Equity vs. Equality

Back to THE ISSUES

The concept of equity has become a lightning rod in contemporary discourse, carrying different meanings depending on the ideological lens through which it is viewed. Two prominent frameworks—antiracism and traditional Christianity—offer distinct definitions of equity, each rooted in fundamentally different assumptions about justice, human nature, and societal order. This article provides a brief analysis of the antiracist version of equity from a traditional Christian perspective.

Equity in the Antiracism Framework

In the antiracism framework, equity is often presented as a corrective to systemic inequalities, particularly those rooted in historical and ongoing racial injustices. Antiracism, as articulated by scholars like Ibram X. Kendi, defines equity as the pursuit of equal outcomes across racial groups, rather than mere equal opportunity. This view posits that historical systems of oppression—such as slavery, segregation, and discriminatory policies—have created disparities in wealth, education, health, and opportunity that persist across generations.

In the antiracism framework, equity is defined as the pursuit of equal outcomes across racial groups, addressing disparities caused by historical and systemic injustices. Scholars like Ibram X. Kendi argue that equity goes beyond equal opportunity, requiring intentional interventions to correct imbalances in wealth, education, health, and opportunity resulting from systems like slavery, segregation, and discriminatory policies. Equity, in this context, requires intentional interventions to level the playing field, often through policies like affirmative action, reparations, or resource redistribution.

Unlike equality, which assumes uniform treatment, equity acknowledges that different groups start from unequal positions and thus require tailored support to achieve parity. This widely recognized graphic, often shared in discussions of antiracist equity illustrates this concept vividly.

In the “equality” panel, each person stands on a box of the same height, but the shortest person still cannot see over the fence. In the "equity" panel, the boxes are redistributed: the tallest person gets no box, the middle-height person gets one, and the shortest gets two, enabling all to see over the fence. This visual encapsulates the antiracist view that equity involves allocating resources based on need to achieve equal outcomes for all.

Here is another popular explanation of equity.

For antiracists, equity is not about treating everyone the same but about acknowledging that different groups start from different places due to systemic factors. For example, policies like affirmative action or increased funding for schools in historically marginalized areas aim to provide the "extra boxes" needed to level outcomes across racial groups. The goal is to dismantle structures that perpetuate racial disparities, ensuring that statistical measures—such as graduation rates or income levels—reflect parity across racial lines. Antiracists frame equity as a moral necessity, arguing that justice demands proactive measures to address historical wrongs, even if it means prioritizing certain groups over others.

Equity in the Traditional Christian Framework

Traditional Christianity, grounded in biblical theology, offers a markedly different understanding of equity, one that emphasizes impartial judgment and fairness before God. Drawing from scripture, such as Romans 2:11 (“For God shows no partiality”) and Proverbs 29:14, equity in this framework refers to judging each person or situation with truth and righteousness, free from bias, prejudice, or favoritism. This approach is illustrated in the biblical account of King Solomon in 1 Kings 3:16-28, where Solomon resolves a dispute between two mothers by seeking truth rather than equal outcomes. Equity, in this sense, is about rendering just decisions based on objective truth, not manipulating outcomes to achieve uniformity.

From a historic Christian perspective, equity is rooted in the belief that all humans are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and are equal in dignity and worth. However, this does not mean identical outcomes. The Bible acknowledges human diversity—ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic—without mandating that these differences be erased through forced equal outcomes. Instead, biblical equity demands that each person be judged according to their actions and character, in alignment with God’s moral law. Biblical equity is inherently tied to the gospel, which addresses the universal problem of sin, not the sociological constructs of race or systemic oppression. For Christians, true justice flows from a heart transformed by Christ, not from human efforts to balance scales through social engineering.

A Christian Analysis of AntiRacist Equity

When viewed through the lens of traditional Christianity, the antiracist definition of equity raises several concerns. First, the antiracist approach often prioritizes group identity over individual responsibility, which conflicts with the biblical principle that each person is accountable for their own actions (Ezekiel 18:20). By focusing on equal outcomes across racial groups, antiracist equity can inadvertently foster an unbiblical form of partiality, favoring one group over another based on historical grievances rather than current merit or need. This approach risks distorting justice, as it may penalize individuals for the sins of their ancestors or privilege others based on presumed victimhood, rather than adhering to the impartiality God demands.

Second, the antiracist framework tends to ground its understanding of equity in secular ideologies, such as critical race theory, which are incompatible with biblical truth. Antiracism often embraces a collectivist mindset, viewing people first and foremost as members of racial groups rather than as individuals created in God’s image. This perspective can lead to a form of “reverse discrimination,” where policies designed to achieve equity inadvertently create new injustices by treating people unequally. While intended to address disparities, affirmative action can undermine the biblical principle of judging individuals based on their character and actions, not their group identity.

Third, traditional Christianity challenges the antiracist notion that human systems can ultimately achieve justice through outcome-based interventions. Harrison emphasizes that the root of injustice is sin, not ethnicity or systemic structures alone. The gospel—not social policy—is the only sufficient power to reconcile hearts and address enmity between individuals or groups (Ephesians 2:14-16). The antiracist pursuit of equity (equal outcomes), by contrast, often relies on human effort and secular frameworks. These are insufficient for addressing the deeper spiritual problem of sin. True equity emerges when individuals are transformed by Christ, leading to reconciled relationships and just actions, rather than through engineered social outcomes.

Conclusion

The antiracist and traditional Christian frameworks offer starkly different visions of equity. Antiracism sees equity as achieving equal outcomes through systemic interventions, rooted in the belief that historical injustices demand compensatory measures. Traditional Christianity defines equity as impartial, truth-based judgment that reflects God’s character and prioritizes individual accountability over group-based outcomes. While both frameworks aim to address injustice, their foundations—human effort versus divine truth—lead to divergent paths. For Christians, true equity is found not in balancing societal scales, but in submitting to God’s just and impartial standard, where every heart is judged by truth alone.

Dig Deeper:

• Listen to a long-form discussion, "The 'Equity' vs. 'Equality' Trap," with our friends from the Just Thinking podcast on Allie Beth Stuckey's "Relatable" show.

• Read a short article entitled, "Equity or Equality?" by our friend Darrell B. Harrison from the Just Thinking podcast.

• Watch a video by our Vice President, Krista Bontrager: