Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Love, Joy, Feminism

Home
Nonreligious
What’s in a Meme? Equity, Equality, and Differences in Interpretation

What’s in a Meme? Equity, Equality, and Differences in Interpretation

Last updated on: December 5, 2018 at 11:16 am by Libby Anne

What’s in a Meme? Equity, Equality, and Differences in Interpretation 2018-12-05T11:16:41-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

By this point, most of you are probably extremely familiar with this cartoon, which contrasts “equality” with “equity”:

Equity is a big buzz word right now, and well it should be! The above cartoon has proven to be a powerful educational tool, offering a visual that helps explain why equality only goes so far in fighting inequities .

There are, however, some limitations to the cartoon above. Over the years, a number of people have proposed various edits or additions. The first revisions was to question the fence itself. Why is it there? Why is it blocking their view? Why not just tear it down, so that everyone can see regardless of height?

There’s another problem with the cartoons above, though, a problem I only notice when reading a recent post on Medium. As the author explains:

…the shortest boy is positioned as the problem. He needs multiple boxes to see over the fence. He’s the one who is the pathology: he’s literally less than the others. The shortest boy is — by sheer presentation alone — not whole, not normal, especially compared to the tallest boy. And because he is shorter he is seen as the problem, he needs more help. He is by fact, needy.

This writer has a point. The short kid in the cartoons above can’t see over the fence because he’s short. The problem is him. What is the solution? The Medium author goes on to make their own suggestion:

Imagine if you will, 3 people —all the same goddamn size. The ground beneath them slopes, buckling beneath one person so significantly that person cannot see over the fence at all. The foundation on which these people stand is unequal, and that foundation, might we even say systemic, difference leads to some being able to watch the baseball game, while others cannot.

Several individuals have actually attempted something like this, editing the original cartoon to better reflect reality. The first does so while keeping the person figures the same size as the original cartoon:

This cartoon adds two things: first, it reflects the actual level of inequity we have in our country today; and second, it reflects the fact that those on the bottom literally have the ground dug out from beneath them. They’re not even starting at the same place as the others—and not through any fault of their own .

Of course, in the above cartoon, the figures still have different heights. What would happen if an illustrator were to change that, and act on the Medium author’s suggestion? Fortunately, someone has:

In this illustration, the figures are all the same height. The yellow figure can’t see over the fence because the ground is lower and the fence is higher, not because he is shorter. There’s another change here as well—the yellow figure is given more boxes to stand on without removing any boxes from the blue figure. I understand the intent—people never like to think about having something taken away—but I’m not sure this change is such a good one, for reasons I’ll explain later .

After looking at these various cartoons and considering their varying implications, I find myself coming back to the simplicity of the original cartoon.

Is it possible to look at this cartoon and come away thinking that the small person is the problem? Certainly! But I don’t think that was ever the point.

The shortness of the short figure is a way of illustrating the structural inequity that character faces—it is not his fault he is short, just as the tall person is not tall through any special virtue on his part.

I also appreciate that the tall person gives up a box, in this cartoon, because this illustration demonstrates that giving up a box does not do him substantive harm. And besides, equity can mean giving something up.

My daughter’s school is doing a reading competition. Some of the students will receive free books as incentives, but there are only so many free books to go around and the priority is going to go to low income students. That means my daughter may not get a book. My daughter, whom I already buy books for all the time. My daughter, who already owns some of the books the students are reading for the competition.

Equity does mean redistributing who gets what. It means that rather than giving each child a free book—equality—the librarian will prioritize giving free books to those students who don’t already have books at home—equity. And that’s good! My daughter won’t be hurt by not receiving another free book—I can buy these books for her if I need to—but her fellow competitors whose parents can’t afford to will benefit.

I don’t think it’s a problem for the meme to admit that equity may mean some people give something up. In fact, I think it’s a good thing. I like that the meme includes this, because—as I noted—showing the redistribution of boxes illustrates that those who are taller can give something up and still see the ball game.

Interestingly, I just came upon an article by Craig Froehle, the person who created the original meme, and it was this that he took most issue with in adaptions—the addition of more boxes.

Froehle explains the creation of the image as follows:

Back in 2012, shortly after the US elections, I had crafted up a graphic to illustrate my point in an argument I was having with a conservative activist. I was trying to clarify why, to me (and, I generalized, to liberals), “equal opportunity” alone wasn’t a satisfactory goal and that we should somehow take into consideration equality of outcomes (i.e., fairness or equity). I thought the easiest example of this concept is kids of different heights trying to see over a fence. So, I grabbed a public photo of Cincinnati’s Great American Ball Park, a stock photo of a crate, clip art of a fence, and then spent a half-hour or so in Powerpoint concocting an image that I then posted on Google+.

Froehle’s original image looked like this:

His intent was to contrast conservative arguments for “equal access” (an argument typically used to oppose a variety of anti-racist and social welfare programs) with liberals’ focus on outcomes. Equality of access, his image revealed, is not enough when people people have different starting points (illustrated by height).

In his post, Froehle addresses the criticism voiced in the Medium post:

First, and most obviously, people do actually differ on their abilities. … We all have strengths and weaknesses — that’s part of what makes each of us unique. To pretend that we’re all equally capable of doing everything equally successfully is not only untrue, it’s unhelpful.

Second, the kids’ height differences were not intended to represent differences only in their innate characteristics. They were meant to symbolize any kind of advantage/disadvantage/difference, whether temporary (e.g., being between jobs or injured) or long-term (e.g., age, height, education level) or permanent (race, gender identity, etc.). … Just realize that this one difference is meant to represent any kind of difference, be it personal or situational. I hope that clarifies my intent.

Froehle’s certainly right about one thing—his accidental meme got people talking. And all of these adaptions, criticisms, and re-adaptions are just part of that broader conversation.

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!

Social Justice

Previous Post

December 4, 2018

RIP Emantic Bradford, A Good Guy with a Gun

Next Post

December 6, 2018 Ross Douthat Mourns the Decline of White (Anglo-Saxon Protestant) Supremacy

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How many visions does the book of Revelation contain?

Select your answer to see how you score.

5 10 12 7