Disentangling Equity from Special Treatment: A Critical Look at the Perception of Marginalized Groups’ Demands
Marginalized groups' calls for equity are frequently misunderstood as demands for special treatment. This misunderstanding becomes particularly pronounced when the group in question is an ethnic minority. Their appeals for fairness are often viewed through a lens that paints them as race-based demands. A compelling illustration of this dynamic can be found in a speech delivered to the Orewa Rotary Club in 2004 by Don Brash, then-leader of New Zealand's National Party. Brash's argument draws on a piece by Simon Chapple in the Policy Science journal (2000), which contends that there is no direct correlation between being Māori and experiencing societal disadvantage, arguing that disadvantage is not uniquely tied to ethnicity but to broader socio-economic factors.
Chapple's analysis suggests that the notion of Māori identity is fluid, shaped by self-identification and intermarriage with non-Māori, leading to significant variability within the Māori population itself. He identifies a specific subgroup—those strictly identifying as Māori, residing in rural areas, and lacking education—as facing disproportionate disadvantage. However, he argues that these challenges are not a product of their Māori identity but of general societal factors such as geographical isolation and educational attainment, which affect all individuals in similar circumstances, regardless of their ethnicity.
This perspective fuels Brash's claim that Māori demands for equity are "racist," under the premise that they seek benefits exclusively for Māori, neglecting others in similarly disadvantaged positions who do not identify as Māori. Such arguments, however, miss the broader point of equity movements: they do not demand special treatment for marginalized groups but seek to address systemic inequalities that disproportionately affect these groups. By framing these demands as race-based or otherwise exclusionary, critics like Brash not only misrepresent the goals of equity initiatives but also contribute to a discourse that can silence or erase the very groups advocating for change.
The critique of equity calls as being "racist," "selfish," or "sexist" reflects a broader pattern of resistance to social justice efforts, which often seeks to discredit or diminish the legitimacy of these movements. This pattern systematically turns against the oppressed groups in a way that not only reinforces the very oppression being challenged but also employs tactics of silencing or erasing these groups under the guise of universality—that measures should apply to everyone equally, disregarding the nuanced and specific nature of their struggles.
At the core of my exploration is an attempt to better understand these responses to calls for equity. The assertion that such demands are, in various contexts, labeled as "racist" (as in the case of ethnic equity), "selfish" (as seen against trans activism), or "sexist" (against feminist movements) reveals a troubling strategy. This strategy seeks to discredit and diminish the legitimacy of these calls by framing them in a manner that not only misrepresents their intentions but also bolsters the existing structures of oppression. By labeling these calls as divisive or exclusionary, the discourse shifts from addressing systemic inequalities to questioning the validity of the groups’ grievances, effectively silencing or erasing their voices under the pretense of seeking a universal solution that often overlooks the specific needs and challenges faced by marginalized communities.
References: https://www.donbrash.com/national-party/orewa-2004-nationhood/
Simon Chapple, “Maori Socio-economic Disparity”, Political Science, Vol 52, No 2, December 2000.
