Equality is constantly preached as the perfect way to achieve a better world, but this is not always the case.

I used to support the idea of an equal world until about a year ago when a more suitable answer was brought to my attention.

One would assume that having equality would mean that everything would be fair, but being fair is not what we need. In order to achieve a better world, we should be aiming for a more equitable, more just world.

Equity is often used as a synonym as equality, but these terms are distinct. Equality aims to promote fairness by treating everyone the same way. Equity on the other hand, attempts to be just by treating people differently based on outside factors.

Be aware that equity does not involve judging or isolating people, it simply dedicates different tools or attention to those who need a little more help than others.

Both strategies attempt to reach similar goals, but have different steps to do so. It may sound absolutely awful to treat people differently based on their abilities or other factors, but sometimes it must be done.

Think of it like this: there are three individuals trying to watch a baseball game. Each individual is standing behind a wooden fence that is surrounding the baseball field in which the game is being played.

The only way that they can see the game is looking above the fence. There are also three boxes available to these individuals.

Person number one is tall enough to see the game while standing. Person number two is shorter than person number one and therefore cannot see the game. Person number three is even shorter than the other two and even if they are on their tippy toes, they have no chance on watching the game.

If we wanted to aim for equality, we would give one box to each individual to stand on. Person one could still watch the game, and now can person two. Person number three however, still can’t see the game.

If we were to aim for equity, we would give the three people the appropriate number of boxes needed based on their heights.

As a result, person number one would not get a box because they can already see the game. Person number two would receive one box to be able to see the game and person number three would take two boxes. All individuals can now watch the game.

Even though the people we not treated fairly, they all are now capable of watching the game and there is a balance. This serves as a reminder that even if something is fair, it doesn’t mean it’s just.

Clearly, being equitable is fairer than being equal in the situation. It’s kind of ironic given that if one is equitable, they are are not necessarily being fair like someone who advocates for equality, but that’s how the real world works.

I’m not saying that equality should be completely disregarded, there are situations in which equality is the right answer.

For example, people should receive equal pay for the equal amount of work completed in a workplace regardless of anything, like gender identity. However, I also believe that there should be accommodations (such as more restroom availability) for those in a workplace based on gender identity.

Overall, equality is not the only suitable answer to deal with difficult situations. Sometimes equality isn’t enough to achieve equal status or justice.

Perhaps we should be preaching for both equity and equality in order to achieve a better world.