Such an interesting and worthwhile topic to tackle.
Guest Contribution
Such an interesting and worthwhile topic to tackle. While you might not have too much trouble finding people sympathetic to the cause the more difficult part of this might be: Who exactly do we expect to pay to for the solution? Who pays for the crates?
There’s a temptation to focus on the outcome in the image, that is, if the person can see over the fence or not, however, the most important and most contentious part, in my view, is actually those crates. Why? Because in a majority of social issues, the crates are paid for by the tax payer.
Let’s run with Fabricio’s hardware problem because it’s relevant to the design industry. So, who is paying for the laptop for the person who can’t afford it? Is it moral to expect (and then force) the tax payer to foot the bill?
Who pays for equality vs. who pays for equity?
If wealth distribution wasn’t so common place (especially in education) this whole thing wouldn’t be such an issue but because it is, we have to fight constantly with the question of how other people’s money should be spent.
Despite this, no issue should have the ability change the cornerstone that is equality before the law. Public schools are paid for by the government and both public and private schools are regulated by legislators, who create laws, that control the schools. The law must treat everyone the same even if it means not creating equity. You simply can’t create equity without simultaneously creating a bias and we all think of an example of what happens when bias is built into the law.
Does that mean the poor kid won’t get a laptop? It shouldn’t.
How will we achieve equity though?
Surely it’s only by the free action of individuals or private groups. Who else but a close community, be it a family, a UX group, sporting club or alike can recognise and address real inequity and do it without spending strangers money? I am not sure we, like so many seem to do, can expect the government to have an all seeing eye and then have the ability to correct personal and nuanced issues. Like OP mentions, nothing is as binary as it seems so for the government to elevate the issues for one group into law, they will likely cause inequality for another.
Summary
The government is responsible for equality (negative rights) and the community is responsible for equity (positive rights) given that both parties are consensual. If the community in this case in the design community, what might that look like?
Powered by WPeMatico
