Let me try a metaphor. Chris and Pat are each building a Commander deck. Each week they’re allowed to visit the game store and buy cards. Chris gets to buy ten cards a week and can get any rarity. Pat only gets to buy two cards a week and can only buy commons and uncommons.
In ten weeks, Chris has a deck. It takes Pat fifty weeks. When they play, Chris beats Pat the vast majority of the time because Chris’s deck is just significantly stronger.
Now let’s say we recognize that this is unfair and want to correct it to make the two decks play evenly against one another. We could make a new rule. Both players can buy five cards and two can be a rare or mythic rare.
That’s fair, right? Each now has the same restrictions. It’s “equal”. But it’s not. Chris got a huge advantage for a long time. If the goal is to help Pat’s deck have a chance against Chris’s, you have to give Pat a period where Pat gets access to more and better cards than Chris otherwise Pat will never catch up.
That is why equality is not the answer to a shortage of diversity.
Equity, not contextless and blind equality. Fantastic answer, Mark.
„You are misunderstanding how diversity works. It’s not about everything being equal, it’s about things that are traditionally underrepresented, not being underrepresented.” With all due respect, I, and many others, believe equality is what we should be going for, not diversity the way you describe it. Otherwise, it comes off to many as being hypocritical, regardless of if that was the intention
Opublikowano
magicpotatolover 