A decade ago, this image went mega-viral on Google+. In the ensuing years, it has been adapted and reused thousands of times.

@cra1g created this instantly viral image and tells the story of its evolution here:
https://medium.com/@CRA1G/the-evolution-of-an-accidental-meme-ddc4e139e0e4
@sociology @politicalscience

The Evolution of an Accidental Meme - Craig Froehle - Medium

My jaw hit the keyboard…that was my image, but it also wasn’t my image. It was the concept behind my image, but completely redrawn (and by someone with actual artistic talent!). I was stunned…and…

Medium
@conradhackett @cra1g @sociology @politicalscience Interesting. When I first encountered this graphic, the image on the left was titled "Equality," and the image on the right was titled "Equity."
@parallelarts That was someone else's relabeling of the image, which kicked off my scholarly interests in organizational justice. Equity has traditionally been used to mean allocation proportional to someone's contributions or merits, but it's more recently caught traction to mean proportional to one's needs. I suspect this meme is partly why.
@cra1g I wonder if the relabeling occurred with the other image. For me, the equity message is so strong - the other message seems relatively simplistic and communicates a kind of self-congratulatory "us-vs-them" message.
@parallelarts Well, I originally made the meme to explain my position to one other person, with whom I was having a political discussion/debate, and I never really expected it to go beyond that. At the time, my awareness of the definition of "equity" was rooted in equity theory, which doesn't concern itself with needs, only merit.
@cra1g I understand. Thanks for clarification. I actually did not pick up on the fact that you were the creator of this graphic.
@cra1g @parallelarts
What would your thoughts be on replacing the word with “fairness”?
@mcareaveyjb @parallelarts "Fairness," at least in American English, is a vague umbrella term that doesn't offer sufficient precision to be used in a prescriptive way like this requires. I'm now OK with "equity" being used for the right-hand side, but that required me going back to some of the earliest writings on organizational justice to see how to reconcile it with the merit-based use of that word. The secret is realizing that equity is distributive justice based on *proportionality*.

@cra1g @parallelarts I'm not familiar with "equity" being associated with needs or contribution, but in a strictly economic sense it can be interpreted as being evenly distributed by value.

It's obvious that the tallest spectator has little to lose by offering a position to the shortest, and it would ultimately result in a uniform distribution of value.

Maybe the short guy is a jerk who doesn't deserve to see the game and bullies the tall guy into it, who knows. It could still be "unfair".

@empire Equity theory dates back to the late 1950s/early 1960s and was driven by the realization that people expect some sort of proportionality regarding their pay and their effort. That concept - proportionality - then was extended to attributes other than effort/contribution to expertise, seniority, need, etc. Equity investments return shares of the profits proportional to how much $ folks contributed, so it's the same idea.

@cra1g @empire I have always had a bit of confusion over the difference between equality and equity. Found this definition:

EQUITY
The term “equity” refers to fairness and justice and is distinguished from equality: Whereas equality means providing the same to all, equity means recognizing that we do not all start from the same place and must acknowledge and make adjustments to imbalances.

Thanks for sharing, it’s very kind of you to share it so freely 😁

@SisAve Thanks for sharing that, but I have to say that definition doesn't match up well with the vast majority of the scholarly or historical writing on the subject. Where did you find it?

@cra1g
naceweb.org

Lol, I googled 😬 it was like the third or fourth hit down 🤷‍♀️

@cra1g It seems to me, the way people use the word this is what they seem to be implying to me. Unless I’m totally missing the mark.
@SisAve People use the word in all sorts of ways, many of which contradict each other. Equality is indeed a dimension of "fairness" and equity is another one. Equity is NOT fairness all by itself, so using the two words synonymously is incorrect.
@cra1g Oh. Ok, thanks for helping clarify that!
@cra1g @parallelarts Thank you for the artwork! Is the relabeling of the image ok with you? It made the concept of 'proportional to one's needs' so clear for me. I so appreciate the visual representation. It's powerful even without labels.
@seeme @parallelarts I'm 100% ok with folks doing whatever they like with/to the image...as long as it helps us have this conversation, it's a plus.

@cra1g @seeme @parallelarts

In the background, we see a stadium, built to form a 'slope' so that all can see.

@cra1g @parallelarts I've seen posters of the Equality/Equity version (with the redrawn people) in our elementary schools here.

Thanks for sharing your story. I had no idea of the background.

@peterbutler That is so awesome to hear, Peter...thanks for the happy news. :-) Kids seem to grok this concept way easier than some adults do.
@conradhackett @cra1g @sociology @politicalscience Better to get rid of the wooden fence, so one don't need any boxes. And everybody is indeed equal.

@Kanteldenker @conradhackett @cra1g @sociology @politicalscience

This illustration is so elegant and effective. It successfully communicates key information quickly and simply.

I think this is the source of the May 2016 Tweet mentioned in the article (page 17):

https://www.cawi-ivtf.org/sites/default/files/publications/advancing-equity-inclusion-web_0.pdf

@conradhackett thanks for sharing the article. Nice to see how many versions and adoptations were made of it.
This is my personal favourite. Addressing the basic problem.
@cra1g @sociology @politicalscience
(🖼️from the article)
@vosje62 @conradhackett @sociology @politicalscience Yes, I hear that a lot. Sometimes, the fence can't be removed.
@cra1g that right. I had to think about those two (with or without a, transparent fence). I choose this one. Real freedom is that there is no need for the fence. That is not an easy thing to achieve.
@conradhackett @sociology @politicalscience
@vosje62 @conradhackett @sociology @politicalscience Especially not if the fence is, for example, the inability to walk or to see or inherent to a location on the planet.

@vosje62 @conradhackett @cra1g @sociology @politicalscience

That is the fallacy of #Twitter today.

Remove the fence and everyone is equally endangered.

There can be very negative forms of equality.

@vosje62 @conradhackett @cra1g @sociology @politicalscience

In the absence of the fence...

Libertarians would build fences for just themselves using trees they had grown from acorns and milled into lumber using tools they had crafted in order to avoid being beholden to society.

Republicans would build the wall to keep the ethnic players at bay, leaving holes big enough for baseballs to fly through to better watch the game.

Democrats would have paid for tickets and be sitting in the stands.

@eggmont @vosje62 @conradhackett @cra1g @sociology @politicalscience

Libertarians would _talk_ about building fences just for themselves, and spend many hours online debating the fine points such as which species of tree could be grown with the fewest external resources etc. But no real-life tree would ever be in danger of conversion into any Libertarian fencing.

@PaulTheFossil @vosje62 @conradhackett @cra1g @sociology @politicalscience

I know a cool libertarian--hard to believe such a person even exists.

His company keeps a portion of any commercial or retail space they build and the team shares the profits from it.

He had a project that was going to lose money. He gave his staffers the option of moving to other projects.

After the people who opted out left the room he handed the people who remained $50,000 each. The profit they would have made.

@vosje62 @conradhackett @cra1g @sociology @politicalscience I like that one, especially if you add Participation where the outcome of Liberation is they all get to choose if they want to join in with the game.
@conradhackett @cra1g @sociology @politicalscience very nicely put. I’ve never seen that one. So applicable
@conradhackett @cra1g @sociology @politicalscience Yes. For those in Europe, read Conservative and Socialist - UK, Tory and Labour.
@conradhackett @cra1g @sociology @politicalscience
I would go even further with the caption for the right hand image: the tall person on the left gave their box (which is useless to them) to the short person on the right, so they can all enjoy a communal experience with none of these three losing out.
@Giagia But should society leave justice to individual acts of charity, or should it put in place systems (e.g., taxes and social safety net programs) to ensure a minimum level for all? That question lies at the heart of a lot of today's political disagreements.
@conradhackett @cra1g @sociology @politicalscience One of the best threads I have read since joining Mastodon. I had it as the Equity and Equality example when I copied it from somewhere ages back. It's so brilliant conceived. Thank you Craig.
@conradhackett @cra1g @sociology @politicalscience thanks for sharing this, so good to know the history and be able to properly credit when I use it.
@mariekedelacroix If you can magically make all forms of hardship, obstruction, and disadvantage -- what the fence symbolizes -- disappear for everyone, go for it.
Good old Google+.
@cra1g @sociology @conradhackett @politicalscience it’s simple to understand and brilliant. Well done 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾

@conradhackett @cra1g @sociology @politicalscience

The #BCNDP used this pic (or concept) to argue that their triage against disabled people was equity. Very twisted.

@conradhackett @cra1g @sociology @politicalscience I 'm also using this image in my class to point out the pitfalls of the "we want all to be equal" rethoric used by some alt-right groups to appeal the general public.
@fabiogiglietto @conradhackett @sociology @politicalscience The phrase I use often is "Equal is fair only if everyone's the same."
@cra1g I love that you're still tracking all the variants. I see it pop up all over the place. Kudos!

@conradhackett @cra1g @sociology @politicalscience

Neither of which are actually justice to a socialist. Remove the wall! 🙂

@simonzerafa What if the wall is actually, say, autism, or one's home being disrupted by volcanic activity?How do we simply "remove" those hardships?

@cra1g

My son has dyslexia and dyspraxia so he gets additional help at school. He's doing very well.

Volcanoes aren't such a huge problem in this part of the world, given the that we don't have a massive eruption in Iceland.

Planning and mitigation will help I suspect.

How this relates to justice specially through I'm not clear.

@simonzerafa That additional help your son is getting? Those are boxes. The money being spent to help your son is money obtained through taxes (I'm assuming), meaning it's taken from others who don't need it as much. That money is also boxes. The wall is your son's dyslexia -- we can't just remove it. Does the metaphor make more sense in that light?
@conradhackett @cra1g @sociology @politicalscience
I still reference this when I’m talking about inclusion, such a powerful image and so pleased I now know the original creator - thank you !
@kay_hallsworth You're so welcome...and thank YOU for having these important conversations.