge spotlight was put on African-American perspectives and ideas. Reparatations, the idea that African-Americans should be reimbursed for their labors during slavery, made a comeback into the public debate. Inclusiveness and diversity became much more prevalently discussed publicly. However, the goal from equality made a shift to “equity.” This term has become more pervasive in the language where we talk about race issues in the public square, so I think its important to discuss what it is and what it isn’t.
On Equity
“Equity” has multiple meanings, and in the current context can be somewhat contradictory. In its most common sense is an ownership stake. If you have a house worth $500k and paid off $100k of it, you have $100k worth of equity in the home. There is also a second definition, which is the idea of being free from any favoritism or bias; an equitable decision is a self-evidently fair and impartial one. Lastly, there is the legal lingoish definition of equity, which refers to remedying situations where the application of law has resulted in a substantive error or unjust result; equity suits are designed to fix the situation and address the public policy discrepancy of the law.
It’s this last definition that is the focus of recent promotion of “Equity as a goal.” The idea being that because of slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, voter intimidation/access laws, etc., that redress is necessary to fix the substantive errors that application of these laws imposed on primarily African-Americans.
“Equity” in the current inclusiveness mindset derives from a roundabout definition by Ibram X. Kendi. In his book, “How to be an Antiracist,” he defines racism as “a marraige of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalizes racial inequities.” He then defines “racial inequities” when two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing. Using the same word to define itself aside, one thing he’s basically saying is that racism results in unequal outcomes. To this point, he is correct. Racism, the treatment of people different because of race, does result in different outcomes. This was the backbone of the biggest Supreme Court decision of the past hundred years, “Brown v. Board of Education,”1 in which the Court struck down “separate but equal,” by affirmatively stating “Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”2
It makes sense then that removing racism and affirmatively working to call it out and prevent further racism is a good achievable goal and practical public policy. By eliminating racism3, treating all people equally (equality) regardless of race (race blind), you would make things more equitable, and provide equality of opportunity to all. These are all good things. It was the aims of Martin Luther King, Jr, and most of the civil rights movement of the past 65 years. Its something most all Americans can agree on.
But to those like Kendi, this is too slow and doesn’t remedy or redress the problem. They point to statistics that basically show unequal outcomes based on race. They argue, that if there was no racism, those statistics would reflect African-American representation in society (about 12-14% of the US Population). Instead, they demonstrate either overrepresentation (such as in prison populations or poverty statistics) or underrepresentation (wealth/income distribution, college acceptance rates, etc.). In their mind, inequitable outcomes is prima facie evidence of racism, and therefore redress needs to occur regardless of interest, merit or other considerations.
Thus, for an equitable result there should be either a bias in favor of African-Americans, or leniency, in order to even out the results so the results closer to the 12-14%. Merit/ achievement/ opportunity/interest is irrelevant because the outcome shows an unequal result. It is this line of thought that makes Kendi and supporters subject to the criticism of Marxism; work, effort, motivation and merit, cornerstones of Capitalist dogma, are tossed aside in favor of equal results regardless of what goes into it.4
On Merit, Equality of Opportunity, and the Super Bowl
To demonstrate why Kendi’s argument fails logically, it helps to look at an area where everyone has an equal chance to demonstrate their skills, earn a job and succeed regardless of skin color. Athletics is a good area to consider, since if someone can do better than another, management would have no qualms about keeping the better player. Better players get paid more also, particularly at more important positions on the field.
With the Super Bowl just played, let’s take a look at that as a microcosm. Both the Kansas City Chiefs and the Philadelphia Eagles earned the right to be there; they were the two best teams in the league, had the two top players (based on MVP votes), and won their respective conference’s playoff games to get to the Super Bowl. Much was made of how this was also the first meeting between two black Quarterbacks in the Super Bowl, a great milestone showing how far we’ve come in sports and in society at large.
There are 53 people on a football team, so between the two teams there were 106 players in the game. Taking Kendi’s argument at face value then, only ~13% of them should have been African-American. This would represent “equity in outcomes.” How much does that amount to in total? 14 players. Yes, if you wanted to apply Kendi’s equity system to the Super Bowl, there would be only 14 African-Americans on both teams total. That amounts to 7 on Philadelphia, 7 on KC. Breaking it down further, it means 3.5 on Philly’s Offense, and 3.5 on its Defense (same as KC) and appoximately one or two starting players on each team’s offense and defense. With Kendi’s approach, there would be Patrick Mahomes, and practically no other African-American playing on offense for Kansas City. The same with Jalen Hurts for Philadelphia. Kendi’s logic, that the unequal outcome is prima facie evidence of racism, would infer that there was racism in favor of African-Americans when it comes to football, and playing in the Super Bowl.
2019 Kansas City Chiefs Team Picture
To most people, that logic is absurd. Every player on that field earned the right to be there. They worked for it most of their whole lives. They played high school, college, and pro football, dedicated their lives to the craft, to weightlifting, to running/practicing and to achieving what they wanted to achieve. On top of it, they forebore work in other fields while they focused and put time and effort into playing football. They mastered a skill set and physical achievement in a field in which the success rate is less than 1% of people trying to enter it. This is the foundation of meritorious effort. They focused on what they wanted, and earned it.
Coincidentally, the most underrepresented group on the teams at the Super Bowl were Hispanic/Latin Americans. They represent an even larger share of the US population than African Americans (18.7%). In the entire NFL (~1700 players total) there are only 24 players5 total, less than one per team. Well, why is that? The fact is that within the Hispanic/Latin American community NFL football's popularity (while increasing) isn't as popular as other sports which draw players' attention, primarily in their formative years, particularly soccer (what everyone else in the world considers football)6 and baseball.7 In that sense, the difference in the inequitable result isn't a result of racism or merit, but of interest.
So to summarize, applying Kendi’s “equitable results” to the Super Bowl, there would be less African American’s playing, more whites regardless of merit, and more Hispanics regardless of interest. None of this seems logical to me; merit should be the determinant, that the players earned the right to be on a team, help that team’s success and get them to the Super Bowl.
Why Equality Should be the Goal
Instead of equity, we should seek to make equality and equality of opportunity as goals. Treating everyone fairly and equally regardless of skin color provides a huge benefit to society, maximizes our human resources and abilities, and results in better treatment of all and yes, collaterally more equitable results. Yes, there are currently disparities, but to focus solely on those dismisses the progress of how far we’ve come as a society and can continue to proceed. When racial injustices occur now, they are much more readily called out and outrage occurs across all segment of society.
If an African-American or Hispanic (or anyone really) wants to become an accountant, they should have that opportunity to do the work, go to college, earn an accounting degree and get hired as an accountant. If they want to become an engineer, they should have access to the classes and education necessary for them to achive that goal. Removing obstacles to those goals are worthwhile endeavors for public policy and philanthropy. Focusing on financing, through grants, scholarships and other assistance, can help improve many of these inequitable disparities that Kendi points to. Can we do better as a society in this area? Absolutely. Many of these issues have been neglected for far too long. But should we resort to only looking myopically at the end result without any further context?
No.
PurpleAmerica’s Obscure Fact of the Day
So what demographic group is the most overrepresented in the NFL? That actually belongs to Pacific Islanders/Polynesian descent. They represent less than 0.4% of the American population, meaning there would be approximately 7 in the NFL. In 2023, 70 NFL players were of polynesian descent, a percentage 10x their representation in the public at large. Many players from the area (Samoa, Tonga, Tuavalu, Micronesia, etc) go on to succeed in the NFL, such as Junior Seau, Troy Polomalu and Kevin Mawae, all inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
The NFL has taken notice of the wellspring of talent and in 2017 started the “Polynesian Bowl” scouting high school talent from the area. The Polynesian Bowl is a premier all-star game played annually in Honolulu, Hawai'i that features 100 top ranked high school seniors of Polynesian and non-Polynesian ancestry alike – many whom have gone on to play in the NFL. The game has become the most sought-after all-star football invitation. Major partners include Microsoft Surface Pro, adidas, BodyArmor, Riddell, CrossCountry Mortgage, Friends of Hawai'i Charities, Hawaiian Airlines, HBCTC and Hawaii News Now.
PurpleAmerica Cultural Criticism Corner
The Super Bowl is a big day in the US. As someone pointed out to me, after the December Holiday season, which is more focused on family, Super Bowl Sunday represents a celebration among friends.
Of course there is the game (great one this year), the ads (generally mediocre but there were some standouts; at least there were no crypto ads) but the Halftime Show was what everyone had an opinion on. This year’s halftime act was Rihanna.
This is not going to be a criticism of her music at all. In fact, I like a lot of Rihanna songs (although my favorite, Shut Up and Drive, was regretfully not included to the act). No, instead, I’m just focusing on the production, which was not good. At times it seemed like even she didn’t want to be there.
First, there were the platforms/cables. I don’t know how high up they felt comfortable putting a pregnant world reknown celebrity in a lengthy gown on a platform without a railing, where one trip could spell disaster, but I can assure the viewing public it was not as high as it appeared on television, which was CGI enhanced (the camera movements were the giveaway). Nonetheless, as someone pointed out to me, the platforms felt more like it was a Smash Bros. or Mario game than a Halftime Act.
Next up, the Stay Puft Dancers. As dancers, they were OK. Their outfits were more in line with the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man or Balloon Boy but OK. Here’s the thing though— when the production focuses (much) more attention on the dancers and not the star, there’s a problem. There was WAY too much attention on the dancers. Nobody wanted to see them, they wanted to see Rihanna. When an army of them came in off the sidelines I laughed as it was the last thing the act needed- more Michelin Men parading in unison.
Sound. OK, she lip synced. Not an issue. The NFL requires it. They want complete control for a global audience and don’t want any deviation from the scripts. Fine. But then you better make sure the sound system isn’t glitchy or fading in and out like it did. And every time Rihanna pulled away from the mic but was still “singing” it just took away from the whole production. At one point, there was a band out there, but I don’t know what music they could have possibly been playing since everything was a backing track. All in all, not a very good show.
Lastly, song selection. The halftime act doesn’t get paid, but instead makes money based on the bump in sales the attention brings. Because of that, there is a tendency to overload the act with as many songs as possible. That means 1) very brief portions of the songs, and 2) a lot of them. For an act like Rihanna, a lot of the songs in her monotone get exposed as being way too similar. The best halftime shows (Prince, U2, Michael Jackson, etc.) focused on only a handful of songs and played them longer (3-7). This is what people want to see.
So all in all, not a very good show. In fact, it was probably the worst one since Coldplay got upstaged by Beyonce and Bruno Mars. Even then, I don’t know if I would say it was better than that one.
Outstanding Tweet
“I believe in God, and I believe in human decency. But I firmly believe that any man's finest hour - his greatest fulfillment to all he holds dear - is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and he's exhausted on the field of battle - victorious.”— Vince Lombardi
Parting Thoughts
Let me know what you think of the page. Please share and comment!
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
This is the WHOLE decision and it was kept short in order for Warren to get a unanimous decision. The Court required additional hearings on the remedy, in a separate Court decision usually referred to as “Brown II.”
Many would argue that racism could not fully be eliminated; human beings are insecure creatures and often seek out people who look, act and empathize with ourselves, particularly in uncomfortable situations. A person’s skin color is often the most obvious distinction and people will naturally gravitate towards their own. That and some assholes just pride themselves in being racists. Nonetheless, minimizing racism to the greatest extent possible is a very productive goal.
They have a point too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_athletes_in_American_sports#:~:text=The%20National%20Football%20League%20is,total%20in%20the%20league%20currently.
Coincidentally, the population rise in Hispanic Americans is one of the reasons for the sharp increases in the popularity of soccer in America over the past 30 years.
The popularity of baseball, whose season extends now into early November, is a major cause of why places like Los Angeles and San Diego have notoriously bad attendance for football. Several teams have moved to LA only to find a lack of local interest in football.