Editor,

This is in reference to a letter from the South Whidbey School District addressed to the South Whidbey community dated June 11. It appears that Dr. Jo Moccia and the six other signatories are committed to coming up with a plan to eliminate racism in the South Whidbey school system.

I’m sure the community agrees that this is a worthy cause.

An unintended question relating to “fairness” is raised by the content of the letter. When embarking on a major enterprise of cultural significance, it seems reasonable to expect that — as one of the fist items discussed — and before implementing other sweeping changes in the future, there would be an effort to clarify the definition of terms.

As it stands, the signatories have used the term “equity” and its derivatives 34 times in their letter without a hint of definition. At the very least, this seems odd considering that there is a lot of discussion in the public forum about the original dictionary meaning versus the possible re-definition of the word “equity.”

For the longest time, most people understood “equity” to mean something like fairness and equality of opportunity. But in recent years with the advent of new terminology emanating from post-modern studies, “equity” has slowly been co-opted to mean equality of outcome.

Needless to say, the difference is of great importance for school policies. The new definition is not universally acceptable.

I therefore ask the signatories:

First, wouldn’t it be “fair” — equitable — to ask that the professionals responsible for making very consequential decisions should lay out their cards publicly as to what they have in mind? The time to do that is now, before decisions are made.

Be transparent. Be fair. Let’s hear it. Tell the community where you stand individually and collectively on the crucial distinction between two concepts. Are you for equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? If you don’t know, that would be an indicator that it’s too early for decision making.

Any discussion that even minimally claims to be based on intellectual honesty would encourage, even demand that sort of clarity.

The public has a right to be fully informed on the philosophical underpinnings of the decisions that are about to affect everyone’s lives.

V.F. Gelfand

Freeland