In the current backlash against DEI, most criticism is focused on the "D" -- diversity -- which replaces the principle of meritocracy with racial criteria in hiring, admissions, and promotions. Notorious examples of implementation include police and fire departments lowering requirements for education and physical fitness, or aviation authorities adopting biographical assessment in place of traditional skill-based hiring evaluations.
The "E" -- equity -- is more complex. Equity has replaced the concept of equality, which progressive ideology in the U.S. deems discriminatory because of its emphasis on individual effort that may result in unequal outcomes. A symbolic definition is that the educational equity must provide every child with what he needs to achieve his full academic and social potential. This vision resembles Karl Marx’s idealistic communism that provides resources “to each according to his needs.” Although formulated in the Marxist sense, equity is more restrictive because it is supposed to benefit children from only “underprivileged” backgrounds. But, beyond empty reasoning, equity’s actual goal is absolute equality in the educational outcomes regardless of individual ability or effort. To accomplish this, curricula and teaching methodology are being drastically rewritten in many parts of the country.
The STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields have come under increased scrutiny. Critics argue that these disciplines have historically been tools of nationalism, colonialism, and systemic inequity. As a result, some school districts across the country are scaling back advanced curricular offerings. Mathematics has especially faced pressure due to its perceived role in perpetuating discrimination and cultural dominance. Many equity-focused proposals aim to reduce the emphasis on mathematics in school programs. Common suggestions include eliminating accelerated mathematical tracks in middle school, removing early-entry algebra for gifted students, and consolidating high school algebra and geometry into an “integrated math” course.
Aligned with these equity principles are significant changes in teaching methodology. Traditional grading practices are increasingly viewed as inequitable and are being reconsidered or eliminated in some districts. Proposals often include removing homework deadlines and allowing late work without penalty. In subjects such as reading and mathematics, achievement levels are being abolished, with all students placed in honors classes regardless of academic performance.
In terms of student discipline, many schools have adopted “restorative justice” approaches as an alternative to traditional punitive measures. This model focuses on mediation and rehabilitation rather than suspension, emphasizing support not only for the victim, but the offender too. More than 20 states have already enacted policies introducing restorative justice in schools. These practices involve allowing misbehaving students to avoid traditional consequences and even receive incentives such as snacks or breaks in quiet spaces. The restorative justice programs let misbehavers blame factors outside their control, that is, typically societal injustice.
Where does this lead? As I showed elsewhere, the U.S. is following a much more elaborate Soviet experience in equitizing the education system. After the 1917 revolution, the Soviets attempted to eradicate “past injustices” toward the proletariat. They shut down advanced education and prohibited individual grades, tests, and homework assignments. Students were divided into teams, and grades were only given to the team. Some sciences, e.g., genetics, were declared inconsistent with socialist dogmas and banned. They also took steps to eliminate the nuclear family, and parents were punished for getting involved in the educational process. While the Soviets achieved mass literacy in society, they otherwise, and this is important for the U.S. followers, decelerated the overall educational level from two directions. Firstly, they closed access to advanced education for inquisitive-minded students, a potential pool of scientists and researchers. Secondly, they created a deficit of qualified teachers, leaving only those prepared to teach elementary disciplines. However, new challenges of building an industrial society after WW II and competition from the U.S. in the development of nuclear weapons forced the Soviets to ease the grip of progressive ideology and to exempt such disciplines as mathematics, physics, and chemistry from the equity rules. By abandoning equity, the country within several decades restored and often outmatched the famous pre-revolutionary Russian school of mathematics.
In summary, the U.S. has followed the Soviet lead in the enforcement of equity in education. Equity sets curricula and teaching methods to the lowest common denominator, which prevents high-achieving students from realizing their full potential. The Soviet experience suggests that real progress resumes only when equity mandates are lifted. Ironically, it may be harder to reject equity in a democratic society than in a totalitarian one, where any policy can be reversed without public input. In the U.S., however, some parents may support equity because it oversimplifies education curricula and thus makes school life more enjoyable for their children.
Fyodor Kushnirsky is professor emeritus at Temple University specializing in economic development and comparative economic systems
Image: Pixabay