This essay first appeared in my newsletter. Sign up here if interested in F’ing up the status quo and fixing education.

One version of educational bread & circuses that is rampant is the specific dialect of equity language that serves less to illuminate real inequalities than to short-circuit meaningful policy discussion and credible change.

When I talk to or write about  The School of Entrepreneuring or fixing the student debt crisis or why student engagement is miserable, those discussions unfold in a very particular way with a small but impassioned minority of people. 

When changes to the current system are proposed like some of the above, this set of critics respond with predictable phrases:

• “Restrict access to historically marginalized communities”
• “Create systemic barriers for first-generation students”
• “Perpetuate educational inequities”
• “Disproportionately impact underserved populations”
• “Exacerbate the opportunity gap”
• “Roll back decades of progress in educational access”
• “Create discriminatory barriers to social mobility”
• “Privilege the already-privileged”

They wrap their arguments in terms like:

• “Educational justice”
• “Academic gatekeeping”
• “Structural racism”
• “Economic discrimination”
• “Educational redlining”
• “Exclusionary practices”

Why this language is so corrosive

This language works through moral pressure rather than reasoning. 

They don’t engage on the content of the proposal or idea and instead transform policy disagreements into character judgments. 

To question the current system is to be “privileging the already-privileged” or engaging in “academic gatekeeping.” 

The actual outcomes of existing policies become secondary to using the right buzzwords.

(Note: this language has also led to corrosive and perverse incentives in our government schools)

What makes this rhetoric particularly effective is that it borrows the genuine moral weight of historical justice movements. Like a linguistic Trojan horse, it sneaks in assumptions about specific policies under the banner of broader ethical principles that nobody would oppose.

Who, after all, wants to be seen as opposing “educational justice”?

It’s similar to slogans like “No Child Left Behind” – who could possibly be in favor of leaving children behind? But these empty phrases mask the real work needed to create actual change. They sound good but mean little without specific plans and careful execution.

The trick relies on a simple swap: it treats criticism of specific policies as criticism of equity itself. 

This verbal trick serves as a kind of conversational checkmate, ending discussions before they can meaningfully begin.

The criminality of this approach is that it actively harms the cause of genuine educational equity. When we replace careful analysis and ideas with empty moral statements, we lose the ability to honestly evaluate whether our systems are actually serving disadvantaged students. 

The current student loan system, for instance, has led to particularly poor outcomes for first-generation and minority students, but this fact becomes difficult to discuss when any criticism is automatically labeled as “creating systemic barriers.”

Is equity language driving results?

The most damning indictment of our current approach is not in its words but in its results. 

The gap between rhetoric and results is stark. 

Despite decades of equity-focused language and initiatives, here’s how we look:

Graduation rate gap persists

In the 2021–22 school year, the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR) had a national average of 87%. For Black public high school students, it was 81%. It was 83% for Hispanics and 73% for Native Americans. [1]

College enrollment gap persists

Between 2012 and 2022, Black enrollment in 4 year colleges stayed flat while for Hispanics, it dipped from 37% to 33% and for Native Americans, it dropped from 28% to 26%. [2] (Note: College enrollment is down generally across almost all demographics)

College completion gap persists

Among students who started in four-year public institutions, 67.2 percent and 71.7 percen of white and black students completed their program. Black students had the lowest six-year completion rate at 45.9% and Hispanics stood at 55%. [3]

Student debt challenges

Black college graduates owe ~$25,000 more in student loan debt than white college graduates. 23% of black students and 20% of Hispanic students are behind on student debt payments vs 5% for Asians and 6% for Whites. [4]

“Elite” institutions remain elusive 

Despite lots of equity talk in admissions language, socioeconomic diversity at elite institutions has remained largely stagnant. A 2017 study by Raj Chetty found that students from the top 1% of the income distribution were 77 times more likely to attend an Ivy League college compared to students from the bottom 20%. [5]

Sidenote: I’ve separately written about how elite schools increasingly recruit excellent sheep who are great at sounding great but who are really great at manipulation.

The statistics above paint a clear picture: the proliferation of equity language has not translated into proportional improvements in outcomes for the very students it claims to champion. 

In fact, in many cases, the gaps have widened even as the rhetoric has become more emphatic.

More work, less words

We need a new standard for education change discussions: one that measures proposals not by how good they sound in equity language, but by their actual results for disadvantaged students. 

This means being willing to:

1. Look unflinchingly at outcome data, even when it challenges our assumptions
2. Acknowledge that good intentions don’t guarantee good results
3. Evaluate policies based on their effects rather than their stated aims
4. Consider that some “progressive” policies might have regressive effects
5. Replace empty rhetoric with honest analysis
6. Be unaffiliated with a team (red or blue) when offering praise or criticism

The Romans understood that bread and circuses could pacify a population while avoiding substantial reform. Today’s equity rhetoric often serves a similar function. It offers the satisfaction of saying the right words while sidestepping the harder work of creating genuine educational opportunity.

Real progress requires moving beyond this comfortable performance of concern to the more challenging task of building systems that actually work. This means being willing to question policies, even those wrapped in the most appealing ethical language, and judge them by their results rather than their rhetoric.

While we’ve perfected the language of equity, we’ve failed to achieve its substance. Real progress will require fewer slogans and tweets and profile pic color changes and more real solutions, fewer linguistic signals and more tangible support for the students we claim to serve.

---

Data sources:

[1] National Center for Education Statistics – https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/coi/high-school-graduation-rates

[2] National Center for Education Statistics – https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cpb

[3] National Student Clearinghouse Research Center – https://nscresearchcenter.org/signaturereport12-supplement-2 

[4] Education Data Initiative – https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-by-race

[5] National Bureau of Economic Research – https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23618/w23618.pdf