Equality of Opportunity

Today a popular account I see often via accounts I follow argued that equality of opportunity and equality of outcome require the exact same regulations and produce the exact same results. The argument was that, more or less, that equality of outcome requires equal representation of various types of people within the workforce, and equality of opportunity in practice requires the exact same thing.

The comments go on, with one person clarifying that that's not actually what equality of opportunity is. One commenter correctly defines equality of opportunity as not being denied an opportunity for an arbitrary reason aside from skill and ability, whereas someone replies that "skill and ability are exactly why equality of opportunity is nonsense". The original poster himself agrees that denying people opportunities based on arbitrary factors unrelated to their skills and abilities is bad, but says that's not what equality of opportunity is.

This is a very interesting example of a failure to clarify terms. Furthermore it shows the dangers inherent in choosing the name for your thought processes, as many people will attempt to tear down arguments using the semantics of the individual words chosen for that thought process rather than the thought process itself. This is little more than a shifty semantics argument that has taken a defined term and obfuscated it to mean something it doesn't mean, and then arguing against the new made up definition. People do this constantly with ideologies like "prolife" and "black lives matter" as I explained in another post. It's not actually necessary for people who identify as prolife to engage in any other activities as defined by the objections of their opposition.  We all know "prolife" means someone who is against abortion. To attempt to argue that they must also be vegan or against the death penalty is pedantic semantics, because that's not what "prolife" means when used as the name of this well understood ideological thought process.

Equality of opportunity has never meant that people must be granted opportunities. It has in fact always meant that opportunities should not be denied to people based on arbitrary factors unrelated to their skills and abilities, which the original poster agrees with, so why he chose to argue against the semantics of the term in order to disagree with it, I will never know. It would be absurd for anyone to argue that a person who does not grow or produce any food should be given a spot in the farmer's market tent. A person uninterested in welding would probably not even apply for a high experience welding job, so to seek out a non-welder who hasn't even sought out such an opportunity would be absurd. Equality of opportunity only applies to people actively seeking opportunity. It is not a passive state of being. Equality of opportunity necessitates that the people involved are in fact seeking opportunities.

The concept that we could force opportunity upon people ignores people's choices. The true meaning of equality of opportunity is that if two people of different superfluous attributes both have the same skills and abilities, they should have the same opportunities (if they so choose to pursue them), and not be denied because one is black or one is white. To argue that equality of opportunity is somehow the active force of requiring equal numbers of blacks and whites in workplaces is an obtuse redefinition of the term that no one was actually using.

A proper application of the thought process of equality of opportunity could easily result in a business where everyone is black, assuming no white people applied for the position, or even if only unqualified white people applied for the position. The resulting hiring or denial based on the application is the outcome, so to argue that the equality of opportunity forces businesses to hire incompetent workers comes from redefining "outcome" to mean "opportunity" - which is nonsense. The idea that you are forcing the business to hire equally representative numbers of various types of people under equality of opportunity is simply false. That's not what it is, that's literally what equality of outcome is, and unlike the argument presented at the beginning, they are actually different. Equality of opportunity stops as soon as the job application has been submitted. The result of them being hired or not would be the outcome of the opportunity to apply. The understood explanation of equality of opportunity is that no one is stopped at the door of the bank and that anyone can submit an application anywhere. The results following that is the outcome.

A real life example for application of equality of opportunity would be job applications where the name, sex, and race of the applicant are absent, and potential hirees are judged on their abilities, skills, and experience alone. It is being argued in the comments multiple times that those abilities also fall under the "equality of opportunity" umbrella, that equality of opportunity does argue people can't be denied because they lack certain abilities. But that's not what it is and no one arguing for it has ever argued that it was that. To argue that, you would necessitate that you believe someone who has never cooked a meal in their life should be hired after submitting an application as a cook at a five star restaurant, and no one believes that. Attempting to argue that equality of opportunity necessitates that is simply a failure to define the term accurately. Stopping a man from handing in his application at said restaurant because he is black, or tossing it straight into the garbage because he's black, would be violation of equality of opportunity. They had the opportunity to apply, but the outcome of their application is denial due to lack of experience and skills. This argument is, at its bare basic level, simply frustrating, as it is adding new qualifications to the definition that were not there before in order to argue against it.

The only thing I can see here is that the opposition is having an issue figuring out where the "outcome" begins, and they are defining the "opportunity" as requiring someone to be able to attempt the job in question, or force the bank to give anyone and everyone a loan and see if they fail or not, and then the outcome of their attempt is where the outcome first begins. This argument is stretching the distance of what the opportunity was in the first place. I would argue that the very first barrier that must be passed in any event is the "opportunity". Thus, if we were to apply this concept to a much different example, we could say that a hunter-gatherer choosing to gear up and go hunting would in fact be his opportunity, while his success or failure is the outcome. This seems to coincide with the argument I presented in the beginning of this paragraph. However, there is a huge difference in the wildman hunter-gatherer's situation and the man seeking employment - there is no one to tell him he can or cannot go hunting. The opportunity to start a business or get a job is not the first barrier to pass for the modern man, it is gaining approval or resources to do so. A man who needs no loan can start a business without barriers, and for this particular man in this particular situation, his opportunity is running the business, while his outcome is whether the business succeeds or fails. The man who needs a loan to start his business must first pass the financial barrier of needing someone to agree to finance his endeavor. His qualifications for the loan is where the outcome - approval or denial - begins.

We could even dissect this further and argue that each aspect of the "application, acceptance/denial, performance, reward" formula is two total "opportunity -> outcome" functions. You have the opportunity to apply for a job, and your outcome is if you are hired. Your next opportunity is to perform your job functions, and your outcome is dependent on your ability and application of skills. Indeed, one could experience the outcome of acceptance, and then fail entirely to show up to work. What then becomes of the "opportunity/outcome" formula? It seems almost necessary to acknowledge that this formula entails two opportunities and two outcomes. To ignore the self evident reality that "acceptance/denial" is an outcome, per the definition of outcomes, is a failed game of semantics. Being accepted or denied on your application for a loan or job application is unarguably an outcome of an opportunity, so to argue that "equality of opportunity" necessitates that we must allow all applicants "the opportunity" to head to the "performance" section of the formula is a failure to define terms accurately.

Surely, if you're going to argue semantics for what entails an "opportunity", you must acknowledge that infinite opportunities exist locked behind infinite outcomes, thus your objection to there being a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome seems very reasonable. However, at that point, no one is there who ever believed in what "equality of opportunity" ever originally meant, because now you're far off into a void of semantics no one asked for. Obviously no one believes the final opportunity is what requires equal access, but rather self-evidently, people who believe in equality of opportunity believe the first opportunity is what should have equal access, in the context of our modern world and the requirements necessary in order to enter into the market.

If you believe an argument for equality of opportunity should include skills and abilities of individuals as well as every opportunity behind every outcome possible, and that it is impossible for us to continue to argue for equality of opportunity unless we include skills and abilities, then my sincerest apologies for the improper naming of the thought process in the first place. We'll name it something better in the future, like "we shouldn't deny people loans or jobs based on arbitrary factors unrelated to their skills and abilities." Phew, rolls right off the tongue.