Category: Equity

Equity Goals And Policies

When is equity achieved? According to the Portland Plan Progress Report, it is “when identity such as race, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation has no detrimental effect on the distribution of resources, opportunities, and outcomes for group.” (Sustainability, 2017). Regions with greater inclusion and smaller racial income gaps attain more economic growth, yet most communities of color in the Portland metropolitan region experience the worst economic and social disparities (Metro, 2016b). Portland’s racial equity journey started with the Portland Plan 2012 which was initiated in 2009 and published three years later (Anne Green et al., 2017). Later came the Comprehensive Plan 2035 which incorporated the Portland Plan and then the Climate Action Plan. All three were released by the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS), and to parallel these documents, Metro published the ‘Strategic Plan to Advance Racial Equity and Inclusion’ which set five main goals to achieve racial equity. All of PBS’ plans have racial equity goals and released a progress report in 2017 entailing which goals were on the path to being met and which ones were at a standstill. Correspondingly, each bureau in the City of Portland has a five-year racial equity plan with specific steps to achieve their goals.

The Portland Plan 2012 included a ten-page section solely about racial equity and set a list of goals to “close the gaps” regarding racial inequity. The objective was to collect data to better understand the challenges faced by communities of color, then apply it to assess equity impact on policies, investments, and public services in order to tailor approaches to reduce racial disparities (Portland, 2012). These same goals are applied in the plan’s Five-Year Action Plan in addition to enforcing the City of Portland Civil Rights Title VI Program Plan, which calls for the removal of “barriers and conditions that prevent minority and low-income groups and persons from receiving access, participation, and benefits from city programs, services, and activities.” (Portland, 2012). Another aim is to build the skills and expertise to address institutional racism and general racial inequity (Portland, 2012) which both Metro and BPS have been diligently working on.

Policy 3.1 in the Comprehensive Plan, uses an urban design framework as a guide to create inclusive places; like so, Action 18 of the twenty equity actions in the Portland Plan, uses an equity roadmap that was designed to identify and eliminate discrimination while promoting equitable outcomes (Sustainability, 2017). Goal C of the Strategic Plan strives to promote equity lens training. Equity would be perceived as a top priority by employees and provide mandatory racial equity training for all staff (Metro, 2016b). Metro created the Committee on Racial Equity (CORE), to advise Metro staff on implementing the Strategic Plan successfully (Metro, 2020). Additionally, Portland’s Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) initiated the Racial Equity Committee, who is in charge of ensuring the bureau is following and implementing an equity lens flawlessly (Portland, 2020c). Chris Smith relayed during the interview that the Planning Commission had equity training but is shifting towards an anti-racist lens that would be a more intense lens. He added that it is a learning process because it is difficult to dismantle the institutional racism in place even with new policies written using an equity lens.

Both the Strategic Plan and the Comprehensive plan aim to implement policies, procedures, and infrastructure decisions that advances racial equity and allocates equitable resources and investments to communities of color (Metro, 2016b, Portland, 2020a) and make decisions based on awareness of how past decisions have affected equity (Portland, 2020a). In contrast, the Portland African-American Leadership Forum (PAALF) felt that setting equity goals is not enough to end the racial problems (Forum, 2017). The organization published The People’s Plan to show what the inclusion of Black people looks like and how it should be done. Local municipalities promised to implement racial equity in their work but they have fallen short in achieving meaningful change for the Black community (Forum, 2017). As seen in the progress report, equity inclusion had not changed since the Portland Plan was released. Out of the twenty equity actions initiated by the city, five percent have not been started and the rest are in progress, meaning that even though some are underway, none have actually been sought through (Sustainability, 2017). Furthermore, survey respondents expressed that the city keeps talking equity, but no real efforts have been made to implement it. Forty-two percent of respondents agreed that current planning policies aid in further marginalization of POC residents and some felt that the city still favors the White population.

Community Engagement

Community engagement played a significant role in shaping equity goals by using feedback from non-profit organizations, businesses, and residents. The Portland Plan held dozens of workshops, hundreds of meetings with community groups, and received 20,000 comments from residents, local businesses, and non-profit organizations before releasing the plan in 2012 (Portland, 2012). Similarly, Portland 2030 was created by asking 17,000 people what they wanted for PDX’s future. A number of values were set which included: community connectedness and distinctiveness, equity and accessibility, sustainability, safety, accountability and leadership, inclusion and diversity (VisionPDX, 2008). Portland moved towards a bottom-up approach where community organizations have more say instead of the city taking the lead (Anne Green et al., 2017). Adding on, the Strategic Plan aims to break down social, historical, and institutional barriers while improving practices to better engage communities of color (Metro, 2016b); likewise, the Comprehensive Plans’ community engagement goals align with the Strategic Plan as seen in the whole of chapter two of the Comprehensive Plan and expands into further detail regarding the representation of vulnerable communities in decision making processes by acknowledging the exclusive historical past to better understand the conditions of the communities the plan is trying to represent and put forth more culturally appropriate processes through consulting with communities of color (Portland, 2020a). Subsequently, the City of Portland won an award in 2015 from the International Association for Public Transportation, for the equity and community focus on their Powell-Division Transit and Development Project (Sustainability, 2017). Furthermore, Policy 2.27 in the Comprehensive Plan aims to identify the demographics of possible affected communities when starting a planning project (Portland, 2020a). The city followed through with this promise by commissioning a study called, “Walking While Black” in which communities of color were interviewed to procure a visceral picture of what it is like to be a pedestrian with dark skin. This study was done out of the PBOT and used to redo their pedestrian masterplan (Chirinos, 2020a) as well as engage the POC community into the city’s plans. Moreover, Metro recently had a steering committee of about thirty people, including representatives from the Urban League of Portland and Coalition of Communities of Color, who helped develop the project list for allocating investment to communities that were traditionally under-served who mainly consisted of POC and low-income populations (Chirinos, 2020a).

Aside from wanting to engage more diverse groups, Portland’s planning departments also wanted to facilitate accessibility to the meetings for communities of color. Metro’s goals A and B from their Strategic Plan proposed different methods as to how they will meet their vision. “Goal A: Metro convenes and supports regional partners to advance racial equity” (Metro, 2016a) consists of gathering public, private, and community partners from the Portland region and to collaborate on how to advance racial equity and address a number of issues such as improving access to government services and decision making processes (Metro, 2016a). Goal B’s mission is to engage communities of color meaningfully by breaking down institutional barriers, reducing obstacles that obstruct POC from attending meetings, and continue to polish culturally informed practices (Metro, 2016a). Policy 2.34 of the Comprehensive Plan and Goal B in the Strategic Plan both state that accessibility to meetings will be improved in terms of time, location, language, and childcare services (Portland, 2020a, Metro, 2016a). However, Anahi Segovia Rodriguez expressed during her interview that the system was set up against those who could not afford to skip work for a public meeting, in other words, they needed to work to survive. She continued to express that the commute can be lengthy for some, parking is hard to find and it has to be paid for which put low-income POC at a disadvantage, and even if the meetings could be accessed online, there were no alternative language options. Overall, Rodriguez felt that community leaders intended to listen to these groups of people, but their real intention was to gather their support and push their political agenda.

Environmental Justice and Accessibility

Parks and greenspace are very important to Portlanders, but so is accessibility to services and amenities, mainly if they can be reached by bicycle or walking which is explicitly mentioned in Portland 2030. By the year 2030, the people would like to see Portland have public transportation that better connects neighborhoods to each other and the city center, goods and services are easily accessible in every neighborhood, and everyone has equitable access to community gardens, parks, and greenspace (VisionPDX, 2008). The public’s demands seemed to have been taken into consideration since both the Comprehensive Plan and the Climate Action Plan set aims and objectives to fulfill said needs. The Comprehensive Plan’s Policy 8.22 states that public facilities will be provided to alleviate service deficiencies in places facing these disparities (Portland, 2020a). The Climate Action Plan sets several goals to achieve environmental justice and recognizes that these goals cannot be achieved without addressing existing disparities and advancing equitable outcomes (Portland and County, 2015). Ongoing institutional racial bias and historical discriminatory practices consequently led to the inequitable distribution of resources and access to opportunities for communities of color (Portland and County, 2015).

Communities of color have been pushed out from Northeast neighborhoods like Alberta and Cully into the outer eastern part of Portland due to high housing prices and discrimination. Thirty-eight percent of East Portland residents are POC and twenty-five percent of the city’s population resides in this area, yet they lack frequent transit service and indicators of a complete neighborhood (i.e. bike lanes and sidewalks) due to poor investments (Portland and County, 2015). Equitable access to public transportation and greenspace is essential to the resilience of these communities (Forum, 2017). If these factors were improved, carbon emissions would be reduced. Communities of color already face higher respiratory and mental health problems due to their neighborhoods being closer to freeways, brownfields, and other hazardous areas (Forum, 2017), but the air quality, noise pollution, and temperature would be reduced if more greenspace was added (Portland and County, 2015). Households of color are disproportionately more likely to be in a “heat island” as found in a study conducted by Portland State University in 2019. Heat islands are areas that are significantly hotter than others because they consist of more concrete and asphalt than greenery which would help keep the place cool (Williams, 2020). The study found that in Portland, the cooler areas were a result of intentional investment in parks, trees, and transportation and housing policies that yielded “cooler services” which coincided with wealthier and White residents, yet the neighborhoods that experienced higher temperatures were historically subject to discriminatory housing policies (Williams, 2020). Some heat islands in Portland are the inner SE industrial area, inner NE along the I-5 Corridor, and the 82nd Avenue Corridor between I-84 and Foster Road (Williams, 2020). This systemic pattern suggests than Portland’s planning system has been negligent of the affected communities and prioritizing richer and whiter communities. Fortunately, city councilors adopted changes to the city code in 2019 where new development to allocate greenery and parking lot size limitations are required. Communities groups have been active in planting more trees and expanding greenspace by using the heat map [figure x] to target areas needing these amenities (Williams, 2020). Hopefully, the city can implement more green buildings and ecological sound developments in Black neighborhoods as well, as it is something Black Portlanders would like to see more of (Forum, 2017). According to PAALF, a sustainable city is both ecologically, socially healthy and places greater emphasis on environmental justice (Forum, 2017). However, the Climate Change Act warns that investments that help relieve these environmental burdens attract new residents to these communities which would increase gentrification and displacement (Portland and County, 2015), therefore, planning departments must include anti-displacements plans to ensure that these new investments do not create further displacement (Forum, 2017).

The Principles Of Equity

Many have classified our current geological epoch as the Anthropocene, an era in which humans now act as the primary creators of geological change (Allen et al., 2018). This concept is captured in human-induced climate change; since the invention of agriculture and rapidly following the industrial revolution, we have altered our planet, and the consequences are presenting themselves more clearly now than ever. Therefore, the greatest humanitarian and existential threat to our societies has brought about ethical issues when it comes to mitigating and adapting to environmental hazards. As such, climate change asks us how we should distribute the costs of mitigating these threats and asks how we might allocate costs from responding to the negative consequences that arise. Using Henry Shue’s chapter on global environment and international equity, I will explore how his three principles of equity provide a framework for understanding who should pay the costs of mitigating climate change. I begin with a discussion on why the inequality of development is unfair in the first place and therefore ought to be reduced. Next, I discuss the greater contribution, greater ability to pay, and guaranteed minimum principles. I conclude by revisiting the premise that wealthy and developed nations should bear most of the costs associated with climate change, for they have contributed the most to this global threat to our existence.

Equity, Fairness, and Development

Issues of equity or fairness only come to fruition if there is something in question that must be divided among different groups (Shue 2014, p. 185). In this case, the issue of environmental benefits and burdens and the costs associated with dealing with them in the face of climate change are contested, and a distributive justice framework can be utilized in order to understand why wealthy nations should adopt the costs of climate change mitigation.

The destruction of the ozone layer and initiation of global warming from industrialization are two effects of climate change we are currently seeing (Shue 2014, p. 183). The processes of industrialization have mainly fueled this environmental damage; further, these development processes have benefitted the Global North, while robbing the Global South of their natural resources and economic development. This was achieved through luring developing nations into unilateral trade agreements with the Global North for their environmental goods under a neoliberal guise of ‘development as necessary’ for progress.

Yet, both those who have benefitted from these trade agreements and those who have not are feeling the stresses of climate change today. According to the greater contribution to the problem principle, which takes a life-cycle view of environmental damage and would require rich nations to internalize their past costs of pollution, the Global North should bear unequal burdens in order to right the inequalities they have directly created. Differing from the polluter pays concept, in which polluting countries must account or internalize their costs for future pollution, Shue’s first equity principle aligns with commonsense fairness, and would require those to be held responsible for the majority of emissions contributing to industrialization and current climate change-inducing atmospheric CO2 levels.

Moreover, poor countries have had to pay for the benefits received from developed countries (Shue 2014, p. 184). Whether this came in the form of international aid or the spread of new technology, Shue provides that the ever-growing mountain of debt accrued by poor countries is attributable to the perceived benefits they were promised by developed countries (ibid). As stated earlier, environmental destruction is borne by all. Rich nations have enjoyed a surplus of benefits to burdens from the processes of development and have not incurred most of the environmental damage in their home countries, partly because extraction of resources and manufacturing is oft outsourced to the Global South and/or developing nations. Therefore, rich nations should carry the burdens of dealing with climate change in the future due to the damage they have done in the past and continue to do in the present.

Greater Contribution to the Problem

It is commonly understood that it is not fair to punish someone for a consequence that could not be avoided (Shue 2014, p. 185). However, it is acceptable to hold one responsible for consequences or effects that were unforeseeable. This follows a similar line of thinking to conceptualizing intent versus impact; although developed countries may not have intended to wreck the global climate, they certainly have had the largest share in impacting and contributing to increases in CO2 levels for a longer time which affect the entire planet today. Thus, these countries should be help responsible for the damages they have created, regardless of their intent or their ability to predict the effects of their actions.

This issue of responsibility is closely linked to a common objection made by those who claim they shouldn’t be held responsible (or punished) for damage they didn’t commit themselves. This is an acceptable objection, yet in the case of contributions to climate change, it is rendered irrelevant. A few rich generations of industrial societies are undoubtedly still related and close enough to current generations, having contributed to our current economic and political structures. As Shue poignantly writes, “benefits and costs, and rights and responsibilities, carry across generations” (Shue 2014, p. 186). Here we see evidence of the principle of intergenerational equity in Shue’s argument, a concept that has been adopted and supported by many environmental NGOs and international agreements, such as in the Sustainable Development Goals, approved by the UN in 2015 (UN Sustainable Development Agenda, 2019).

Moreover, I hold the view that we, people living in developed countries, are all implicit as members of an industrialized state in contributing to increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, only a few generations earlier, our ancestors were the direct beneficiaries of industrial development (in the case of Australia and the United States, for instance). As such, I argue that current and future generations will likely continue to benefit from previous industrial activities and should therefore be held responsible for the costs associated with a changing climate.

Greater Ability to Pay Principle

Shue’s second equity principle, greater ability to pay, is inherently a requirement of fairness and supports the concept that the fewer resources one has, the greater the sacrifice they would make in contributing to the solution. The principle states that: “Among a number of parties, all of whom are bound to contribute to some common endeavor, the parties who have the most resources normally should contribute the most to the endeavor” (Shue 2014, p. 186). The component of generality in this principle, i.e. “normally,” addresses the issue of incentives and fairness, in that these contribution could discourage (well-off) people from earning more, taking more risks, or working harder—for the result would be greater contribution at a larger percentage, while others would not have to contribute as much (Shue 2014, p. 188).

Additionally, this principle incorporates the notion that in the present state, countries with greater assets should contribute at a greater rate to the mitigation of environmental damages (Shue 2014, pp. 186-187). Here, it is important to differentiate the greater ability to pay principle to an egalitarian, equal contribution principle. Shue’s principle takes an intergenerational equity perspective and acknowledges that the current state of development and distribution of environmental benefits and burdens is not equal or fair; therefore, why should the mitigation or reconciliation for the future be so? We should not merely wipe out centuries of unjust behavior on behalf of the developed countries and demand equal contribution for the future, for this pays no attention to the circumstances of the countries that would contribute and the intended final outcome, that is: avoidance of climate catastrophe through mitigation in the present (Shue 2014, p. 187).

Guaranteed Minimum

Shue’s third principe of equity concerns the concept of the unfair nature of failing to guarantee all people an adequate minimum, if Earth’s resources can support it and all other aspects of a decent human life could be preserved for all parties (Shue 2014, p. 191). Moreover, it would rule out costs associated with climate change that would leave developing countries unable to ensure a minimum quality of life for their people. The concept of radical inequality, suggested by philosopher Thomas Nagel, underlies this principle and states that our societies are “radically” unequal partly because the total amount of resources available is more than enough for everyone living very well-off to slightly reduce their quality of life, while also uplifting those who are the worst-off to some acceptable minimum level; yet, this redistribution of goods has not yet occurred to aid those most in need (Shue 2014, p. 190). Even if the guaranteed minimum was met, this might preserve the inequalities currently in place, and with global initiatives such as the aforementioned UN Sustainable Development Goals’ number one priorities of reducing hunger and poverty (UN Sustainable Development Agenda, 2019), I would argue that we need to do much more than meet a guaranteed minimum quality of life for those struggling most.

Furthermore, the guaranteed minimum principle is seen in the issue of developed states asking developing states for assistance in dealing with climate change, yet rich states have largely failed to assist poor states (apart from some economic aid with large strings attached in the form of development loads and interest tax) in attaining some decent quality of living, which is certainly unfair (Shue 2014, pp. 191-193). As such, the citizens of poor nations should not have any obligation to developed states to mitigate environmental damages caused by the developed states own industrialization. Ultimately, if the developed states don’t see an obligation to uplift those in poverty, then those in poverty have no obligation to developed states to help in mitigating climate change, when there are more pressing issues, such as feeding themselves and their children (Shue 2014, p. 193).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the three principles of equity discussed here, fundamental fairness and acceptable inequality, the greater ability to pay, and a guaranteed minimum, demonstrate that the actions that are necessary in order to mitigate global environmental issues and the costs associated with these actions must initially be borne by the developed and wealthier, industrialized states (Shue 2014, p. 194).

Gender Equity In Professional Sport

The state of sport in Australia has progressed much faster than many countries around the world. Gender equity is well on its way to being a major factor that influences Australian sport. The current situation with gender equity is that most women’s sport teams are not getting the recognition and/or support they need. To be able to be as successful as male sport teams, the women’s team need equal pay, funding, resources and airtime (includes advertisments and tv shows) Over the course of this essay, fair opportunities and fair reward are two ways in which Australia can reach equity in sport.

For gender equity to be reached in professional sport, it is importnat that all athletes, male or female, are provided fair opportunities. This means sport should provide everyone with equal euiptment, sport grounds, pay and fundings. This helps increase the amount of people willing to play a sport, esppecially young girls who, right now, do not have the opportunities they deserve. For example, Football Queensalnd released a page on their webiste about pathways for girls in soccer. They stated that “For the most talented players, it is also pathway to national team selection in the Westfield Junior Matildas or the Westfield Matildas.” (Football Queensland, 2019). Futhermore, Queensand Cricket also released a page on their webiste, stating “Queensland Cricket’s pathway program is designed to provide the State’s cricketers with a clear path from the grass roots to the elite level … achieve sustained excellence.” (Qldcricket.com.au, 2019) Gender equity in terms of fair opportunities, for the athlete’s, would be significantly improved if all sports followed in the Matildas soccer teams steps.

Fair reward in proffesional sport is important to provide equity to all players. This means all sports should provide both mens and womans teams with equal and fair rewards, such as equal prize money, trophes and media coverage. For example, As of 2019, the Matildas soccor team is now receiving equal pay to the socceroos. The pay gap that once exsisted now is gone due to the “FFA’s landmark Collective Bargaining Agreement that closes the pay gap” (ABC News, 2019). However, the gender pay gap still exists in Australian sport. Checkmyfile released statistics about gender gap and stated that “According to the Austrlain Bureau of Statistcs, men earn 17% more than woman on average” and “Forty years ago, the women’s prize pool was 73% of the men’s (1976) … Today, both prize pools are the same (2016).” (Checkmyfile.com.au, n.d.). This pay difference between mens and womens sports should not be seen in proffesional sport. A study conducted by the BBC showed that “83 per cent of sports now pay men and women the same amount in prize money” (The Telegraph, n.d.). Without fair rewards, women athletes are less likely to want to play and partcipate in sports. This also provides women athletes something can aim for and something they will want to work hard for. These two articals have shown that fair rewards is acheviable in professional sport.

In November 2017, Melbourne Univerity sport released a discussion paper with details of how they are striving to create gender equity in their sports. The paper includes different sections such as media participation opportunities, club activites and representative sport and scholarships, however the introduction is the most noatble. In section 1.1 they state “The project was initiated in response to a query raised … about the availability of particular opportunities to both male and female students.” (Sport.unimelb.edu.au, 2017). Eventhough this is only university sports, notes can be taken into professional sport about how equity in sport can be reached for both men and woman players/athletes.

Equity in sport is important as it provides both woman and men equal chances and opportunities in their sport. Women’s teams suffers most as they have less recognition, funding and pay than their male counterparts. Two ways in which gender equity in sport can be improved is by having fair opportunities and fair rewards. Ash Bartey, female tennis player, suffers with discrimination, not only from her Aborigional Heritage, but her gender. Herself and other female tennis players play in the shadows of men, however, that doesn’t effect her succses in tennis, after being announced number 1 ffemale tennis player. Gender equity will soon be a major factor that influences Australian sport if the right opportunities, funding and support is given to every team, no matter the gender.

Drawbacks Of Home Equity Loan

A home fairness advance is an advance in which the lender use of his land as a security. If the investor is unable to repay the advance then his land can be captivated therefore he is liable to return back the amount. The lands possess of low-interest rates. The home equity loans Ottawa determines the value of the home along with the balance that needs to be availed. This scheme operates in a way where if the home costs 2 grand then 1.5 grand to the advance. Generally, the customers avail 20% equity to borrow land with fairness praise sum.

Today people are interested in availing this fee sum as it is similar to any other advance. It gives the clients a sum to use for home renovation, investment. The awareness rate is also fixed to be offered to customers.

Advantage of availing advance

Home equity loan Ottawa is availed s it is easily qualified. The creditor usually approves debtor requests if they possess fairness. The debtor is required to use the home as security. The debtors usually qualify for the advance if they possess a good praise score. If the customers do not possess refuge then it is essential to possess good praise.

Not only are home parity advances easy to be in the running for, but they also tend to come with low-awareness rates. As such, they’re an affordable way to pirate. Credit cards and personal advances, on the other hand, tend to charge higher concern rates.

The Home equity loans Ottawa is availed as

• It is flexible
• Is easily qualified by customers
• Possess low-attention rates
• Not limited to home development and maintenances.
• They may pay for home improvements and college advances.
• The advance may be availed for equity, however, the interest rate may be deducted from toll when availing the scheme.

Drawbacks of a home parity advance

There are various risks involved in taking equity plans, for instance, if the client is unable to make returns then there is a risk of losing one’s home. If the client needs to sell off their land, they are allowed to do so according to policies, however, the price of sale must be high enough to pay off the balance. The equity credit may be converted to other advance options that are more favorable. The loans may also involve

• Risky consequences involving getting to lose home
• May require to sell land to repay the high sum availed
• The borrower may be restricted to rent out his land while loan refund

Substitute for taking Home equity advance

An alternative to equity fee is the Heloc that enables us to give cash in a draw period. The clients are not committed to deriving however they do not have to pay notice on it. Refinancing is also an option opted by various customers which enables them to return the sum with the low concern. The individual can use the money as he may please.

In Conclusion

It is dependent on the person to avail of a specific kind of option for fee. There are various cash-out choices available to give to debtors and prospects for funding. If you are seeking suitable advance experts .you may reach out to Matrix mg. They are leading experts skilled in providing suitable acclaim and backing contracts. The debtors with a secure job can participate in a reasonable amount against their home. In most cases home fairness fee is the most feasible choice to get cash, however, one is recommended to evaluate his choices prior to making a choice when availing a fee.

Equity And Trusts: Evolution And Development

Equity refers to right doing, good faith, honest and ethical dealings in transactions or relationships between individuals. The ordinary conception of equity is,therefore, based on morality and is linked to what is normally exhorted in churches, mosques and other religious establishments. It is also captured by objective XI of the National Objective and Directive Principles of State Policy contained in the Constitution of Uganda 1995 which enjoins Government to take steps to realise balance development of the diverse areas of Uganda and to pursue affirmative action in relation to the least developed.

From the time of early Greek Philosophers, there is the idea of equity in the general juristic sense as a supplement to law. The Greek conception of law was later relied upon by Roman jurists to develop and widen Roman Law when the Roman Legal System appeared to be signating. It is notable that Roman Law was not split up like English law into rules of common law and rules of equity. Roman Law was an integral part of Roman Legal Systems.

While Roman Law contributed little to the development of English Equity, it had influence on the early development of English Law and Equity. For instance the Praetor, who administered equity was similar to the Lord Chancellor and his equitable jurisdiction. Thus the praetor’s Edict which merged equity with the general law is similar and comparable to the manner in which common law and equity emerged to constitute the dual English System.

Equity came into existence during the 13th century[1]. At that time the courts of law had froze the typesof claims they would hear as well as the procedure governing the hearing of those claims. The range of claims that would be heard became narrow and the processes to bring the actions to court became so technical with jurors often being bribed. As a result of these changes plaintiffs with meritorious claims were often denied relief[2].

To attempt to counteract this discrepancy remedies could be obtained by petitioning the King, who had residual judicial power to deal with such matters. The King began delegating the function of dealing with such petitions to the Chancellor. The post of Chancellor at this time was usually a clergyman and King’s confessor. The Chancery evolved into a judicial body known as the Court of Chancery, until by the end of the 15th century the judicial power of the Chancery was fully recognised. The Court of Chancery was in effect developed as a court of conscience to counteract the defects that existed in the common law system. The rules of equity varied from Chancellor to Chancellor until the end of the 16th century[3].

As equity developed it began to conflict with common law. Litigants used equity to their advantage often seeking an equitable injunction prohibiting the enforcement of a common law order. If a common law judgment was enforced in disobedience of a common injunction then the person enforcing the judgment could face imprisonment[4]. In the Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615)[5] the Court of Chancery issued a common injunction prohibiting the enforcement of a common law order. The matter was referred to the Attorney General Sir Francis Bacon when no resolution could be reached between the 2 courts. Sir Francis upheld the common injunction and stated that ‘in the event of any conflict between the common law and the law of equity, equity would prevail’. Lord Ellesmere pointed out in the above case why there was a need for a Chancery. He stated ‘Men’s actions are so diverse and infinite that it is impossible to make any general law which may aptly meet with every particular and not fail in some circumstances. The office of the Chancellor is to correct men’s consciences for frauds, breaches of trust, wrongs and oppression of what nature so ever they be, and to soften and mollify the extremity of law.’

By the 17th century only lawyers were appointed to the office of Chancellor. From 1529 onwards when Sir Thomas Moore was appointed as Chancellor records of proceedings in Courts of Chancery were kept which led to the development of equitable doctrines. Prior to his appointment no such records were kept and decisions made by the Chancellors were discretionary and erratic. By the beginning of the 19th century the Court of Chancery had become a court of equity. In the case of Gee v Pritchard[6] Lord Eldon made the comment that, the doctrines of the Court of Chancery ought to be well settled, and made as uniform, almost, as those of the common law, laying down fixed principles, but taking care that they are to be applied according to the circumstances of each case. I cannot agree that the doctrines of this court are to be changed by every succeeding judge. Nothing would inflict on me greater pain in quitting this place than the recollection that I had done anything to justify the reproach that the equity of this court varies like the Chancellor’s foot.

The primacy of equity as stated by Sir Francis was later enshrined in the Judicature Act 1873 s25 which also joined the courts of equity and the courts of common law into one under the title of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was divided into 2 forming the High Court and the court of Appeal. The High Court was further divided under 5 different headings giving rise to the Chancery Division, King’s Bench Division, Common Pleas Division, Exchequer Division and the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. The central feature of these reforms was that every court would now possess the power and have the duty to decide cases in line with common law and equity[7]. Where there is a discrepancy between the common law solution and an equitable one the precedent of the Earl of Oxford’s case still applies meaning that equity will be paramount in the decision making process. The Supreme Court Act 1981 s49 has embodied this principle and instructed that (1) Every court exercising jurisdiction in England and Wales in any civil cause or mater shall continue to administer law and equity on the basis that wherever there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of common law with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity shall prevail[8].Before the common law courts and the Court of Chancery became one common law actions could only be commenced by means of a writ whereas actions in the Court of Chancery were commenced by an informal bill of complaint and the process begun by the use of a subpoena[9].

Chancery hearings were informal and were not restricted to being able to sit at certain times as was the case with the Common Law Courts. Hearings could even take place within the Chancellor’s house. It would appear that common law and equity were effectively fused together by the Judicature Acts. Ashburner’s view of this was The two streams of jurisprudence though they run in the same channel, run side by side, and do not mingle their waters[10].

Although equity and common law are fused together in that a court is entitled to award equitable remedies or common law remedies or a combination of both within the same court[11] there are still some areas of law where the distinction between legal ownership and equitable ownership still thrive[12]. One such area is in the formation and management of trusts.Before the introduction of equity into the legal system persons wishing to dispose of their property by way of a trust where faced with the difficulty or passing ownership to their intended beneficiaries without giving them the property outright. Under the common law system the transfer of the property into the hands of the trustees’ could only be read as giving full title to the trustees and no account could be given for the concerns of the beneficiaries. The whole process of the trust system is firmly rooted in equity with the trustees holding the land on trust for the beneficiaries.

In order that the trustees can invest or deal with any of the property the ownership of the property transfers to them under common law rulings and equity creates a beneficial interest for the beneficiaries to ensure that when the beneficiaries reach the age of maturity as dictated by the trust document that the full title of the property becomes vested in them. The essential element that the trustees have to be aware of is that despite the fact that they have the power to invest or sell trust property that they are in fact acting on behalf of the beneficiaries. Trustees who make unwise investments are breach the trust can and often are made to compensate the beneficiaries for any losses incurred by their actions. In these matters equity will usually favour the beneficiaries.

Although there is an apparent fusion of common law and equity there is still a difference in the way in which common law remedies and equitable ones are administered. Common law remedies are available as of right whilst equitable remedies are discretionary and awarded at the will of the court. Equitable remedies can also be affected by the behaviour and position of the party claiming the remedy. As the courts are allowed to take into account the conduct of the party seeking the award they can decide not to award an equitable remedy where it considers their conduct should deprive them of such an award.

Problems arose in the case of Tinsley v Milligan [1993 ] AII ER 65 where the question raise was whether the plaintiff could assert a claim to an equitable interest in land by way of a resulting trust where she had acted illegally. The maxim as set down by equity that a person seeking to assert an equitable entitlement must come with clean hands prevented the plaintiff from asserting her right. Under common law a plaintiff would be entitled to assert their common law right to ownership provided that they did not need to rely on their illegal conduct to establish title. As the plaintiff in this case did not need to rely on their illegal conduct to establish title her claim succeeded.To assist the court in making equitable decisions certain maxis of equity have been established. These are not binding rules and do not provide guidance in every situation. They are intended as illustrations based on principles established in recurrent themes.

One of the maxims of equity is that it will not suffer a wrong without a remedy. This is of particular importance in trust law, where without the influence of equity the beneficiaries may lose the benefit assigned to them by way of the trust document. Another maxim was that equity follows the law, although as has been previously stated statute favours equity as prevailing when the 2 are at a variance to each other.Further maxims exist in the following circumstances. Where the equities of the parties are equal one with a legal right and the other an equitable right the common law rules will prevail. Where both only possess equitable rights the first in time right to the item prevails. It was also laid down that he who seeks equity must do equity. This means that the person seeking the equitable relief must act fairly towards the person he is seeking the relief from. As mentioned above anyone coming to equity must come with clean hands. Any illegality or inequitable conduct could effect their entitlement to an equitable remed.

In conclusion, Despite the arguments against equity and the problems caused by the insertion into the Supreme Court Act 1981 that equity should prevail if the two areas of law are in conflict with each other, it is very rare that the judges are placed in such a position, especially since they now have the power to decide issues under either common law rules or equity. From the point of view of plaintiffs the inclusion of equity is a good thing as it gives them a greater likelihood of achieving their desired outcome. The generic juristic of equity lays emphasis on the basic principles of justice and fair play in the administration of the law. This tendency arises from the fact that law at any point in time is not perfect or is defective. While it is conceded that the aim of the law is to maintain justice, this has not been achieved in practice. This explains the development of equity whose objective was to correct any injustice caused by the strict application of the law. Therefore, the fusion debate is relevant.

REFRENCES

1. Pearce, R and Stevens, J, The Law of Trusts and Equitable Obligations, 2nd Ed p4 – 7
2. T. Cockburn, T, Harris, W, & Shirley, M, Equity & Trusts, 2005,Butterworths
3. Cockburn, T & Shirley, M Equity in a Nutshell, 2005, Lawbook Co Co-op Insurance v Argyll Stores [1997] 3 All ER 297 1 Rep Ch 1 at 6
4. (1818) 2 Swan 402 at 414
5. Judicature Act 1873 s24
6. Supreme Court Act 1981 s49(1)
7. Pearce, R and Stevens, J, The Law of Trusts and Equitable Obligations, 2nd Ed p4 – 7
8. Ashburner, W, Principles of Equity, 2nd Ed, 1933, Butterworths
9. Supreme Court Act 1981 s49
10. Holdsworth, W, History of English Law, 7th Ed, 1956, Mathuen & Co Ltd

Sustainable Equity In Learning And Education

Just as human beings cannot survive without water and food, so too do they need to develop the ability to communicate their desires to access the basic needs of life. Thus, language serves as an essential tool not only to get meaning across, but also to learn and acquire knowledge and skills. Formal education in various subject areas has made it possible for human being to acquire such knowledge to ensure survival and hence personal and social development.

Education was a luxury afforded only by the ‘haves’ of the world, but now, it has become a fundamental right of every citizen and for every child. The general belief is that poverty and inequality would disappear if everyone receives the same formal education from pre-primary school level, but to what extent this fundamental right is being achieved is yet to be discerned. Hence, several discourses on ‘quality education for all’ began with the long term goal of ensuring sustainable development of the human race. With the advent of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 2030, this paper tries to understand how far equity in learning has been achieved or if there is none at all.

As per the EFA Global Monitoring Report (2013/2014), around 120 million children are still out of school or have dropped-out of schools. “In the school year ending in 2014, nearly 61 million children of primary school age and 202 million adolescents of secondary school age were out of school” (UNESCO, 2016, p.73). Substantial efforts have been made in the past few years to ensure children’s access to schools, to the point that it is no longer a major cause for educational functionaries to fight for. However, the consequences of ensuring only ‘access’ to schools have resulted in unworkable school conditions, dearth of trained teachers, inappropriate teaching learning materials and so on and so forth. Many of these schools that have been developed are still functioning with minimal facilities.

How does learning take place in such schools? Is there any justice in whatever we are doing so far? In this context, ‘equity’ becomes a major concern. This paper’s arguments are based on observations made from a research study which focuses on ‘Classroom Interaction’ in the state of Meghalaya and observations based on a survey conducted at Namsai district in Arunachal Pradesh.

Introduction

At the centre of the world’s efforts to ensure sustainable development for all, is the concept of ‘Equity’. It is a term that strives to include everyone and anyone within its purview, regardless of any kind of difference, towards a much greater social progress (UNESCO, 2018). Formal education has uplifted our country and brought social and economic development to all states and many societies, but not all of India’s citizens have been included in its progress. True development can only be achieved when it is sustainable and everyone is included in it. Thus, within the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 2030, this paper tries to look at the extent to which ‘equity’ in learning has been achieved and identifies the problems of equity based on observations made from a research study on ‘Classroom Interaction’ in the semi-urban and rural areas in the state of Meghalaya and also on a survey conducted at Namsai district of Arunachal Pradesh.

Brief Background

Arunachal Pradesh

Field visit was conducted in 3 blocks of Namsai District, and in each block 10 schools were visited making it a total of 30 schools out of 137 schools. At the Namsai district of Arunachal Pradesh, the population of students in the different schools is variegated into various ethnic cultures, languages, religions and socioeconomic backgrounds. The students comprise of tribals, Adivasis, children of tea planters, labourers, etc. and thus, a Hindi variant is the medium of instruction in all schools. Children display poor skills in the English language where basic questions are difficult to comprehend, and consequently, English teachers have to make use of Hindi to attain any kind of cognitive development and progress in their lesson. Generally, input in English is minimal in schools as well as in their homes and it seems rather improbable that the children receive any other input in English from any other source.

Resources available in the Schools

Schools: The main source of drinking water available is the hand pump in all schools and majority of such schools do not have a filtration device to ensure water safety. Toilets in most schools are available but majority of the toilets are not functional. This is largely due to the problems of maintenance, as no supporting staff is available in government schools except for a few higher secondary schools. In the main urban block such as Namsai, there are schools with good facilities such as science labs, computer labs, and smart classrooms with a student population of more than 900, and a teacher population of 30 up to 37. In such schools, the classroom strength is 80 to100 students particularly in secondary level. Yet within 2 km, there are schools, particularly at the primary level, with no electricity, toilets and water supply. Smart classrooms are available in a few schools. Teachers have been mostly trained on the technical aspects of handling the gadgets, but not on content transaction. This was seen when teachers were teaching action songs to children by simply displaying the content rather than getting the students involved in the action song.

Meghalaya (Semi-Urban and Rural Areas)

In Meghalaya, a total number of 12 schools (classes 5 to 8) were examined for data collection, located in three districts in Meghalaya i.e. East Khasi Hills, West Khasi Hills and Ri- Bhoi district. Students comprising of 241 and 46 teachers, that is, 16 from the semi-urban and 30 from the rural areas, were the subjects of the study. Subjects are categorised according to gender and educational level students in both semi-urban and rural areas. 122 number of students represents the Semi-urban and 119 students are from the rural areas.

Resources available in the Schools

Schools within the urban area of the East Khasi hills have more facilities as compared to schools located in the rural areas within the same districts. Similar is the case with other districts such as the Ri-Bhoi and West Khasi hills districts. There are schools with no proper toilets, classrooms, teaching resources, etc. and they lack proper ventilation, a roof, proper seating benches for students, etc. Furthermore, there are schools located in interior areas such as the school in Diengsong and Wahtyngai which is located in a challenging terrain. In Diengsong, teachers have to walk down the small steps towards the deep valleys of Cherrapunjee to reach the schools. The teachers there informed that frequent support to such schools can rarely be seen. The SSA School in Wahtyngai does not have proper classrooms— when it rains, children have to move to the corner of the classroom to sit as there is no proper roofing. Most BRCs/CRCs also point out that the travelling allowance to visit such schools is limited and at times, they are incurred from their own salary.

One important finding (based on observations made in Namsai) which needs to be highlighted is the evidence of an urban and rural disparity in terms of reading materials, classroom strategies, teacher’s proficiency, etc. Based on the reading test conducted (in Meghalaya) with the students, it was seen that children were unable to read and write on their own in English. However, they could perform the same tasks in their own language. English Language classrooms in both semi-urban and rural mono-cultural schools are predominated by teacher-centered methods. The only input received in English other than teaching the subject is evident from the kinds of English phrases and sentences they often hear teachers used while teaching or outside the classrooms. This exercise was conducted to find out the frequency of English in their daily school life and how much of exposure students are receiving from the schools besides the classroom teaching. Despite the teachers being trained in other learner-centered methods, teaching becomes only a series of knowledge transactions in preparation for the final written examination for example, dictation, rote learning, drilling, etc. Teachers claim to use language activities in the classroom but data reveals that there are hardly any interactional activities happening in the classroom. A cross-tab analysis (using SPSS 16.0) shows that whether in the rural or urban context, the majority of learners do not experience language classrooms to be full of activities. In the selected districts in Meghalaya, the materials and textbooks developed by the state do not cover themes related to what students are learning and difficult to relate to by students in the rural interior areas. Concepts of a morning walk, historical events and places in the urban areas are alien to most of the students in the rural areas.

Measuring Equity

To measure progress and equity in learning, it is expected that educational variables from the perspective of ‘Equity’ must be formed to measure the desirable characteristics. From a theoretical standpoint, ‘Equity’ includes certain major concepts such as Meritocracy, Minimum Standards, Impartiality, Equality of Condition, and Redistribution. Impartiality and Equality of Condition are usually the two concepts that reveal the main education indicators of a study; however, it is important to make the distinction between them clear. Impartiality refers to ‘equality’ in terms of a particular input, characteristic or outcome of any educational project. Equality of condition refers to the wider social and economic context, as well as issues of fairness. “While perfect equality may not be possible, greater equity would distribute education outcomes independently of the socioeconomic or other characteristics of students or their schools” (UNESCO, 2018).

“In school education, an ‘equitable’ system could be defined as one in which all students are treated equally – for example, a system in which all students are given the same opportunities, exposed to the same school curriculum, taught by teachers with equivalent expertise, held to the same learning expectations and provided with equivalent levels of resourcing and support. Educational policies and discussions of equity sometimes reflect this view of equity as equality” (Masters, et.al, 2018: p.2). However, as in other areas of life, equity in school education is likely to be associated with equal treatment in some situations (where there is no obvious basis for differential treatment), and unequal treatment in others.

The general belief is that poverty and inequality would disappear if everyone receives the same formal education from pre-primary school level, but to what extent this fundamental right is being achieved is yet to be discerned. Hence, several discourses on ‘quality education for all’ began with the long term goal of ensuring sustainable development of the human race. With the advent of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 2030, this paper tries to understand how far equity in learning has been achieved or if there is none at all. Equal treatment requires a teacher to pay extra special attention in delivery and designing of appropriate materials to accommodate those children who need help despite the differences in socio-economic background.

Equity in Teaching Learning Materials

Based on group discussions, considering the background of the learners in Namsai and Meghalaya (selected districts), teachers pointed out that children lack exposure to English usage at home and even within the school campus. Students rarely ask questions or initiate discussions in English and they are more comfortable in their MT. Further, the materials used are inappropriate and difficult for children to understand; even while teaching, they have to resort to the local language or the children’s mother tongue to help them understand. This paper tries to highlight the bias in the English language teaching materials that are used in classrooms. The content in the English textbooks at secondary level designed by the board (using private publishers) of school education in Meghalaya comprises of themes that are unrelated to the learners’ familiar environment and they are largely urban and colonial centric.

On the one hand, to ensure equal opportunity, the same input, that is the materials, is provided to every child; on the other hand, it is unequal when learners cannot relate to the text they are expected to learn. As pointed out by Masters, et.al (2018) materials should address unequal students’ background. For instance, NCERT textbooks are adopted in the entire state of Arunachal Pradesh. On questioning a few teachers, it was found that the constructivist approach to teaching and learning which is highlighted in the NCF- 2005 is still needed. Most of the content in the text are unfamiliar to the children in the district, for example, the poem from Marigold ‘My First Day of School’, the concept of ‘Gran’ which appears in the text could not be understood by the children since such a culturally distinct style of calling one’s grandmother is unfamiliar to them. When questions are raised regarding the content of the poem, most children fail to understand the English vocabulary. However, if such content is translated into Hindi, children would understand and find that it is quite a common incident even in the interior areas of the block. With the community being dominated by an agrarian culture, teachers pointed out that during plantation and harvest time, it is difficult to ensure that students attend school despite the efforts of the literacy campaign being conducted at village level. Their interest in learning texts needs to be sustained and this can be achieved only when they read content that has relevance to their real-life situation. What they learn in school has to correlate with their daily lives, particularly the level of language used.

As it stands, their daily activities and their school activities are worlds apart and hence, children become disengaged from school life. A gap exists between the world they live in and what they learn in school. English may not be a language used at home or in their immediate social surroundings, but it needs to have a place in their lives where they can use and learn its functions regardless of the social differences. ‘Equitable approaches aim to address or compensate for the obstacles that would otherwise hold disadvantaged children back, so they can attain the same levels of learning enjoyed by other children who are more fortunate (Cameroon, Daga and Outhred, 2018)’.

The question that arises in the context of ‘equal opportunity’ and ‘Impartiality’ is the fairness of textbooks in providing same input, particularly when learners cannot relate to it. Hence, simply providing the same textbooks may not meet the objectives of equal opportunity; instead we may be hindering learners from learning when textbooks are not benefiting the learners. How can we ensure that learners enjoy learning and find value and meaning in what they learn? Contextualisation of textbook materials is one probable answer to connect textbooks to learners and this requires effective teaching techniques and well trained teachers. Further, we often find that children in the rural areas leave school due to reasons such as poverty, the need to work and help out at home, and so and so forth. What methods and strategies will alleviate such problems in order to ensure they stay in school and find it meaningful enough to be in school despite these circumstances?

There are studies that “Ethnic, racial and linguistic groupings frequently provide a further source of inequity. Children whose household language is different from their language of instruction learn less in a range of countries, including Benin, Cameroon, Guatemala, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkey” (Altinok, 2009; Fehrler and Michaelowa, 2009 qtd. in UNESCO, 2018). The indicators on measuring equity as laid down by UNESCO (2018) largely deal with tracking the progress of learners, that is, whether all children have access to education despite their gender, age, disability, affiliation to marginalised groups, linguistic minorities and so on. This paper however tries to highlight the inequity arising out of the disparity between the students’ diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds and the textbooks they use in school. English, being the language adopted in all textbooks, inevitably becomes a major barrier in ensuring equity in learning, particularly when learners are expected to reach a set of learning outcomes that have been outlined at the end of each level of education.

How is English a barrier? ‘Learning’ is a bigger concept and the English language dominates the process of learning and in both the context of Namsai and the districts in Meghalaya. Other than language, learning also take places through experiences, either through visual medium, through reading in their MT and through other various activities. The narrow view of learning, however, is assessed in terms of how much one can read and write –- in this case, how much one can read and write in English. When we talk of equity it should be able to appeal to different aspects of learning and not dominated by merely testing students in written examinations which confine their learning process to the area of reading and writing. Hence equity of condition should be emphasised by ensuring that learning engages all the learners in the classroom in different ways. Sadly, given the current linguistic conditions, the children in these schools are denied even the necessary exposure to the English language that would enable them to use it meaningfully. They are eventually forced to memorise their answers without understanding and reproduce them adequately enough to cross the pass mark. In such a situation, the concept of ‘impartiality’ in the context of equity in learning seems rather unjust and overpowering for these children as they are inevitably left behind in the long run, leading to increasing dropout rates in the country. It is here that the concept of ‘equality of condition’ may guide the policymakers in the academic assessment of such children so that they may be included in the social progress of our nation.

It is understood that it is always more convenient and less expensive to focus on the ‘normal’ population of students who come from better socio-economic backgrounds. But, if we truly want an inclusive education system that tries to bring equity in learning, our policy makers have to tackle the root causes of the disadvantaged conditions of children, their low household income, the inequalities that arise as a result of their gender, location, ethnicity or disability. At the very least, we can start with the infrastructure of the schools, the dearth of trained teachers and teaching-learning materials.

“Is there equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, texbooks, teachers and curriculum? For students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education’ (Nichols 1974 qtd in Jenelle Reeves, 2004). Educational institutions must take appropriate actions to overcome language barriers. Language barriers in this paper, means the difficulties in communication or difficulties in acquiring the language skills such as listening, speaking, reading and writing in a language which is not of one’s own. Particularly, such barriers are experienced when textbooks or other learning materials used in schools are not in one’s own language.

Conclusions

With the advent of listing out learner’s outcome, an indicator of equity in learning is defined by educational outcomes which in turn have been measured primarily through marks obtained during test and examinations. Learning outcomes have surreptitiously replaced the term ‘learning objectives’ of a particular lesson design despite the teacher’s proficiency and resources used. This was seen in the textbooks of Meghalaya (Health Education). Further, it was seen that children at class 8 cannot phrase sentences on their own even with simple familiar concepts such as words like ‘holiday’, ‘market’, etc. despite being aware of their meanings. However, the student’s linguistic environment in English is limited in both states. Daily conversations are mostly conducted in Hindi and Khasi (for Meghalaya) at home, neighborhood, etc., and even in school campuses, interaction is mostly in their mother tongue. Based on group discussions conducted with teachers in rural areas, opportunities to speak in English at home and in their immediate surroundings are limited. A monolingual and mono-cultural community cannot provide a platform conducive to English use and thus, it is a drawback. In the context of Namsai, learners are exposed to several other languages and the most dominant languages that children are comfortable with are Assamese and Hindi.

While focusing on achieving the objectives of the National Curriculum, we have failed to realise the need of the learners in terms of ensuring equity in learning for learners with such backgrounds as discussed from these two states. There is a need to create or contextualise a more meaningful and creative curriculum for such learners. We need to understand the barriers and the difficulties faced by such learners who are trying to balance against the pressures of school life and their family’s needs. The need of the hour, therefore, is to contextualise the textbooks. Contextualisation here refers to the process of trying to bring the learners closer to the textbook materials by establishing connections and drawing exemplars from their daily experiences in their locality, their state or things, events of what they would normally be exposed to. This would entail designing lessons and activities that will provide learners with ample chances to use English in their daily situations. The aim of contextualisation is basically about bringing simplicity to the text enabling connections between the text and the learners.

While ensuring Equity in learning one needs to relook into how the mechanisms of delivering the educational objectives are met. The manner in which we attain the outcomes expected of our children reflects how we actually invest our time, ability and money for them, regardless of the rural or urban context. Expecting the learners to be able to use English is only fair if adequate input in the language is provided by the teachers and the school environment. A creative and enabling learning environment is needed to accommodate the learner’s social and linguistic condition while ensuring classroom activities that are designed for learning grammar in the textbooks. Materials must be authentic and familiar to children and not simply in the form of imported examples from national newspapers or audio-visual materials which could alienate the learner out of his/her social conditions.

Even if changes can be brought in terms of TLMs, there is still a need to provide equity in terms of resources and infrastructure which would be conducive for learning. It is not fair that government schools existing within a distance of 2 kms would have so much disparity in the facilities like electricity, drinking water, classrooms, roofs, and toilets, etc.

The Relation of Equity and Social Justice

Social justice has been part of the discussion within Scottish Parliament since it was established in 1999 with one of the first policy programmes focusing on social justice (‘Social Justice: A Scotland Where Everyone Matters -Scottish Executive, 1999). Social justice is concerned with socially marginalised groups and how society responds to this. Inclusion is education’s response to social justice and social justice can only be achieved through inclusive schools and teachers (Dyson, 1999).

A key feature of social justice is the provision of equal opportunities, where everyone is treated equally and considered on the same level. However, recognising every child as equal can see inequality being reproduced (Bourdieu and Passeron 2000). Accessibility of learning may be hindered if these different starting points were not acknowledged, making it privileged to certain children. Instead of treating every child the same, it is imperative to recognise the range of needs, abilities, circumstances, backgrounds and aspirations held by an individual and eliminate the barriers which hinder them from reaching their full potential. Individual differences are key influencing factors in deciding how to provide for children in the classroom and that some may require additional support to achieve.

Social justice recognises this and attempts to overcome issues of discrimination, emphasising that no child should be stigmatised because of their circumstances(allan essay). Inclusion goes beyond simply providing access into mainstream schools to all children, focusing instead on adapting current systems to allow for participation of every child, eliminating all forms of exclusion enabling everyone to achieve, develop and contribute, becoming valued members within the school community (Barton, 1998). The UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (1989) states that school based education should be accessible to everyone and this is echoed within Scottish education which has a history of equity of provision, where education is available to all. Equity in education is often viewed as equivalence however, a more insightful way to view equity is through the lens of ‘fairness’.

There are situations in which people view equal treatment and unequal treatment as fair. This suggests that, when it comes to equity, fairness precedes equality. In an equitable school, students’ special needs and unequal socioeconomic backgrounds are recognised and teaching and resources are distributed unequally in an attempt to counteract disadvantage, with equity being achieved by prioritising fairness over equality (Stamans, C, Sheskin, M & Bloom, P (2017). Why people prefer unequal societies. Nature Human Behaviour. Vol 1, Article No. 82) Social justice and equity are inter-linked concepts and are embedded in Scottish policy. Since the reopening of the Scottish Parliament the Government has produced various legislation, policies and initiatives with the aim to support more vulnerable groups in the population.

The Meaning of Justice as Equity

The word justice is associated with many aspects of society today; social justice, criminal justice and environmental justice just to name a few. However, all of these subsections have one thing in common, a societal outlook past individual gratification or concern. All of these groups or movements seek changes within their communities to reach a state of justice from a societal standpoint. Justice may only be achieved when all aspects of society are in fact made to be just. As a broad concept often misused in daily life, many do not know the true meaning and definition of justice. Justice is the quality of equity in a society, where individuals are given fair consequences for actions and behaviour. A just society rewards individuals for their actions in a fair way, no matter what race, religon, sex, disability or appearance. Justice in society based on equity gives consistent treatment to citizens, allowing all a chance to succeed if they work hard enough. In today’s capitalist society, the rich get richer and the poor remain poor because the system allows varying consequences for like actions. Authentic justice may only be achieved in society when equity is implemented.

Those who embody morality in the society in question and work hard to contribute, should be entitled to more because it is earned or deserved. A just society must rely on the principle of equity more than anything else. Equity is not synonymous with equality, the two terms possess key differences. Equity is the concept of fair treatment through varying aid or assistance while equality constitutes sameness among all people (Merriam-Webster). Equity gives people what they need on a case to case basis, while equality provides one general solution for an entire group (Merriam-Webster). Equality is not a reasonable structure to obtain justice in society because the contribution of individuals varies largely and failing to acknowledge many’s right to superiority, which humans naturally seek, is flawed and unjust in itself. Canada’s common law system requires judges to consider precedent during an accused’s trial and sentencing. Precedent is the reference to similar cases or issues and their outcome to help judges reach a reasonable conclusion regarding sentencing. This system serves as a prime example of equity based justice. Today, precedent is used in legal proceedings and many other disputes, though is not concrete necessary in most cases. A truly just system would give equal sentences or rewards for equal crimes or achievements, thus achieving equity. Every individual must receive what they deserve in accordance with their value to society.

Esteemed ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, concurs with the theory of justice as equity in his Book of Nicomachean Ethics where he writes that justice is “not for everyone, only for equals” (Aristotle, 79). This quote acknowledges inequality among individuals while addressing the importance of equitable treatment among valid equals. He also theorizes “inequality is required for those who are unequal” (Pomerleau) meaning two people of vastly different circumstances are not entitled to the same rights, privileges and luxuries. Proof of the validity of this statement is a comparison between serial killer Ted Bundy to Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft and humanitarian. While Ted Bundy confessed to murdering dozens of young girls, Bill Gates made significant advances in technology and has saved the lives of millions of children through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (B.Gates and M.Gates). Clearly, Bill Gates deserves to be in the position of power and influence he is currently in while Ted Bundy deserved criminal intervention because their actions warranted consequences, be they good or bad. Aristotle’s theory of distributive justice, which deals with how to distribute assets in a fair way, states that benefits and burdens should be distributed in proportion to one’s contributions to a society (Lamont). Clear imbalances may be seen among every individual’s contributions, therefore they do not deserve equal distribution of privelleges. Justice is reached in society when equity allows people to succeed or fail, completely equally to their equals. Justice propels the advancement of society in search of individual success when people see clear rewards for their good behaviour.

Some may argue that in order to achieve justice in society everyone should be considered completely equal. This is known as an egalitarian approach to justice. Egalitarianism argues that all people are equal and therefore are entitled to the same rights and opportunities (Arneson). In this theory of justice, fairness is achieved because if everyone is equal, nobody is oppressed or deprived of success. In fact, the destructive hierarchies may no longer unjustly impact anybody. The deprivation of basic human rights and simultaneous existence of billionaires is a glaring example of injustice. This equality based social system would bring justice to the majority of the world’s population while only negatively impacting the rich.

John Rawls, an American philosopher and Harvard University professor, outlines a very egalitarian based view of justice in his 1971 book; A Theory of Justice. Rawls uses the concept of the “Veil of Ignorance” to convey his beliefs, stating that if an individual were unaware of their position in society and possessed basic knowledge about the structure of society and human nature then they would determine two ideal principles of justice (Rawls, 118). He states that the two general principles would be the principle of equal liberty and the difference principle (Rawls, 52). The principle of equal liberty states that everyone has the equal right to the “most extensive liberties” (Garrett) and the difference principle describes that inequalities should be “to the benefit of the greatest number and that it’s attached offices be open to all” (Garrett). These principles ensure that any person may have equal treatment resulting in societal justice.

However, not being rewarded for greater work or effort is un-just, therefore privileges must vary in order to provide justice to all equally. Any given society will never reach the point at which every member is exerting a uniform amount of effort in a day. Rawls’ theory of justice is ill-conceived because the power dynamic present in society is what allows it to grow and flourish. Hard work, intelligence and ambition must always be rewarded in society because such individuals earned benefits and it would be unjust not to reward exceptional contributors for thier efforts. Despite Rawls’ beliefs, all humans are not equal from a societal standpoint because while one may contribute nothing, another may find the cure to cancer and make a revolutionary change. These two individuals are a prime example of an unequal contribution to society from an objective standpoint. Furthermore, under Rawls’ system, hard working, educated citizens would be forced to part with hard earned resources, such as money, to support criminals and lazy people who abuse the system (Garrett). It would be like if one child did an entire project for her group and on the day of the presentation, the other members took the information and presented separately without giving credit. If one person does all the work, unrelated persons should not benefit, this directly translates to the concept of justice as equity, not equality.

Desert based distributive justice is a theory of justice distribution pioneered by Aristotle that rewards people based on certain criteria (Lamont). This concept was adapted and modernised by John Locke, who stated that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labour, or the monetary equivalent, as compensation for their efforts (Lamont). Over hundreds of years, the concept of most desert based distributive justice has been narrowed down to three important categories; contribution, effort and compensation (Lamont). The most relevant of the three, however, is Miller and Riley’s category of contribution (Lamont). Miller and Riley theorised “people should be rewarded for their work activity according to the value of their contribution to the social product”, essentially believing in the importance of individuals earning what they are or are not given (Lamont). The accordance of society with what an indivudual has worked to earn is equity, which brings justice.

In conclusion, justice is a quality that is acheived by society through equitable treatment of equal persons. This means individuals are entitled to profit off of hard work and those unequal to them do not benefit an equal amount. Complete equality in a society, as Rawls advocates for, is not justice because it undermines individual contribution and one’s right to suceed. Justice is the earning of one’s position in life completely, the concept of “you get what you deserve” through equity of treatment. Aristotle and other desert based distributive justice philosophers such as Locke, Miller and Riley agree with this assessment. Equity truly is the only means of achieveing justice in every society.

Works Cited

1. Aristotle, and H. Rackham. The Nicomachean Ethics. Vol. 5, Harvard University Press, 1990.
2. Arneson, Richard. “Egalitarianism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 24 Apr. 2013, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/#PreDis
3. “Definition of Equality.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster Inc., https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equality.
4. “Definition of Equity.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster Inc., https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equity.
5. Garrett, Jan. “John Rawls on Justice.” Rawls on Justice, 3 Sept. 2002, https://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ethics/johnrawl.htm#prin.
6. Gates, Bill, and Melinda Gates. “Warren Buffett’s Best Investment.” Gatesnotes.com, Bill Gates, 14 Feb. 2017, https://www.gatesnotes.com/2017-Annual-Letter.
7. Lamont, Julian, and Christi Favor. “Distributive Justice.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 26 Sept. 2017, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/#Desert.
8. Pomerleau, Wayne P. “Western Theories of Justice.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Gonzaga Univeristy, https://www.iep.utm.edu/justwest/.
9. Rawl, John. A Theory of Justi ;lk vce. Harvard University Press, 1971.

Rise of a Nation of Billionaires

Money is a little bit different for a billionaire. Compared to an average american, a trip on a yacht is like a subway ride. A sports car is like a toy car. And a private island is like buying a home (Business Insider). Billionaires aren’t the 1%, they’re the .0001%. They can make a call and meet with a world leader. Many of them are world leaders. Billionaires are booming. In 1987, there were an estimated 140 billionaires. In 2019 there are fifteen times as many billionaires, with almost thirty times more wealth, totalling almost 9 trillion dollars. “If today’s billionaires formed a country, it would be the eighth wealthiest country in the world” (BusinessInsider). They have become a symbol of inequality in a rigged system, fueling protests around the world. A lot of billionaires made their fortunes by inventing things that changed our lives. Some more so than others. So why are there more billionaires than ever? And are they good or bad for the world?

In September 1982, Forbes 400 was released, the first billionaire ranking in the world. It is very hard to track down wealth, so they looked to places like Texas where you had the huge oil fortunes, Silicon Valley, where tech was getting a lot of attention. And then in New York City on Wall Street. On that wealth ranking, there were 11 heirs of John D. Rockefeller. He lived in the late 1800s in the United States, an era called the Gilded Age, which saw the world’s first ever self-made billionaires. In today’s dollars, Rockefeller is estimated to be twice as wealthy as the wealthiest person in the world today. This age was characterized not only by the astounding wealth, but massive corruption. Mark Twain coined the term Gilded Age, because while wealth was glittering on the surface, it was rotten underneath. Individuals like Rockefeller got rich from their political connections, consolidating industries into trusts and exploiting workers, and they were barely taxed. Before this time wealth is hard to compare, but to be extremely wealthy you probably controlled an Empire, like Augustus Cesar in Rome. But the Gilded Age tycoons made their money a different way. They founded successful companies. Continental scale economy in the United States and the rise of major corporations caused the massive surge of wealth. Vanderbilts railroads formed more than 200,000 miles of new track that connected the continent for the first time, helping the U.S. turn into an economic superpower.

Billionaires are booming today because of an increasingly global-scale economy, which has helped the whole world get wealthier. “On a global level, inequality has been declining. This is mainly driven by the fact that some of the poor countries are growing fast” (Business Insider). In the last few decades, no country has grown as much as China. Roughly 50 years ago the majority of China was in extreme poverty. As the communist country went through what is called socialist modernization, extreme poverty has virtually diminished. Before 1978 there were no billionaires in China, they now have the second most after the U.S. It is a very similar situation in India, who now have over 100 billionaires (NY Times).

In the white collar world there is something called ‘winner takes all’, which is the case for mobile tech industries, consisting of over half of the mega billionaires (30 billion plus). Digital products like websites or apps that don’t take much manpower to build can instantly reach a global market, making them the most profitable sources of income. Google’s founders for instance, are the 10th and 14th wealthiest people in the world. Facebook’s founder is the eighth wealthiest person in the world. Almost 50% of all U.S. shopping happens on Amazon. In 2019 Amazon’s CEO, Jeff Bezos became the wealthiest person in the world (Guardian).

Celebrity billionaires like Oprah, Kylie Jenner and Michael Jordan are low in the billionaire rankings, and none of them are on the list for the work that first made them famous. Michael Jordan made 90 million dollars playing basketball, but his corporate partnerships made him almost one billion dollars. He became a millionaire through his labor, but became a billionaire through his capital. Capital is anything you own that can make you money. A home, stocks, patents and copyrights are all examples of capital. Most people make their money through labor, but the richer you are the less your income comes from labor and the more it comes from capital. The .0001% are an exceptional example of this. Once you have capital, it just grows. Money Makes money. “To turn 100 dollars to 110 dollars is work, but to turn 100 million to 110 million is inevitable”, Edgar Bronfman Sr. Heir to the Seagrams fortune. That’s because if you only have 100 dollars in savings it’s hard to spend and it’s hard to invest. But 100 million dollars turns to 110 million dollars if you let it sit in the stock market for an average year without lifting a finger. After a couple generations you find yourself with a dynasty.

At least two hundred millionaires have signed the Giving Pledge, vowing to give away at least half of their wealth. And they’re doing things that governments traditionally do like fighting infectious diseases, funding the construction of Olympic facilities, ensuring college is affordable, or repairing critical infrastructure like Elon Musk pledged he would make clean drinking water available to everyone during the Flint Water Crisis. There is controversy surrounding the wealthy’s involvement because, “you do not want our citizens to be at the mercy of private unaccountable individuals who might or might not fix the problems that you have with your infrastructure, governments & basic human rights’, Abigail Disney, Granddaughter of Roy Disney. Governments raise money for these public services through taxes, but in most wealthy countries individuals labor income is taxed higher than their capital income. Yet even if a country increases its taxes on the wealthy, in a globalized world that is hard to enforce. Offshore financial systems give the wealthy the opportunity to avoid income taxes, corporate taxes, inheritance taxes and hide assets from creditors. The world got a glimpse of this system in 2019 when people crunched the numbers when an analysis of Scandinavian countries found out that on average most people avoid paying 5% or less of their taxes. The wealthiest .01% dont pay about 25%. In total the equivalent of 10% of the world GDP was stashed in offshore bank accounts, trillions of dollars. In Russia the .01% stashed more than half of their wealth in offshore accounts. A Lot of missing tax revenue for public services (PBS).

With expert help, billionaires can pick and choose the laws of whatever country they like. “Globalization has opened up all sorts of addresses to hide the money”, Jeffery Sachs, economist. New York City is home to the most billionaires in the world. Apartments worth tens of millions of dollars making New York part of that global ecosystem of hiding wealth from the law, laundering money and doing all sorts of things that push the edges of legality. With an LLC, the owners of these properties are left anonymous, making it virtually impossible for someone to determine who the ultimate owner is (NY Times). This is one reason why it can be so difficult to track down where all the billionaires are, or how many there are, or how many billions they have. Governments don’t track wealth on a global scale, so rankings like forbes are the best source we have, and their not reliable. These lists are based on publicly available information. Most billionaire wealth is private. Billionaires may not even know how much money they have. “Once you buy an asset that isn’t publicly traded, it’s really whatever you want to value it at”, Mark Cuban. Forbes recognizes that it underestimates the amount of wealth in the world.

Back in the Gilded Age, billionaires didn’t just give away their money. The government stepped in. The Progressive Era began a new way of regulation, breaking up the major trusts like standard oil. Teddy Roosevelt was famously called the ‘trust buster’ for this. In a globalized world, reigning for wealth looks a little different. The European Union has put tax havens on a blacklist. But the results remain unseen. And in the U.S. politicians have started pushing for much higher taxes on the wealthy, which a majority of Americans agree with, including some billionaires. “The taxation system has tilted towards the rich and away from the middle class. And I think it should be addressed”, Warren Buffett. Our relationship to billionaires is complicated. We’ve made them celebrities if they weren’t already. We’ve made them powerful, and they do some incredible things with their money. Sometimes more efficiently than governments. “It’s not the individuals i’m worried about, it’s the system which allows this kind of massive income and wealth inequality”, Sen. Bernie Sanders. That nation of billionaires might soon be the richest in the world. And while their money might not live in one country, well all live in theirs.