[NationalHarbor] Reframing the Fight for Civil Rights:Understanding the Discourse on Equality Verses Equity from a Social JusticePerspective

[Amber Woods]

Dear National Harbor Chapter members and Friends,

Shared by NFB member Lee Martin about the article posted below:


*Reframing the Fight for Civil Rights: Understanding the Discourse on
Equality Versus Equity from a Social Justice Perspective*

*By Dr. Evette Simmons-Reed, Dr. LaShawna Fant, Dr. Carolyn Peters, Mr.
Kane Brolin and Mr. Lee Martin, Sr. *



*From the Editor: There are lots of things to like about editing the
Braille Monitor, but I think my favorite is when I get articles that cause
people to sit up and think about issues they thought otherwise resolved.
This article asks us to look at two words: equality and equity. Though I
could’ve easily used both in sentences, when it came to really analyzing
them, I went to my dictionary and then to some of the contemporary
discussion about them.*



*This article is not envisioned by its authors as being the final statement
on the words we should use but a suggestion that we strongly consider when
each word best addresses what we want to say and those things for which we
are willing to work. Here is what this fine list of authors has to say:*



Social justice is a phrase that seemingly few Americans view with
impartiality. To some, it is a rallying cry for empowerment; to others, a
threatening symbol of sanctimonious wokeness. It seems that social justice
has become loaded with so much political ammunition that it is often hard
to imagine that the principle behind it could be beneficial to everybody.
But social justice is really about allyship, and it can benefit people with
all different kinds of lived experience.



Writing in *Forbes*, Multi award-winning Global Diversity, Equity &
Inclusion Leader *Sheree Atcheson*
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/shereeatcheson/> defines an ally as “any
person that actively promotes and aspires to advance the culture of
inclusion through intentional, positive, and conscious efforts that benefit
people as a whole.”[i]Everyone has the ability to become an ally. Everyone
sometimes needs to have an ally. beneath all the loaded connotations
ascribed to it, social justice refers to the practice of allyship and
coalition-building work. Its goal is to promote equality, equity, mutual
respect, and the assurance of rights between and within communities and
social groups. Fair wages, the #MeToo movements, the pointed criticism of
policing tactics, and Black Lives Matter have all focused attention on
various social justice issues in our society. Although this term previously
applied mainly to how economic resources were allocated, more recently it
has come to apply holistically to the treatment of different individuals
and people groups, access to services and opportunities, and access to
political representation.



Difficult dialogues regarding these social justice issues have been raging
in our homes, workplaces, schools, and more recently, with in our own
organization. Specifically, calls that the blind be recognized as being
made up of a complex kaleidoscope of cultural identities, rather than as a
composite mass, have been at the forefront of many difficult discussions.
Issues such as Access, equity, participation, diversity, and human rights
are basic social justice principles and are aligned with the principles we
historically have fought for as the oldest and largest civil rights
organization of blind people. Yet, at national and state Conventions, in
chapter meetings, in blogs, and on social media, it is evident that, just
as in the rest of our country, we in the organized blind movement have been
struggling to arrive at consensus, given the different perspectives
expressed by Federationists who come from all sorts of backgrounds. Not
surprisingly, we have been pondering some challenging differences of
opinion when it comes to the approach we should take to all this:



·       Equality proponents ask “should we in the federation have
differences in our approach as we attract and provide mentorship to blind
people of different ethnicities, religious backgrounds, family structures,
sexual preferences, and gender identities?” Equity proponents ask “how can
we in the Federation recognize, respect, and benefit from the multiple
identities and experiences of blind people from different races,
ethnicities, religious backgrounds, ability levels, sexual orientations,
gender identities, geographic areas, and family structures?”

   - “On one side, we may ask “What is unique about the intersectionality
   of one’s blindness and one’s identity as, say, a white American, Black
   American, Asian American, or one of the Latinx groups of people? Should we
   celebrate such points of difference overtly in the organized blind
   movement?” On the other side, who benefits if we perpetuate a color-blind
   attitude and an approach that treats the blind community as a monolith?
   Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said, “To get beyond racism we must
   first take account of race. There is no other way.”[ii] Consider
   Scalia’s statement and people who claim to be “color-blind,” does this
   position advance our advocacy towards achieving equal rights as blind
   American citizens?

·       How should we address the uniqueness of those who live with
multiple disabilities such as the deaf-blind? Given NFB’s continuous fight
against oppression as it touches the blind, what policies and practices
need to be implemented to promote fairness, create a sense of belonging,
and facilitate addressing the unique needs of all members, especially those
living with multiple impairments?



Despite legislation inspired by the Disability Rights Movement,
institutional policies and practices have long created unfair advantages
for sighted people, perpetuating a substantial wealth gap between sighted
and blind people. This can be described as institutional oppression: the
systematic mistreatment and dehumanization of any person based solely on a
social identity group to which they identify that is supported and enforced
by society and its institutions. Whether consciously or not, people who
make and enforce policy base their practice of institutional oppression on
a belief that people in a given social identity group are inherently
inferior. But this practice is sometimes not obvious on the surface.
Typically, Organizations’ Diversity initiatives create an illusion of
inclusion and fall far short of anything beyond compliance with the letter
of the law. Uncorrected institutional oppression results in much of the
same thing as before: The group that already had dominant power continues
to benefit disproportionately at the expense of other groups that continue
to be oppressed in spite of legislative safeguards that should have evened
the playing field.



Keeping this in mind, there is one other huge question that demands an
answer:

·       Do we want equality or equity as an outcome of our civil rights
struggle?



The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), codified as federal law in 1990,
meant to guarantee blind people equal protections under the law in all
aspects of our lives including employment, education, and housing. Despite
much progress, NFB’s advocacy agenda, articulated by the President at the
national convention, is an indication that there is still much to do. In
Reflecting over the mission before us, are we seeking to transform or are
we wanting to conform in our struggle for civil rights? How does an
emphasis on equality verses an emphasis on equity change our strategies,
tactics, or the outcomes in the battle for full inclusion?



For eighty-one years the National Federation of the Blind has been
empowering blind people to advocate for our needs in working towards
abolishing barriers impeding our pursuit of the “American Dream.” Taking
direction from various presidents who have led the National Federation of
the Blind over these eight decades, we continuously expand the scope of our
vision. Many blind Americans within and apart from the Federation have
tasted the sweet nectar of progress resulting from the extraordinary
fortitude demonstrated by our members. As an organization we provide a
network of support for one another as we seek to raise our voices, increase
our visibility, and share our views all over the world.



In the spirit of advancing our mission, we here discuss the nuances between
the term’s equality and equity. We offer this article as food for thought
and as an open invitation to keep these critical dialogues going.



*S*ome may view equality and equity as just different rallying cries or
buzzwords meaning essentially the same thing; but we caution that words
matter. In his banquet speech at the 2020 NFB National Convention,
President Riccobono wisely pointed out: “Language reflects belief, and we
will not sell out our beliefs. We, the blind, follow our words with the
action of living the lives we want.” So, let us* s*tart by adding
definition to this discussion and then go on to examine how the choice of
the term equality or equity aligns with the policies and practices aimed at
improving outcomes for different blind Americans.



According to the Dictionary by Merriam-Webster
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equality> equality is the
“quality or state of being equal, where equal is defined as having the same
measurement in quality, nature or status.” Equality aims to ensure that
everyone gets the same things in order to enjoy full, healthy lives. E
quality aims to promote fairness and justice. But, as we have learned from
the outcomes of the Civil rights Movement, it is achieved only when
everyone starts from the same place or needs the same things. Equality
presumes sameness and takes for granted that we all have the same
experiences and privileges.



This same dictionary <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equity>
defines equity as “something that is equitable,” where equitable is defined
as, “dealing fairly and equally with all concerned.” Equity, from a social
justice perspective, involves trying to understand and give people what
they need to enjoy full, healthy lives.



A deeper dive into what these terms imply makes it plain that the kind of
justice and the types of success that any society seeks to attain depends
on whether the first principle that society employs has its roots in
equality or in equity.



Equality basically means providing everyone with the same amount of
resources regardless of whether everyone needs them. In other words, each
person receives an equal share of money, food, health benefits, employment
resources, and social services despite what they already started with or
lacked from the beginning. Equity, though, is a subtler notion that is
harder to attain in practice. Equity is when resources are shared based on
what each person needs in order to adequately level the playing field for
all who contribute to a society and all who have need of something from
that society. Different people—and, by extension, different subgroupings of
people within a larger social framework like the United States—have
different levels of need for support and assistance. In recognition of
this, the equity model creates systems with a mandate to support
individuals and groupings of individuals based on their specific needs. The
goal of equity is to help achieve fairness in treatment, leading to better
outcomes for all even if all don’t get there in exactly the same ways or by
receiving exactly the same things in the same proportion. If done properly,
equality can be an outcome of an effective and just process; but it is the
principle of equity that creates and drives that process.



So, can equality and equity live in the same room? Which of these two is
more valid? Which is more important? In our work to advance the opportunity
and security of Blind Americans, are we striving to make things equal or to
make them equitable? Are we arguing that one of these noble-sounding
concepts is superior and the other inferior? Should we keep just one of
these concepts and throw out the other?



We argue that even though they have two entirely different meanings,
equity and equality are not competitive ideas, but on the contrary they are
complementary. They work hand in hand. One cannot be achieved without the
other. Understanding what equity means and how to apply it actually brings
us one step closer to achieving equality as the final outcome. Put another
way, in order for the world to reach a place in which everything is fair,
just, and equal, we need to start with a goal of equity: distributing
resources based on who needs them most and who can draw the most long-term
benefit from a specific type of approach. We propose that if we are to
reach equality as an outcome, we have to tackle the causes of inequity
first. Without equity, inequality will persist, and those who are most
vulnerable will remain or become even more vulnerable, while those who
already enjoy inherent advantage will just keep gaining more advantage.



There is still another definition of equity: lesser used in civil rights
literature, but a definition that is very important to those who spend
their professional lives in stewardship of economic resources. In the
business world, equity refers to ownership. When Investopedia looks at
equity, it refers to "shareholders' equity ... [representing] the amount of
money that would be returned to a company’s shareholders if all of the
assets were liquidated and all of the company's debt [were] paid off ....
It also represents the pro-rata ownership of a company's shares."



You certainly could argue that most of us in the blind community, except
for those in the Business Enterprise Program, have struggled to imagine
that we could ever own anything substantial. In this country, it could be
argued that most of us who are blind have passed through seasons of life
when the most consistent income we received came from Supplemental Security
Income or SSDI. A lot of us are employed only part-time outside the home or
are underemployed in workshops. These outcomes are persistent across the
blind community irrespective of the degree of visual impairment, education,
or ability that any particular blind adult started with. But we are
underestimating ourselves when we say we have no equity. As free citizens
of a Constitutional republic, with the right to express ourselves, vote,
and choose whether to buy or not to buy something, we need to think and act
as though we have an ownership stake—an equity stake—in the community,
state, and country we live in. We need to ensure that society recognizes we
have this ownership stake, because we do have it. Advocating for equity
does not just refer to pleading with someone who occupies a seat of power
to even the playing field for us and hoping they do it.  We who are blind
must not wait around for someone else to do this for us. Transforming
equity from a dream into a real, impactful process and workable procedure
means voting, but it also means showing up at school board and town council
meetings. It means getting involved in community organizations that go
beyond just the organized blind movement. It means expressing our voice not
only on Election Day, but it includes actively getting involved as voting
districts are redrawn in the wake of the census every ten years. This is
critical for the blind in general; it is especially critical for blind men
and women who are African-American. Of course, it is important too for
blind men and women who are Latinx or who are members of an East Asian or
Pacific Island ethnic community or who are members of a Middle
Eastern/North African or Native American ethnic community or who
self-identify as multiple disabled or LGBTQ+.



So, what is an example of how we can apply the principle of equity to the
good in our everyday struggle? As we decide what to ask for and where to
set our boundaries of acceptance as blind Americans, perhaps we should all
ponder the difference between inclusion and access. In a brilliantly
written piece published in the March 2020 edition of The *Braille Monitor*,
Peter Slatin unpacks this. In part, he says: "Exclusion and inclusion are
passive states assigned to those designated to be either kept out or
brought in. The active agent is not the newly welcomed but instead the
welcoming committee, which sets the terms of inclusion and will assign and
enable a bouncer should one be deemed necessary. Even when those terms are
beneficial, the person newly included will retain that sense of being an
outsider who has been invited to a party and only allowed to join by the
grace of the host. Is it nice to finally be allowed in? Of course—but we
have been here all along. ... It is not inclusion that I want–it’s access.
And access is something I can actively seek to create or acquire. I may
need assistance doing so. I may need to change laws and minds, not
necessarily in that order. I may need to fight. In the end though, I will
be part of designing what access looks like and how it works."[iii]



The importance of gaining full equity and belonging, as opposed to just
accepting inclusion whenever sighted powerbrokers and gatekeepers permit
it, is true for not just the technology we use but for every aspect of the
society we operate in. According to john a. powell, director of the
othering and belonging institute, at UC Berkley, states that ” belonging is
based on the recognition of our full humanity without having to become
something different or pretend that we’re all the same”. We are constantly
renegotiating who we are as human beings (January 14, 2020)[iv].   From a
social justice perspective, we must go further than asking to be included
and hoping those with the power are nice enough to accommodate. We must
commit to be a part of the ownership, design, and implementation process.
It means not just asking our legislators for help every February at NFB
Washington Seminar. Sooner or later, some of us in the organized blind
movement who live with other intersecting characteristics need to get
elected so we can change unjust laws and oversee the implementation of what
we need from the insider’s position.



In what areas do inequity and inequality show up most? There are evident
inequalities globally in race, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities,
education, economic status, and so much more. It is inequity—the lack of an
ownership stake—that lies at the core of so much inequality and human
suffering in this country and around the globe. Understanding the
implications of inequity and tackling it head-on will be important to
achieving overall equality as an outcome. We shouldn’t be aiming to treat
people as if there were no differences between us or aiming to distribute
resources equally to everybody.  It is highly recommended that our movement
recognize that it is only by means of equitable processes that we will have
the means to get to the outcome of equality.



To this end, we argue that the Federation should alter the N FB Pledge so
that the word equity is used instead of equality:



a.      Equity highlights the organization’s aim to be more informed
concerning the history, background, and context of the Federation and, more
importantly, its members.

b.     Equity helps us to understand where we are concerning metrics. A
broader assessment, collection, and analysis of demographics and data
allows for benchmarks and metrics to be established for organizational
goals.

c.      Equity provides the space to network and locate talents, skills,
and strategies we may have ignored or possibly did not notice previously.

d.     Equity brings diverse experiences and backgrounds to the table and
opens progressive paths for cultural contributions.

e.      Equity institutes intentional and extensive onboarding programs
that build ongoing support for new member success.

f.      Equity helps to ensure policies are executed and diverse/typically
misrepresented individuals have representation.

g.     Equity aligns resources which foster conversations and means to
improve the environment, knowledge, involvement, and trust of members.

h.     Equity aids in providing a more active, inclusive organization and
promotes dialogue in tackling issues and concerns.

i.       Equity generally increases satisfaction, decreases member
disengagement, and develops stronger, more consistent interaction.

j.       Equity encourages unique talent to flourish and display different
worldviews and skills to combine and produce newness and creativity.

k.     Equity promotes global understanding and enables a wider, more
innovative impact.

l.       Equity illuminates the importance of our brand and reputation.

m.   Equity benefits our organization’s business case and, when properly
applied, will help our organization to meet or even exceed financial
targets.



As pointed out in a concise article published in the October 2017 edition
of The Braille Monitor,[v] the statement we recite that is currently known
as the NFB Pledge has been in use for nearly five decades. What’s more, it
was composed and distributed at the behest of Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, the
longest-serving leader who has graced the organized blind movement. While
the mission of the Federation must remain intact and the rich legacy of our
past must never be forgotten, changing times in the society at large calls
for a change in the strategies and tactics used to achieve our mission. In
July of 2021, the Monitor’s long-time editor Gary Wonder penned these
words: “When we pledge ourselves to go build the Federation, it is not
organizational momentum or preservation of some legacy that we are talking
about. It is talking about having a mechanism to bring about effective
change, a structure that lets blind people talk among ourselves, venture to
risk new ideas leading to opportunities, and knowing that we have the
support of one another as we attempt the traditional or untraditional.” We
ask that you strongly consider our suggestion, that you view it through a
forward-looking lens, and that you comment on our proposal with the same
spirit of fellowship and positive goodwill that has led us to present it in
these pages.







------------------------------

[i] Taken from “Allyship - The Key To Unlocking The Power Of Diversity.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shereeatcheson/2018/11/30/allyship-the-key-to-unlocking-the-power-of-diversity/?sh=4b27764249c6

[ii] Antonin Scalia, *The Disease As Cure.* “In order to get beyond racism,
we must first take account of race,” 1979 Washington University Law
Quarterly 147 (1979). Reprinted by University of Chicago Law School,
Journal Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship.
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles/

[iii] For more on this subtopic, check out the article entitled The Trouble
With Inclusion
<https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm20/bm2003/bm200313.htm>:
https://nfb.org//images/nfb/publications/bm/bm20/bm2003/bm200313.htm
<https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm20/bm2003/bm200313.htm>

[iv] john a. powell; “Bridging or Breaking? The Stories We Tell Will Create
the Future We Inhabit “ (blog) January 14,2020
http://www.johnapowell.org/blog

[v]“Origins Of The NFB Pledge”
https://nfb.org/sites/default/files/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm17/bm1709/bm170914.htm

----------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nationalharbor_nfbnet.org/attachments/20220110/b09889ca/attachment.html>