In recent weeks, but the phenomenon is not new, we have been able to read a few columns and articles discussing the overhaul of French spelling and grammar, a relaxation of the correction of lexical errors, or even the abandonment school grades in the criteria for access to a particular program. All of these demands are based on the premise that students cannot meet the requirements equally and that it is therefore necessary to remove current skill barriers.
In nature, we are certainly born equal in dignity, but not in terms of conditions and capacities. However, this should not be inevitable, which is why we must develop public policies and implement tools aimed at equal rights. Faced with this truth of La Palice of the inequality of conditions, we generally have two schools of thought: that wanting to treat individuals in an egalitarian manner and that wanting to find measures of equity.
What is the difference between equality and equity?
As for equality, it is a question of giving the same tools, the same means to individuals, in order to aim for equal rights. We are therefore in a form of egalitarianism. Conversely, even if equity also aims at equal rights, it consists of offering different means depending on people and needs. A possible image to illustrate the difference between these two notions is that showing three individuals of different sizes who want to look beyond a fence. According to the principle of equality, we would give three benches identical to the three, which would provide a better view for some, but not at all for others; acting with fairness, we would give three benches of different sizes according to each person’s needs. If we respect this last principle, individuals all see beyond the fence.
Egalitarianism is the doctrine of equality and egalitarianism. Thus, under this doctrine, it is good, to promote access for all to a good or service, to reduce expectations and criteria. Removing grades as a criterion for access to particular programs (sport, culture, theater, etc.) or even reducing knowledge requirements is equivalent to cutting down the fence so that everyone can see beyond it. It is ultimately a vision of equality at all costs, marked by an absence of questioning about the means or consequences of certain practices.
However, do we really want to cultivate a form of lowering of conditions and criteria in order to allow everyone to access a service? Shouldn’t we instead plan appropriate means to support everyone according to their needs, with the aim of achieving equal rights?
A race to the bottom motivated by an egalitarian ideal should not be the avenue to choose. This egalitarianism risks generating a form of mediocracy, to use the title of the book by Quebec philosopher Alain Deneault.
Let’s act to foster a kind of meritocracy that leaves no one behind. Let’s encourage everyone’s effort and pride in succeeding, which can only be done by not lowering criteria and requirements, but by supporting people in their needs and difficulties. Support to elevate individuals, without lowering standards, seems to me to be an avenue – certainly more complex, but so much more fruitful – allowing the development of a real feeling of pride.