Fair Isn't Equal; Equal Isn't Fair

"#equality but I still don’t know what ba" (CC BY 2.0) by  leighblackall 

  

fair
adjective \ˈfer\

• agreeing with what is thought to be right or acceptable
• treating people in a way that does not favor some over others
• not too harsh or critical

"Fair." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.

equal
adjective \ˈē-kwəl\

• the same in number, amount, degree, rank, or quality
• having the same mathematical value
• not changing: the same for each person

"Equal." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.

If something is to be fair according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary it has to be 'right' and 'acceptable,' and it has to avoid favoritism and overtly directed criticism.

If something is to be equal according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary it has to be measured in 'sameness' and cannot change.

Seems pretty simple. What I'm thinking about a lot lately though, is the lack of simplicity in these definitions as they move from Merriam-Webster to practice in the world. In many cases, it appears that something can be perceived as very fair, but perhaps not very equal. It also appears that some things can be perceived as very equal, but not very fair.

Another word that inevitably enters the debate around fair vs. equal to make matters even more confusing is 'equity.'

equity
noun eq·ui·ty \ˈe-kwə-tē\

• fairness or justice in the way people are treated

"Equity." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.

Equity reflects what we do. It's a noun. Equity is what results when we're able as individuals or groups to treat people fairly and in just ways. Because fair is not necessarily equal, I think that we can say that equity may contain elements of being equal, but being equal is not required to create equity.

Learning Circles.

flickr CC image via IDEAleemade

I'm fond of circles. To me circles represent learning that is non-linear, organic and never-ending; not the type I typically experienced as an undergraduate student in the Faculty of Education I attended. A linear path was more or less set out for me in pre-service teacher training, (but there were some bright spots,) and I did what was asked of me. More recently I have become involved in less linear learning paths, but only in the last few weeks have I contextualized them as learning circles. All the way through my K-12 education, and at three post-secondary institutions since then, I always knew when I was immersed in an authentic, organic learning environment, I just didn't know what to call it. It was about the spirit of my involvement in learning, and the spirit of those around me. Collectively we created learning environments that were comfortable and non-threatening, strength-based and multi-faceted. A bright-spot example of what I would have called a learning circle at the time if I had thought about it in that context was my experience in a class taught by Dr. David Wangler.

Dr.Wangler insisted that his students did two things... we had to read, we had to write and we were guided to do both using the best resources available at the time. My undergrad years pre-date widespread use of modern technology in the classroom, so that meant we actually had to read books; lots of them, and then we had to write about what we read. Years ahead of his time in the realm of creating an authentic learning environment, Dr. Wangler set up his class so the students were the drivers of their own learning paths. At the beginning of the term, he asked us to sign a contract stating the mark we intended to get at the end of the term. Each requisite grade corresponded to a set of "readings," five picked by him and the rest varied in quantity according to the mark we intended to receive (for a seven out of nine, I had to read 18 "books," each the equivalent of 200 pages.)