Unequally Equal

 

“Equal opportunity and unequal chances?” 

“No. I do not agree with you. Equal opportunity does not exist in reality,” said my daughter, an accomplished civil engineer. 

I was telling her about my talk at the Mahaguru Institute of Technology, where I had been invited to speak at the induction program of the 4-year engineering program. The invitation was extended to me by Dr Arun Jacob, Dean of Student Affairs. In the hall were about 300 people, the students who had secured admission and a few parents.

I always tailor my talk to suit my audience. My talk briefly touched upon creating brand value for the institute and how products often overshadow much-acclaimed brands. I also spoke about how to succeed in a competitive environment and brought up the subject of equal opportunity and unequal chance. FIFA World Cup was the example I chose.

The tournament, starting with the first qualifier played on 07 September 2023 and ending with the final on 19 July 2026 at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, provided each team with equal opportunity to prove their worth against their adversary. The outcome of the contest depended upon how well each team utilised their skills to create chances at the opponent’s goal and capitalised on them. Foiling similar attempts by the adversary was equally important. Victory was as much about the chances created, spoiled, and foiled. Both teams contesting had equal opportunity to win, though victory invariably belonged to the team that capitalised on the opportunity.

“Maybe so in the tournament,” she said. “Do all students in the batch come from the same background? Do they all have the same support system? The same skill set? The same constraints? How can you call it equal opportunity when every contestant is unequal?” she asked.

The straight answer to all her questions was, “No.” Yet I am convinced that all the students in the Institute are presented with the same opportunity to start with. 

A dissection of the scenario, free from emotionally loaded perspectives, presents a different picture. Both teams get the same amount of time to play, the same football and the same pitch to play on. They even switch sides at half-time to offset any advantage one side of the court might have offered. Both teams play under the same set of rules and the same set of referees. Essentially, both teams get the same opportunity. Yet, punters give different odds because each team has a unique set of skills and expertise that increases or decreases the team’s chance of victory.

“Games may have the same set of rules and conditions, but in real life?” she asked. 

We are unique in every possible way. The socio-economic backgrounds that we come from, our aspirations, skill sets, value systems, and many other seemingly unimportant elements collectively define each of us uniquely. 

How can we ignore the constraints that challenge us? We are breathing, moving, and aspiring entities that cannot help but perceive everything through a template that lies deep within us. Yes, that is what results in each one of us possessing a unique skill set, competencies and stamina. It defines our attitude to life. Providing equal access to opportunity, irrespective of the socio-economic background of individual competitors, is very much bringing parity in conditions of competition.

True, it does not make everyone's chances equal. We all start from unequal starting lines, but when brought at par with each other for a purpose, the unequal backgrounds cannot dictate differing standards for evaluation. If everyone is assured of an equal outcome, where is the competition? An environment devoid of competition is detrimental to growth and progress. Competition is ruthlessly ingrained into the concept of survival and growth. Nature makes no excuses and accepts none. 

Equality is not making everything equal but ensuring that nobody is denied the opportunity to create their own chances of success. The difference, however, will always remain in the unequal ability to convert opportunities into favourable chances. Assured of equal outcomes irrespective of one's own contribution does not only kill competition but would destroy the concept of meritocracy, social order and the very society. 

A competitor must decide in which discipline he or she must compete. This is a personal decision based on one's capabilities. Similarly, students must choose their area of interest. A person with no interest in the field of Engineering should not, in the first place, be in an engineering class. Having secured admission to a specific stream of Engineering, and with equal access to opportunities the institute provides, it is in their interest to pursue it. What differentiates the top and the bottom in an academic evaluation is how much the students have invested in that pursuit. Intelligently compounded inputs derive exponential outcomes.

We are not equal.  We were never equal, and we cannot ever be equal. We cannot mathematically normalise people’s past to equality. What we, as a fair society, can do is to ensure that these differences do not prevent a person from pursuing a chosen career. However, having entered the competition, it is for that person to grab the opportunity to script success.

There have never been equal contestants. There will never be. Competitors come to the competition with different bags of background, aspiration, dreams, flaws and burdens. It can never be equalised. What we can do is to make the rules of competition the same for everybody.  Advantage or disadvantage of the competitors’ background is part of the competition.

A referee can only ensure a fair game. The outcome will depend on the team and the players. Perhaps that is what equality is all about. It is not about equal chance of winning but the equal opportunity to create the chances to win.

“Maybe, you are right,” said my daughter. “But I think the dice will remain loaded,” she added.

Maybe she is right too.