December 25th, 2010

December 25th, 2010

Dear Jeremy,

It has been a whole semester since I last wrote to you; so I must apologize for my lack of correspondence. I hope my remittance of duty in writing to you is alleviated only by the fact that I do in fact see you every single day of your life. That being said, phew! So much has happened since September. I have been very busy in my Master’s program at NYU: student teaching, coasting by-- not reading the assignments, and busting my ass to read the assignments when the papers are coming due. With the semester over I can manage to write to you about something that has been nagging at me concerning most public discourses; regardless of whether or not they are overtly conceded.

The issue that I wish to speak about today is the difference between equality and equity, and sure enough, I know I have mentioned it before. A big piece of the great political divide that is currently preventing any legislation of worth from occurring in this country is the supposed interchangeability of these two terms. In fact the word “equity” never gets thrown around at all unless its in reference to a home loan or mortgage. I am not suggesting the country call J.G. Wentworth (877 CASH NOW); it’s not the kind of equity I am talking about at all.

When the term “equality” gets thrown around the conservative movement in this country—whether they are a tea party or a pick-a-nig party—get very wound up saying the laws on the books make everyone “equal”, that the spirit of the land says “all men were created equal” and if they really feel that they are up against the wall they point a finger and start yelling “communist” and “socialist”.

Going as far back as my first letter to you, I’ve stated that remarks of this kind are generally unfounded, especially in the United States where capitalism hasn’t existed in a pure form for over 100 years and where socialism has been in effect for damn near 80 years but even that is still a financial/economic kind of equity that I’m not actually talking about (though all things in a society are interconnected).

What I am actually talking about is social equity. Social equity, or social justice, is a philosophy that every one should have an equal opportunity and every one should have equal treatment under the auspices of government and law. This is the kind of equity that does indeed allow for a class system, does indeed allow for poverty, and does indeed allow for the children of rich people to inherit their family fortunes and remain rich.

What it doesn’t allow for is two simultaneous, or three concurrent systems of law and government; systems which allow the poor to be tried as poor -- without real advocacy, for the middle (oh the dwindling middle!) to have a 50:50 shot at fair justice, and the upper crust to have about 95:5 shot of going home versus slap on the wrist. Now these of course are gross generalizations; but I’m trying to illustrate a point.

Where is the social justice in a system that sends people partaking in, admittedly illegal actions, such as distributing relatively small amounts of marijuana to jail for longer periods of time than say…rapists, murders, and multimillionaire CFOs who have lost every penny the American people invested in them? This strange balance of “pot is bad (mmkay?)”, “making thousands of people homeless is less bad” is a major problem in the priorities of the legal system.

Recently a specific stride towards equality was made in the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” which was a fundamentally discriminatory practice in the U.S. Military based on sexual orientation. Military personnel were under an unfair edict for 17 years that required they suppress or lie about their sexual preferences. This is a case in the United States of a deep-seated hypocrisy being brought to the forefront and dismantled. If the United States claims all men created equal than the equality of choice and an ability to voice your preferences should be one of our highest ideals. This is not limited to the freedom of religion it should be extended to all personal choices. If all men are created equal then homosexual men are equal. If they have a right to pursue happiness then they should be able to pursue that gaiety with the vigor of any other American. This is a solid case for equality; and as of yet a successful one.

Then you’ve got financial deregulation, which is a big conservative (Pee Party) ideological what-have-you. Financial deregulation is, in fairness, a series of reversals of laws on the books that take America’s pseudo-socialist economic policy back towards a more laissez faire kind of capitalism. This is a fair thing for people who yell “communist!” and “socialist!” at the drop of a hat to want. The problem is that the premise of such a system is fundamentally flawed. Now I have always said that “A single person is good, but a bunch of people together are no damned good” and I will addendum that with “those no damned good people will inevitably succumb to a mob mentality”. So what does that mean? If you have a bunch of people running monetary decisions they will not by human nature do what is best for the masses. They will do what is best for their selves and damned be the rest.


In this point of my argument I must clarify, because even as I am writing it I hear Ayn Rand’s Jim and Dagny Taggert arguing in my head. It is not business’ business to make the world equitable, it is business’ business to make money. It is the United States Government’s job to make the country equitable. Which brings us back to equity and equality. It’s still slippery; I understand that. If I were to distill it to a point I would say that, in regards to legislative edicts like affirmative action, equality is quotas and equity is hiring on merit, experience, and ability. To hire a minority because he or she is a minority and a certain number of that group has to be represented in your business, school, institution whatever is wrong—it is in fact the same thing as hiring an unqualified white person over a qualified black one. Equity is saying “this person is more equipped and skilled, therefore I will hire him/her”. It’s fairness.

Now, I’ve been dealing with a lot of third graders lately and if you ask a third grader they will tell you that fairness is equality. It’s not true. If Jimmy gets a star because he did good work and Johnny didn’t that’s equity. If Jimmy did good work and everybody gets a star regardless of what they did that’s equality. Equality is “everyone gets the same thing” and equity is “Everybody gets what they need”. Equality is the case, or rather it should be, with the letter of the law. Everyone should get the same thing in legal cases—senator, pauper, billionaire mogul, drug dealer, everyone should be the same in the eyes of the courts and sheriffs. Equality should be the case for accessibility to proper health care. Equality should be the case for access to your elected officials. Equality should be the case for access to education.

Job markets, capitalist job markets especially, don’t run that way. You would think in a money making enterprise that racism would get thrown out of the window for such things as bottom-line and competition but humans are a very funny animal; almost like coyotes in their xenophobia. Many people will gnaw off their hands, monetarily speaking, in order to not hire those that are different from them. So laws have to be put on the books that ensure equitable opportunity. Many lawmakers, and most constituents unfortunately don’t understand the subtle yet not-so-subtle difference between equality and equity so the job market gets quotas placed upon it. “You have to hire X number of these kinds of people in ratio to Y number of that” which makes merit, and the idea of a meritocracy (re: one big word that is defined as “The only way to realize the American Dream”) an impossible system in the workplace or business world.

Now, before I move on I want to curb any misunderstandings. There are no racist implications in what I just said. Affirmative action could be a great tool for equity but it is instead used as a pawn for equality. Equality is not fairness it is an abandonment of objective consideration. Many others would argue that what I am talking about is putting too much trust in the hands of employers—that quotas are necessary in order to ensure that people aren’t being discriminated against. I think that’s bunk. I want people to be discriminated against. Any red-blooded American capitalist will tell you that discrimination is the most important thing in hiring—what should be prevented is racial, ethnic, gender, creed, religious, or sexual orientation based discrimination. People should be discriminated against always in every area of the job market by their ability. That’s why you go to school, it why you bust your ass at your vocation or profession, and its why you earn money—because you have worked hard to be the best. As the best you should be chosen for jobs.

Success should be a simple equation. Know your shit, work hard, wear a tie (when applicable). These things can be a mix in doses but the recipe won’t work without all the parts. Take the new New York City Schools Chancellor, Cathie Black, for example; here is a woman who has worked hard, knows when to wear a tie (as it were), and was able to become the head of one of the largest school districts in the country. What’s all the hubbub about then? She has no background in education—so she doesn’t know her shit. They had to create a job of “Knowing education type-stuff” as a direct aid to her. So what use is she? She doesn’t know her shit. So is it equity, or even equality that she has been appointed to this position? It doesn’t actually make any sense. If I were building a skyscraper and put the world’s greatest hair stylist in charge of architecture does that make any sense whatsoever?

“Accomplished in designing” would be the reason given. Does hair dressing have anything to do with architecture? What if I appointed an assistant architect and titled them “Special Assistant with Practical Knowledge of How To Be Certain This Building Doesn’t Fall And Kill Hundreds of People”? Wouldn’t you rather, at the very least, that I put the one with the practical knowledge in charge and take the highly accomplished hairdresser in a position of power that was more befitting to their role?

Equity. Cathie Black has been put in charge to make sure the system is run in a financially sound way while a CEO in charge of education has been put in to makes sure education is being attended to. In a reasonable scenario their roles would be flipped. The person with the educational knowledge appropriate to over see a school system should be Chancellor while someone of Cathie Black’s accomplishment should be made CFO to make sure the system doesn’t bleed itself to death. Her appointment is not equitable to the children of New York because she is not what they need.

She is equitable to Mayor King Bloomberg because what he always is in need of is more yes-men and cronies.


Jeremy, my boy, I don’t know where you will be attending school. We don’t currently live in the City of New York, but rather in the ‘burbs just outside. You may go to Long Island public schools, we may live in the boroughs, you may go to a private school. We don’t know right now. I do know the world you will live in though and at the end of the day you will find that it will offer equity and equality in uneven and irregular doses. The world runs on a system of “who you know not what you know”; though many a politician and law tries to make it otherwise. This is not pessimism or negativity on my part that’s just the way it is. There are times and places where equity should come into play as well as equality. Equality is far less useful and is not usually appropriate; where as equity is a slippery beast and may fall victim to subjective judgments. As always, I don’t quite have it down yet…but I can point to where it’s broken. Usually in tangled bureaucratic public administration. All the same that does not mean that either is without value. Everyone should have equal rights and treatment before the law and everyone should be treated equitably by the world. Utopian, perhaps, but it sounds much better as an ideal than “just accept that every is jerks and the world sucks”. It doesn’t have to be.

Love,

Your Father


P.S. Since my last letter you’ve started eating a wide variety of foods including but not limited to: fish, beef, pasta, pea soup, mashed potatoes, bread, ice cream, rice crispies, cheerios, and much much more. Basically you eat what we eat (plus formula…you still take a bottle!). You also have five teeth with more on the way, you’ve mastered crawling, you climb up on just about anything and cruise and skate along the sides. I think you’ll walk soon. You make all kinds of fun noises and seem to desperately want to tell us…something. You are in the 78th Percentile in height and at nine months old are wearing the 18 months size and you’ve got enough hair to make a wig for Great-Grandpa Joe and Great-Great-Uncle Nisan. No lie. You are quite the flirt with all kinds of ladies you come across and win their hearts left and right. Also you love toy cars. How about that?

P.P.S. Even though we are Jewish and that is the faith you are being raised in, Grandpa Kenny’s side of the family is Catholic and Christian. Today is Christmas! Hooray! You will be getting the benefit of a fantastic part of my childhood: Chanukah and Christmas presents! Get ready to get spoiled! I can’t wait to see what you think of a Christmas Tree with blinking lights and shiny, shiny, ornaments.