Is the Boston Marathon fair?

What a famous foot race can teach us about “equity”

Over the past few years, we’ve heard a lot of talk about equity, especially from people on the left. Equity is usually a topic brought up in conversations comparing those of lesser financial means with those of greater financial means, and how to close that gap. Oftentimes, it is said that one person having more and another having less is not only inequitable, but that it is also unfair. It is unfair that Jeff Bezos is a billionaire, but that single mother of five living in the ghetto is not. It is unfair that Elon Musk made billions from Tesla and SpaceX, but people are homeless in LA. It is unfair that Bill Gates owns 242,000 acres of U.S. farm land, but a poor, disadvantaged farmer with only 100 acres struggles to put food on the table. These are all cries for equity, for equal outcomes, for everyone to “end up at the same place,” as Kamala Harris explains:

So, there’s a big difference between equality and equity. Equality suggests, “Oh, everyone should get the same amount.” The problem with that: Not everybody’s starting out from the same place. So, if we’re all getting the same amount, but you started out back there and I started out over here, we could get the same amount, but you’re still going to be that far back behind me. It’s about giving people the resources and the support they need so that everyone can be on equal footing, and then compete on equal footing. Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.

Kamala Harris @KamalaHarris

There’s a big difference between equality and equity.

There is a lot to unpack in those five, short sentences, so much that is wrong, that misunderstands, that subverts the founding principles of this great country and seeks to subvert human nature itself. As I tossed these words around in my mind, it occurred to me that the Boston Marathon provides an excellent analogy to many aspects of life, and that it can serve to illustrate differences between equality and equity as well as fairness.

The Boston Marathon has entrance requirements. Is that fair? Is it equitable? Consider, this is a very popular race. Tens of thousands of people attempt to enter each year so they can compete. There is a limit to how many can participate, so defined standards help narrow the field. For instance, a runner not only has to be able to complete a marathon, as evidenced by completing one in the past year, but that runner also needs to be able to finish a marathon within a 3- to 5-hour time frame. Some who meet the qualifying times will not participate due to space restrictions; people with faster qualifying times will be selected over those with slower qualifying times. Would you consider this unfair? If so, why? If there is limited space for a limited number of participants, what is the fairest and most equitable way in which to select those who are granted entrance into the race? Would it be fair to leave out someone who can run a marathon in 3 hours in order to permit someone who has never been able to run a full 26.2 miles the opportunity to try? Of course not. The only way filtering out runners would be unfair would be to not permit those who can run a marathon in a short time in order to allow those who have never completed a marathon to compete. The entry requirements are perfectly fair, and this is an excellent example of the way things work in life in general. Not everyone can perform every task, can master any vocation or profession. As such, it would be wrong to give someone a job opportunity, for instance, if that person is not qualified, especially if it prevents a qualified person from obtaining the position. Should someone who did not train be given preference over someone who did? Would it be right for someone, even with training, who cannot complete a marathon to be given preference over someone who can? Call it what you will, but such meritocracy is inherently fair. Putting someone unqualified into a position is unfair to everyone - it is unfair to the qualified person who misses out on the opportunity, it is unfair to the unqualified person who will ultimately fail in the position, and it is unfair to the organization filling the position as the duties of the position will not be fulfilled. Filling a position, whether selecting students for academic studies or hiring an individual to do a job, should be based upon nothing more or less than qualification - any other basis (skin color, sex, quota) is ultimately unfair and inequitable.

Let’s move on to those who make the cut. Assuming there are 30,000 entrants (that is the current estimated figure for the 2023 Boston Marathon), would all of those runners be able to stand side-by-side on the starting line? Calculating based on an average of a foot and a half width per participant, having them stand shoulder to shoulder would form a line over eight and a half miles wide! The course is not that wide, it is the width of city streets. Clearly it would be impossible for all of the runners to start on the starting line, just as in a car race, only one car gets the pole position for the start. Is it unfair that some start further back from the starting line than others? This is specifically that to which the vice president alludes when she speaks of “you” starting out “back there” and her starting out “over here.” Some people have more meager beginnings than others. Some people have model families while others come from broken homes. This is not unfair or inequitable - this is simple reality. It is not the government’s job to step in and try to play equalizer; the government’s job is to ensure that, regardless of such backgrounds, all have equal opportunity. Looking back to the marathon, this would be like ensuring all have the opportunity to train, if they so choose. Some people may train more than others. Some may prioritize other activities/pursuits above their training. Some may not improve with training as much as others do; some improve quicker than others. Different runners will use different training regimens. This is all similar to life. We all prioritize our daily activities differently. We all put some pursuits above others, and my priorities may differ from yours. This does not make life unfair, nor does any of this make the Boston Marathon inequitable. It simply is. This is life. Some people have “a head start,” others start from behind. Some people have an easier go of it, some have a much more difficult existence. This is not unfair, it is life.

Once the race is underway, some are able to keep a faster pace, while some may only shuffle along. Some may not be able to get around those in front of them. Some may complete the race in under 3 hours; some may take longer than 4 hours. Some don’t even finish the race. Many have, over the years, collapsed before reaching the finish line, despite however much training they put into preparing. Should the person finishing in four and a half hours receive the same prize the the one finishing in two and a half hours? Of course not. Should the 200 people (just making up a number) who don’t finish receive a trophy? How many of the other 29,800 receive a trophy or medal? No, 30,000 awards are not handed out just because 30,000 participate. Denying all these people trophies is neither unfair nor inequitable. It is explicitly fair to only provide awards to those who finish with the best times. It is particularly equitable that not everyone gets a trophy, because not everyone runs the race at the same pace or in the same time. This is again the same with life. Some people, through their hard work, will become millionaires or even billionaires. Some people, despite their hard work, will never be millionaires. Some people simply won’t work hard enough to avoid barely scraping by, and some won’t work at all. None of this is itself unfair. What would be unfair is to award those who have not earned it by taking from those who have. Would it be fair to penalize the person who finished the race in 2:30:00 by attributing another hour to that runner making his or her time 3:30:00, while cutting another runner’s time from 4:30:00 to 3:30:00? Such a practice would be absurd! Each receive what each earns; anything else is inequitable and unfair.

The problem with this idea of equity, especially as posited by the vice president, is that it is not equitable. Taking from one to give to another simply because the one has more is unjust; it does not make people “equal.” In life, there is no guarantee of equal outcomes, no matter how hard anyone works. “Giving people the resources and the support they need so that everyone can be on equal footing” has never been the job of government. According to our founding fathers, we all have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (we don’t have a right to happiness), and “that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” The government exists to protect our rights, not provide resources or level the playing field. We each must work and earn our own way, whether we live paycheck to paycheck or become independently wealthy depends on us, on our individual motivation, ingenuity, and work ethic. Do some have it easier than others? No doubt. That does not mean the government needs to step in. What is proposed by the Vice President’s statements is nothing less than socialism, which is nothing less than theft - taking from one to give to another just so “we all end up at the same place.” This is a fantasy that ends only in misery - everyone ends up equally miserable. The Boston Marathon is not unfair, nor is it inequitable, and there is much we can learn from it regarding equity.