Rethink the vote against ‘equity’

The Fort Vancouver Regional Library District Board of Trustees decision to strike the word “equity” from their work plan, as reported in the Feb. 4 edition of Columbia Gorge News, is another example of a current trend: Boards seeking an outright ban of the word.

As an English major, I don’t really get worked up about words in general — they mean what we think they mean, and no word is “bad,” per se; it’s just how they’re labeled. (Does that mean I’m going to drop an F bomb in print? No — my mother reads this paper, plus I do understand the concept of social norms.) (Also, please note I’m talking words, not slurs. That, I do not tolerate.)

Anyway, let’s explore the word “equity.” My trusty dictionary defines it this way:

Equity, noun: fairness or justice in the way people are treated. Often, specifically: freedom from disparities in the way people of different races, genders, etc., are treated.

Nothing about that definition strikes me as controversial. Fairness in the way people are treated? Count me in. Take away disparities that keep some of us down? Yeah, sounds awesome.

But then, I’ve never understood the concept of successes only counting when someone else fails. I want us all to win.

And we can, if we treat each other equitably.

Here’s an example I like to trot out to explain the concept of equity versus equality (because equality, for some reason, has become another buzzword and is often touted as superior):

Let’s pretend we’re at a ballfield. Three of us are standing behind a fence.

I’m 6 feet tall. Chelsea, our publisher/owner, is 5-5, and LisaAnn, our office manager, is 5-feet. I can already see over the fence; Chelsea and LisaAnn cannot. We’re each given the same sized box to stand on to rectify the situation.

But it doesn’t fix much. Two things don’t change despite the boxes: I can still see over the fence, and LisaAnn still cannot. Only Chelsea is helped by standing on the box.

That is equality. All of us have received the exact same thing even though our needs are different. To make things equitable — so LisaAnn can also see over the fence — all we need to do is take my box (which I don’t need anyway) and give it to her.

Now, LisaAnn has two boxes, Chelsea has one, and I have none — and we can all see over the fence. We all win.

And that’s the entire point.

If you think this example is too simple, pretend the boxes are actually educational opportunities, tax breaks, healthcare, affordable housing, childcare, college admission, generational wealth, the pay gap, transportation, digital access, scholarships, the justice system, handicap parking, disposable income, availability of services and, yes, library access (that’s what the bookmobiles are for). I’m sure there’s more; that’s just off the top of my head.

I find it interesting that those who oppose the word “equity” can’t articulate why — all they can say is that they don’t like it. To quote Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

I respectfully urge the Fort Vancouver Library board to reconsider its stance against the word “equity.” Libraries are a free resource open to all, and are a prime example of equity anyway, whether you use the word or not. By striking the word from your workplan, all you do is show your constituents you don’t understand the overall mission of libraries.

Unfortunate, given your role as community representatives.