Equality is the starting-point. Equity is a step further and is the basis for freedom.

Equity requires unfair and preferential treatment of certain groups over others.
It looks at group identities rather than individuals.
In a work setting, the best person should always get the job regardless of whether or not this leads to a workplace full of black/white people, men/women, gay/straight people or not.

The end result doesn't matter so long as people are treated equally and given equal opportunities. Pursuit of equity involves discrimination

Equity only makes sense if you refuse to acknowledge that people are anything more than the prejudiced assumptions you attach to their physical characteristics.

It is synonymous with racism, sexism, or whatever other term describing a discriminatory perspective is appropriate for the context.

The answer lies in whether you believe everyone deserves equality of outcome.

Equality and equity are methods of achieving an outcome.

Equality means each individual is provided with the exact same resources or opportunties as everyone else, whereas equity recognises that in order to reach a truly equal outcome, some individuals have additional needs which means they might need something which another individual may not.

If we all started from the exact same playing field and were given the same resources and opportunities, we would have an equal and just outcome. However, in reality each of us have various unique setbacks which some others may not have that require some extra support. There is equity already existing in many aspects of society such as grants for high achieving economically disadvantaged children or for people with a disability.

Practically, there are often not enough resources or opportunities to offer to everyone, so to advocate for equality over equity in many cases people would be forced to take an 'all or nothing' approach and refuse many opportunities and resources which could have been of great help to those who desperately needed them, yet may have made little difference to others.

To say 'the end result doesn't matter so long as people are treated equally' is contradictory- why advocate for a method of equality if it doesn't result in equality? It is discriminatory to disregard these differences and allow society's inequalities to continue with no support or recognition. In a working society some level of positive discrimination may be necessary to discern who is in need and who is not.

Is equity the solution to societal imbalance or a form of racism?

• Equality, in the context of social justice, is the principle that everybody deserves the same treatment and opportunities. It is generally celebrated as a societal ideal, and many believe that we should all strive for equality. Many acknowledge that our world is not equal, and certain groups of people are discriminated against or less privileged than others, often for reasons of race, class, wealth, gender, or sexual orientation.

• The concept of equity follows from this acknowledgement and aims to level out societal imbalance by giving less privileged groups more resources or opportunities than more privileged groups. Equity stems from ideas of justice. This is explained very clearly using images in an article from Cultural Organizing.

• Many argue that in order to make society more equal, practicing equity is more important than practicing equality. Unlike equality, equity takes systemic inequality into account which many believe is vital in striving towards a world without societal bias or imbalance.

• Others argue that equity is unfair, as it prioritises certain people over others. Some also suggest that equity reduces people down to their race or ethnicity – some go as far as to say that this treatment of specific racial groups, even with anti-racist intentions, is a form of racism itself and is therefore damaging.

Whether equity or equality is best is dependent on the situation and whether you believe in equality of outcome or equality of opportunity.

• Equity refers to impartiality and fairness; it is a needs-based approach where everyone is provided with the resources required by them for being successful.
• Equality refers to equally distributing the available resources without considering individual needs.
• When looking for long-term solutions, equity can be viewed as a starting point to achieve equality. In this sense, equity is a process and equality are an outcome.
• Ultimately, equality should be something society strives for but equity might be a fairer way of achieving this as equality could create unfair opportunities for achieving success.
• However, it is also important to note that a symptom of equity is prejudice – fundamentally it involves treating people differently and racism and sexism could become a factor when deciding who and what social groups should get these opportunities over others.

Equity revolves around the idea everyone is entitled to the same level of treatment.

Equality revolves around giving everyone the same chances.

Equity encourages everyone to work to the minimum standard.

Equality encourages meritocracy, success through hard work, knowledge, intelligence, strength, etc.

Equity would see talentless garage bands given the same treatment as mozart.
Equality would see the same garage band able to reach a similar level, should they put in the work.

I don't agree with equity on the basis that it fights sexism with more sexism, racism with more racism, transphobia and homophobia with heterophobia (or whatever you would call the oppression of straight people). If you truly wanted fairness then you'd treat everyone equally (equality).

There is also the evidence that shows that the freer a society is the more disparity there is between groups. This would suggest that for equity to be present you would need to be in an extremely authoritarian state and most likely have to experience a lot of oppression, and I don't like that idea.