Equity: The Fairness Myth Dressed in Buzzwords

“Equity” is one of those words that sounds lovely—who wouldn’t want fairness, justice, and a level playing field? It’s been paraded through politics, business meetings, school policies, and HR manuals like some kind of moral crown jewel. But let’s pause and look under the hood. Is equity really about fairness, or is it just a fancy new disguise for the same old tricks?

Let’s break it down in simple terms and see if this shiny concept holds up.

Equality vs. Equity: A Slippery Shift

Once upon a time, people talked about equality—everyone getting the same chances. That’s easy to understand: same rules, same opportunities, no favourites. But equity? That’s different. Equity means giving people what they need to succeed, even if that means treating them differently.

Sounds noble, right? Until you start asking questions.

Who decides what people “need”? Who gets to measure success? And what if some people start using that system to get more than they really need? These are not small questions. Because once you give someone the power to “adjust” outcomes in the name of fairness, you’ve opened the door to all kinds of bias, favouritism, and quietly shifting standards.

A Great Idea… in Theory

Equity sounds great on paper. Imagine two kids trying to see over a fence. One is tall, one is short. Equality gives both the same box to stand on. The tall kid sees the game, the short one doesn’t. Equity gives the short kid a taller box, so both can see.

That’s the story we’re told.

But in real life, that fence is never just a fence. It’s a hundred other things—family background, health, money, luck, motivation, and yes, even personal choices. And those boxes? They don’t come out of thin air. Someone has to build them, fund them, and decide who gets them.

The problem? That someone often has their own agenda.

Who’s Holding the Scale?

Equity depends on judgement—which is where it starts to wobble. Institutions, corporations, governments—they all promise equity, but they rarely agree on what that means.

In education, it might mean lowering the bar for some students so everyone “achieves” the same level. In the workplace, it could mean hiring someone based on their background rather than their skills. In housing or healthcare, it may lead to quotas and rules that ignore individual merit entirely.

Now, let’s be honest: life isn’t fair. Some people do start off with more. But the idea that we can somehow engineer fairness after the fact is a bit of a fantasy, isn’t it?

Because when systems try to fix outcomes, they often just create new unfairness in the opposite direction.

The Equity Business: Big Promises, Bigger Budgets

There’s also a lot of money tied up in equity. Departments of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (often called DEI) have exploded across universities, companies, and public institutions. Entire careers are now built around creating “equitable frameworks” and “inclusive strategies.”

But ask yourself—what do they actually do?

If you peel back the glossy presentations, a lot of it comes down to writing new policies, collecting statistics, and holding workshops. Not useless, but not exactly revolutionary either. And often, they end up telling people what they can and can’t say, which groups they’re allowed to criticise, and how they should feel.

It starts to sound less like fairness… and more like ideological management.

Is It About Justice—or Control?

The most cynical view? Equity isn’t about helping the underdog. It’s about controlling the narrative. It gives organisations the appearance of progress while avoiding the harder work of real reform.

Why fix poor education when you can just “adjust” the grading system? Why deal with wage inequality when you can offer a few flashy internships for show? Why question the deeper causes of poverty when it’s easier to throw around the word “systemic” and move on?

Equity can become a smokescreen—a way to seem caring without actually solving anything.

Winners and Losers in the Equity Game

Another uncomfortable truth: equity often picks winners and losers. It divides people into categories—based on race, gender, background—and then assigns value based on those categories.

That’s not unity. That’s tribalism in a new suit.

It’s easy to see how resentment builds. If you feel you’re being overlooked not because you’re unqualified, but because you’re in the “wrong” group, how is that better than the injustice we were trying to fix?

And if you benefit from the system, you’re told to be grateful and stay silent. It’s not equality of opportunity—it’s managed outcomes, often with political motivations behind the scenes.

Real Fairness Is Messy

Let’s be clear: fighting for fairness is a good thing. Everyone should have a shot at a decent life. But pretending that equity is a simple or flawless way to get there? That’s dishonest.

Real fairness is messy. It means tackling deep, tangled issues—education, housing, justice, employment—with honesty, not slogans. It means sometimes admitting that we can’t guarantee equal results, only equal rights.

Equity tries to tidy up a chaotic world by controlling the results. But maybe that’s the wrong approach. Maybe what we really need is to focus on freedom, opportunity, and accountability—and let people rise or fall based on who they are, not what box they tick.

The Bottom Line?

Equity talks a big game about fairness, but underneath it’s often a mix of good intentions, bad logic, and political theatre. It promises balance but can end up tipping the scale. It claims to uplift, but sometimes just rearranges who gets to stand on the boxes.

So next time someone sells you “equity” as the solution to everything, it might be worth asking:

Who’s deciding what’s fair? And who’s really benefiting from all this?

Because sometimes, the people shouting loudest about fairness are the ones holding the measuring tape.