Equity' is only two letters away from 'equality,' after all, and

When Miranda Devine wrote, “‘Equity’ is only two letters away from ‘equality,’ after all, and who would object to that? But in those two letters is a world of difference. ‘Equity’ is intrinsically unjust because it demands equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity,” she was not merely playing with words—she was unveiling a moral distinction that has echoed through centuries of political thought and human experience. In her insight, she draws a boundary between justice and control, between a society that uplifts the individual and one that seeks to shape all souls into a single, unnatural mold. Her words speak with the wisdom of those who have seen the danger of good intentions untempered by truth, and of systems that promise fairness while delivering tyranny.

The meaning of her statement rests on understanding the profound difference between equality and equity. Equality is the principle that all men and women should have the same starting line—that the gates of opportunity should be open to all, unbarred by prejudice, privilege, or birth. It is the dream that each soul may rise according to its own strength, effort, and virtue. Equity, on the other hand, as Devine warns, seeks to ensure that everyone finishes at the same place, regardless of their path, their effort, or their merit. In its quest to equalize outcomes, it abandons fairness itself, punishing the strong for their success and shielding the idle from consequence. Thus, what begins as a cry for compassion becomes, in practice, an act of injustice cloaked in virtue.

This distinction is ancient. Even in the philosophies of Aristotle, we find the warning that justice must mean treating equals equally and unequals unequally, according to their deeds and deserts. To deny this is to deny reality itself. Nature is diverse, not uniform; strength and talent, courage and wisdom, are scattered unevenly among humankind. To force identical results upon such diversity is to commit violence against truth. Equality of opportunity uplifts and liberates—it allows the brave and the diligent to rise, and inspires others to follow. But equality of outcome chains all to the lowest common denominator, demanding sameness where only difference gives life its richness. This is what Devine means when she calls equity “intrinsically unjust”: it does not honor the human spirit; it levels it.

History bears witness to her warning. Consider the tragic example of the Soviet Union, which promised equity to its people—an equal share of labor’s fruit, an end to class and privilege. Yet in pursuing equality of outcome, it destroyed freedom itself. The farmer and the scholar, the dreamer and the sluggard, were forced to reap the same reward. In suppressing competition, it killed excellence; in demanding sameness, it bred despair. Millions starved, not because there was no land, but because there was no incentive to toil. The natural law of effort and reward was overturned, and with it perished the dignity of labor. The dream of “equity” had become a nightmare of oppression masquerading as fairness.

Yet equality of opportunity—true equality—has ever been the foundation of thriving civilizations. When the Founding Fathers of America declared that “all men are created equal,” they did not mean that all men would live equal lives, nor reap equal fortunes, but that all should stand before the law as equals, unbound by the chains of birth or caste. From that soil of freedom grew a garden of innovation, progress, and prosperity unlike any in history. Men and women, free to strive, to fail, and to rise again, brought forth wonders of science, art, and enterprise. This was the fruit of opportunity—not equity. For it is in the contest of effort, in the striving of the human will, that greatness is born.

There is also a deeper spiritual truth within Devine’s words. To demand identical outcomes for all is to deny the sacred individuality of the soul. The Creator did not fashion us as duplicates but as originals, each endowed with unique gifts and burdens. The call to equity ignores this divine diversity, seeking instead to flatten the