Tucson Opinion: Yes, Tucson needs an Office of Equity, and here's why

Last year Tucson City Council voted unanimously to fund an Office of Equity, which has brought up the question for some: Do we really need it?

Yes, we really need an Office of Equity.

We use the word equity instead of equality because, as Mayor Romero’s spokesperson Nate Sigal explains, “Equity doesn’t mean providing the same service. It means acknowledging that certain populations may be disadvantaged and require additional resources.”

The concept is often illustrated by a graphic showing three people of different heights trying to watch a ball game from behind a fence; they need different-sized supports to be able to overcome the same obstacle.

This illustration helps us understand that different identities have different relationships to power and privilege.

We should all be talking about equity, but for people of color, people with disabilities and others who live with disparities every day, however, it is a little (or a lot) insulting to ask the question, "Do we need more investments in equity?"

Some pushed back against the idea that the City of Tucson needs an Office of Equity because we have a Latina mayor, because our city council is fairly diverse, because “there are lots of Hispanic and Black people working for the city” and because “Tucson has never been a racist community.”

An important point about structural racism: It doesn’t require racist masterminds. At the City of Tucson, approximately 2,000 employees (and many other members of committees and workgroups) make thousands of small and large decisions daily, affecting over 548,000 residents, at times producing outcomes that affect certain groups adversely in comparison to others — simply because those groups are not at the table.

Discriminatory policies, practices and procedures are often simply the result of not having people who represent their own identities/communities involved in decision-making processes.

This is one of the main ways that structural racism is perpetuated: blind spots in design processes that affect marginalized communities adversely.

I suggest a simple test for equity: Take the demographics of your city and compare them to the demographics of those who deliver the services and make the decisions. For example: Do city of Tucson employees, committees and work groups break down to 5% Black, 4% Native American, 3% Asian, 43% Latinx, 50% women, and 11% people with disabilities?

If the answer is no, we don't have a demographic reflective of the city making the decisions that impact us all. This test is not an end-all be-all, but you have to have a baseline in order to know what direction you're going in, and demographics are a good place to start.

Some people balked at my test saying things like: “Do you really think that the ethnic/racial makeup of the city's workforce should be a precise reflection of the city's population?” or “I’m a lifelong liberal who believes in equality and fairness, but your ideas seem very extreme to me.”

What is extreme about expecting just and equitable representation in government? People who find these ideas radical need to ask themselves why they are so afraid of sharing power in a just and equitable way.

When the only group who is fairly represented is white, that’s called white supremacy. White supremacy won’t go away until white people see it as a white issue they need to solve rather than a BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, people of color) issue they need to empathize with.

When George Floyd’s brutal killing by a white police officer was caught on video, white people wrung their hands and exclaimed “Oh what can we do??”

Well, here’s where you can start: Really listen when people of color are telling you about their struggles instead of jumping to defend your point. Consider that your perspective may be clouded by white privilege and that you might have something important to learn. A more just society depends on it.