Equity: From Legal Principle to Political Tool
In today’s political context, the term “Equity” is increasingly appearing in the language of policies, education, corporations, and social movements. However, its original legal meaning has diverged significantly from its use in contemporary leftist contexts. This article attempts to restore the original meaning of this concept and reveal how it has been redefined and hijacked, ultimately becoming a political tool to promote equality of outcomes and institutional intervention.
1. Equity Law is Not a “Supplement,” but the Core Spirit of Common Law
Many modern contexts view “Common Law” and “Equity” as opposing systems within Anglo-American law, a perspective that falls into the classificatory inertia of civil law traditions. In reality, during the development of the Anglo-American legal system, equity law has never been an extra-legal supplement or a correction to the legal spirit, but rather an interpretation of its core.
The reason Anglo-American law differs from civil law systems is that it is not a legal system centered on statutory provisions, but a legal order based on case law. Each precedent is both a decision and legislation. Judges not only enforce the law but also create it. The basis for creating law is not written authority but “equity,” a moral judgment based on social traditions, common sense, conscience, proportionality, and practical habits.
Equity has never been an exceptional clause or a “humanitarian patch” for mechanical law enforcement. Equity is the law itself, an inseparable spirit and principle in the Anglo-American case law system. It ensures that the law does not become dogmatic or a logic machine detached from reality, but remains connected to human experience and social changes.
In contrast, civil law systems, built on a consistent tradition from the Hanmurabi Code to Roman law, emphasize the systematic nature of statutory provisions and the logical consistency of legal codes. Judges are merely “appliers of the law” and do not participate in legislative behavior. This often restricts judges when statutory provisions conflict with reality, making it difficult to avoid the injustices caused by mechanical application.
Notably, modern civil law systems, influenced by Anglo-American law, allow judges to exercise limited equitable discretion in specific contexts (such as legal loopholes or social changes), such as the principle of good faith in the German Civil Code or considerations of fairness in French civil law. However, this discretion serves only as a supplement to the statutory system, fundamentally different from the spirit of equity as the core of the law in Anglo-American law. Equity in civil law is more of a technical adjustment rather than creative legislation based on conscience and proportionality principles.
Therefore, equity is not an additional discretion outside the procedure but an integral part of the procedure, a dynamic adjustment mechanism that keeps the law continuously connected to reality.
2. The Purpose of Equity Law is Not Equality of Outcomes, but Procedural Justice
The “fairness” pursued by equity is not the “equality of outcomes” commonly seen in today’s leftist discourse, but procedural justice, manifested as the discretionary power of judges based on conscience and proportionality principles.
Historically, the original intent of the equity law system was to prevent precedents from becoming rigid doctrines over time, causing the law to become disconnected from reality. Therefore, it grants judges a discretionary power to make decisions not bound by precedents based on the actual circumstances of the case, social traditions, and moral consensus. The core value of equity is to avoid “the form of justice becoming substantive injustice.”
This tolerance, proportionality, and correction within the procedure allow the Anglo-American legal system to maintain its flexibility and legitimacy amid social changes. The purpose of equity is to preserve the subjectivity of individuals within the system, preventing the legal system from self-reinforcing and becoming rigid. This is not “mercy outside the law,” but the inherent self-adjusting ability of common law.
3. “Equity” in the Leftist Context: Linguistic Distortion and Politicization
However, in the contemporary leftist context, the meaning of “Equity” has been completely rewritten. It no longer signifies procedural justice but is directly equated with “equality of outcomes”—that is, adjusting and intervening in existing social distributions to achieve a certain ideal “balance” among different groups—moving in the opposite direction of procedural justice.
For example, in educational policies, “Equity” is often used to justify quota systems for certain ethnic groups. Take Harvard University as an example. Its affirmative action admissions policy, in the name of “Equity,” allocates places based on racial identity. However, in 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this violates the principle of equal protection, believing that fairness should be based on individual conditions, immediately conflicting with procedural justice. The Harvard case has sparked controversy, with the right wing opposing “Equity” on the grounds of procedural justice, falling into the left’s linguistic trap. What they oppose is the “Equity” of equality of outcomes, while what they uphold is the true Equity—procedural justice. In the DEI policies implemented within corporations and government institutions, Equity means “guaranteed seats” for specific groups in terms of outcomes.
This usage fundamentally deviates from the original spirit of equity law:
• Equity is a moral discretion made on a case-by-case basis, not a political quota divided by groups.
• Equity emphasizes judges making adjustments based on the principle of proportionality, not governments or administrative bodies distributing according to social engineering.
• Equity ensures the legitimacy of the procedure, not the uniformity of outcomes.
Once “Equity” is distorted from procedural conscience to outcome-based ideology, it not only deviates from the historical tradition of Anglo-American law but also opens a dangerous path where administrative power decides “who deserves what.” This path, seemingly full of moral sentiment, is no different from communism’s “distribution according to need”: seemingly ideal, but in reality, it is the power holders who decide “who needs what and how much.”
4. Political Consequences of Linguistic Hijacking
The danger of this linguistic hijacking lies not only in conceptual confusion but also in its moral monopolization. For example, in the controversy over DEI policies in the United States, scholars who oppose “Equity” quotas are often labeled as “anti-fairness” and quickly ostracized. Once a quota, redistribution, or institutional preference is labeled as “Equity,” opponents are seen as “anti-justice” and are marginalized or canceled.
In other words, language is not only redefined but also used to divide good and evil, us and them. This is no longer public discussion but moral judgment, even a new form of power.
5. Conclusion: The Crisis of Linguistic Hijacking and Our Mission
The spirit of equity law does not lie in making everyone achieve the same outcomes but in allowing everyone to participate in legal procedures as subjects. This procedural justice, principle of proportionality, and moral participation are the most valuable assets of Anglo-American law.
However, the distortion of “Equity” is just the tip of the iceberg of linguistic hijacking. In the contemporary political context, terms such as “fairness,” “justice,” and “inclusion” have been redefined as ideological tools, suppressing rational discussion, creating divisions, and eroding policy rationality and institutional trust. The widespread harm of linguistic hijacking is not limited to a single term but is a comprehensive challenge to the public domain, shaking the foundation of social consensus and legal civilization.
We must face this linguistic crisis, clarify the original meanings of concepts through interdisciplinary education, public debate, and media reflection, break the monopoly of moral labels, and rebuild the space for rational discussion. Only by defending the truth of concepts in the struggle of language can we guard the soul of the institution and the future of society.
About The Author
