Different, but equal

Political language likes to choose between two convenient extremes: either all people are the same, or differences grant a right to a hierarchy of worth. People really do differ — but unequal basic rights and unequal human value do not follow from that.

They differ in height, health, temperament, ability, experience, wants and starting conditions. Men and women as groups may differ in some average physical and behavioural measures.

The difficulty starts when an average is used as a particular person’s biography.

Even a noticeable difference between averages can come with a large overlap between the groups. Knowing someone’s sex tells you nothing reliable about how well he drives, learns a language, handles stress or runs a project.

Start by assessing what is relevant to the task:

• skill;
• experience;
• results;
• health;
• physical requirements;
• the ability to learn.

Group membership can give preliminary statistical information, but it rarely replaces direct measurement.

Equality also has several meanings.

People are not equal in abilities, needs and achievements. It doesn’t follow that they should have different basic rights or different human value.

Equality before the law doesn’t mean equal height. An equal chance to submit an application doesn’t guarantee an equal outcome. Identical help may be insufficient for someone with a greater need.

So an argument about equality is almost meaningless without a clarification:

Equality of what?

Of rights, resources, chances, outcomes, treatment or dignity?

Differences are what make cooperation possible. One person designs, another builds, a third spots the mistake the first two have stopped seeing. A world of identical people would be not only dull but rather poorly maintained.

Diversity, however, doesn’t justify humiliation. A person’s ability is more useful in one task and useless in another. No general scale of human quality comes out of that.

Respect doesn’t require thinking everyone is the same. It requires not confusing a difference with a right to look down.

The gap between an average and a person can be tested in one move. If the job requires lifting twenty-five kilos, you can screen out half the candidates by group, or you can ask them to lift twenty-five kilos. The second takes a minute, screens out exactly those who can’t manage, and also screens out the large man with a fresh hernia whom the averages confidently recommended.

Averages are useful where measurement isn’t possible: buying workwear, or calculating the load on a lift. As soon as a specific person is standing in front of you, a direct test is almost always cheaper and more accurate than statistics about people who look like him.