Core Values: Equal opportunities? Or, outcomes?

Equality makes everyone’s “short list” of American values. But what does equality mean? It can mean equal opportunities, equality of outcomes, equality before the law, gender equality, racial equality, and more.

Well over 90% of Americans agree that everyone should have equal opportunities. This figure doesn’t waver over the four national surveys I conducted in 2009 and 2010. This conception of equality firmly fits our definition of a core value: strongly held, widely held, stable over time, and shared across demographic and political lines. For example, liberals and conservatives alike firmly hold the value of equality of opportunities.

The same can’t be said for equality of outcomes. Many Americans support some version of this, but it’s far from a core value. Depending on how you describe the idea, equality of outcomes can seem almost un-American.

But there is a very strong concern about outcomes among millions of Americans. More than 70% of Americans believe the gap between rich and poor is too large. How big is that gap? It’s so large right now that, looking at this factor alone, an outside observer would conclude that America is a developing nation. Economic inequality is at an all-time high in America. Wages have been stable or declining, while productivity has gone up. Care to read more? Here’s an earlier story on Americans’ attitudes toward economic fairness. And, here’s a story about the wealth gap as it relates to hunger.

Today, please Comment below on this:

We know you support equality, but equality of what?

Opportunities? Outcomes, too?

(Originally published at www.OurValues.org, an online experiment in civil dialogue on American values.)



Comments

[Kim]

Equality of opportunities, but . . . I don't think there will ever be equality of outcomes and we shouldn't try to aim for that. I do feel that we should help people who can't do as much as others can, and provide basic needs for children, elderly, handicapped, etc. No one is ever going to get everything they want, and there will be inequality, but some things are more important than others. A huge paycheck doesn't guarantee happiness. Some people feel happy and fulfilled living a spartan life and helping others. People are not all the same and that's a good thing. It's more about finding a place where each person fits and feels OK about where they are in life. For some people, it might be to be rid of pain. For another, it might be a home of their own, for another it might be becoming CEO of a large company.

[Roberto Valenzuela]

I support equality of opportunity, as indeed most decent human beings do. I think it's important to clarify what we *mean* by "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome," though.

When some people say "equality of opportunity," they have a very simple notion of a lack of unique *impediments* to one's success. This notion is largely tied to equal treatment before the law -- for example, no segregation in schools. When I say "equality of opportunity," however, I mean something more robust, entailing the idea that the vagaries of circumstance should be compensated for, to give all individuals equal opportunity to develop their unique talents. So, for example, I believe a black kid from a poor ghetto family should be able to receive both the same level and quality of education as a rich white kid from an Ivy League dynasty. Equality of opportunity, for me, means that people in disadvantaged circumstances should receive a hand up to be able to compete as equals in the economic, social, and educational markets. Mere equal treatment before the law is insufficient, since it does not truly provide everyone in a society an equal opportunity to pursue his or her dreams.

Likewise, whether one supports "equality of outcomes" depends greatly on how one defines the term. I can't think of many people who believe in zero meritocracy, or who believe that an overarching authority should arbitrarily assign roles in society and limitations on success. I certainly would not support such a concept. Nonetheless, if by "equality of outcomes" one means that two people with the same goals, intelligence, and work ethic should be able to attain the same level of success regardless of where they start in life, then I absolutely agree with equality of outcomes in that sense -- in other words, in the sense in which it is folded into a robust understanding of equality of opportunity.

Orwell's essay "On Politics and the English Language" seems relevant here. Since terms like "equal opportunity" and "equality of outcomes" are commonly used in political rhetoric, it is important to dig beneath the surface of the words being used and ask what they actually describe. For example, when a conservative politician lambasts a liberal politician for supporting "equality of outcomes," he is probably attempting to stir up in his audience an instinctive negative reaction to the idea of destroying meritocracy -- when, in fact, the politician being attacked may simply support helping disadvantaged individuals receive access to the same level of opportunity as the more privileged.

Hopefully, this contributes to the development of additional and helpful nuance in this conversation.