Democrats have started using a word with increasing frequency recently. White House domestic policy advisor and former UN Ambassador Susan Rice stated that the White House will work to push “racial justice and equity” and “equity for families.”
Press secretary Jen Psaki said that the Biden Administration considered immigration part of “racial equity.”
And Joe Biden himself sputtered that “equity and justice” must be “part of what we do every day.”
Leftists care deeply about words. From parsing definitions of “is” to mysteriously finding distinctions with a difference between “persons of color” and “colored persons,” what words are used, and how, are of supreme importance to the Left. Apparently, using “black” to describe people with heritage from certain parts of Africa is discouraged, but using Black – capital “B” – is acceptable. Leftists will even attempt to colonize a foreign language to impose their gender hang-ups on other cultures (good luck finding a Latino or Latina who actually uses “Latinx”).
So now, the new Biden Administration has begun using the word, “equity.” Sounds like “equality,” and everyone likes equality, right?
My 1960 Britannica World Language Dictionary defines “equity” as “[f]airness or impartiality; justness…Something that is fair or equitable.”
In Anglo-American common law, “equity” is a concept that provides certain justifications for a judge to rule in favor of one party or another, not based on law, but based on similar concepts of fairness or justness. Bankruptcy, for example, began as an equitable remedy, among others. Equity allows a judge to go beyond legislation to find a just outcome.
Equity is distinct from equality, though the similarity between the words is not without importance. Everyone is familiar with and favors equality, at least equality before the law; the law ideally favors no one over another, rich or poor, black (Black?) or white (White? Or white?).
Equity is something else. What is “just” or “equitable” is in the eye of the beholder. In the court, a judge’s decision of what is equitable has basis in precedents established by prior cases, and those affected even by a wayward judge remain limited to the parties in the case. Somehow, trusting the judgment of people who funded bail money for rioters and who favor giving vaccines to enemy combatants held at Guantanamo before American citizens, who favor a deal that would let the mullahs go nuclear and giving the Chinese Communist Party access to the U.S. power grid, to decide what is and what is not equitable, seems… in poor judgment.