You've definitely seen it. It’s everywhere. It pops up in HR slide decks, classroom posters, and your uncle's Facebook feed whenever a political debate starts heating up. I’m talking about the equity versus equality cartoon—that simple illustration of three people standing behind a wooden fence trying to watch a baseball game.
It’s just a drawing. A few lines, some crates, and a fence. Yet, it manages to trigger people in a way few other visual metaphors do. Honestly, it’s kinda fascinating how such a basic image can explain a complex sociological concept while simultaneously making half the internet furious. Some people see it as a blueprint for a fair world. Others see it as a visual argument for "stealing boxes" from the tall guy.
But where did it actually come from? And why does it keep evolving into weirder, more complex versions every year?
The Original Sketch that Changed Everything
The version most of us recognize wasn't just some random doodle. It was actually created by Dr. Craig Froehle, a Professor of Operations Management at the University of Cincinnati. Back in 2012, he wasn't trying to start a global viral phenomenon. He was just trying to explain to some friends why his personal political stance on "equal opportunity" wasn't the same as "equal results."
He sat down, used some basic software, and made the first iteration.
In the first frame, "Equality," everyone gets one crate to stand on. The tall guy is way above the fence. The middle guy is just peeking over. The shortest kid? Still staring at a wall of wood. In the second frame, "Equity," the tall guy gives up his box to the short kid. Now everyone sees the game.
Simple, right?
Well, simple is dangerous. While Froehle’s version was specifically about the 2012 election and the idea of "equal opportunity" vs "redistribution," the internet grabbed it and ran. Since then, it has been tweaked, redrawn, and parodied thousands of times. It’s been used by the Interaction Institute for Social Change and various NGOs, often with a more polished art style, usually featuring a little kid in a blue shirt.
🔗 Read more: God Willing and the Creek Don't Rise: The True Story Behind the Phrase Most People Get Wrong
Why the Cartoon Makes People Uncomfortable
Here is the thing about the equity versus equality cartoon: it’s an oversimplification. And in sociology, oversimplification is a landmine.
Critics of the image often point out that the crates don't just appear out of thin air. In the real world, "crates" are resources—money, tax dollars, time, or spots in a university. If you give two crates to the shortest person, you had to take them from somewhere else, or at least decide not to give them to the tall person.
This is where the "Equality of Outcome" versus "Equality of Opportunity" debate gets messy.
If you are a person who believes in meritocracy above all else, the cartoon looks like it’s punishing the tall guy for being tall. It suggests that his natural advantage (or his hard work to get his own crate) is a problem that needs to be "fixed" by a central authority. On the flip side, proponents of the equity model argue that the "tall guy" didn't work to be tall; he was born that way. Therefore, the fence is an systemic barrier that affects everyone differently based on things they can’t control.
The "Justice" and "Liberation" Variations
Because the internet is never satisfied with just two panels, we started seeing three-panel and four-panel versions. These are actually way more interesting because they acknowledge that the crates are a band-aid solution.
In the Justice version of the cartoon, the wooden fence is gone. It's been replaced by a chain-link fence.
The logic? If the barrier itself is the problem, why are we wasting time moving crates around? Just fix the fence so everyone can see through it regardless of their height. This shifts the focus from "giving people stuff" to "fixing the broken system."
💡 You might also like: Kiko Japanese Restaurant Plantation: Why This Local Spot Still Wins the Sushi Game
Then there’s the Reality version. This one is pretty bleak. It usually shows the tall guy standing on a mountain of crates, while the short person is in a hole. It’s meant to reflect the actual wealth gap in the United States, where the "tallest" don't just have one crate—they have all the crates in the stadium.
Breaking Down the Versions
- Equality: Everyone gets the same thing. It works if everyone starts at the same place, but they don't.
- Equity: Everyone gets what they need to have the same access. This requires "unequal" distribution to reach a "fair" result.
- Justice: The systemic barrier (the fence) is removed entirely.
- Reality: The disparity is much wider than we think, and the "short" person is actually starting from a deficit (the hole).
The Big Blind Spot: What About the Game?
There is one major flaw in the equity versus equality cartoon that almost nobody talks about.
The people in the cartoon are watching a game for free. They are outside the stadium. Technically, they are "freeloading" on the entertainment.
I’ve seen some hilarious—and some very serious—critiques from economists who argue that the cartoon fails because it doesn't show the people who paid for tickets inside the stadium. If everyone can just stand on crates and see over the fence, the stadium goes broke, the players don't get paid, and the game ceases to exist.
It sounds like a joke, but it’s a real point of contention in business circles. When we talk about equity in a corporate environment, how do we balance "fair access" with the fact that the company still needs to sell tickets to survive?
Real-World Applications (Beyond the Drawing)
This isn't just about baseball. We see the equity versus equality cartoon principles playing out in real policy every day.
Take a look at the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If a building has only stairs, that’s "equality"—everyone has the same right to use the stairs. But a person in a wheelchair can't use them. Adding a ramp is "equity." It costs more, and it’s a "special" addition, but it allows the person in the wheelchair to have the same access to the building as everyone else.
📖 Related: Green Emerald Day Massage: Why Your Body Actually Needs This Specific Therapy
Or consider progressive taxation. In an "equality" tax system (a flat tax), everyone pays 10%. But 10% to someone making $30,000 a year means they might not eat. 10% to someone making $3,000,000 is barely a rounding error. An "equity" tax system (progressive tax) charges the higher earner a larger percentage because they have more "crates" to spare.
The Evolution of the Meme
By 2024 and 2025, the cartoon had become a bit of a meta-meme. You’ll see versions where the people are looking at a giant TV instead, or where the "tall guy" is actually a robot.
There is even a version by Paul Kuttner that adds a fourth panel called "Liberation." In this one, the fence is gone because the people realized they don't even like baseball and went to play soccer instead. It’s a commentary on how we often fight over access to systems that weren't even designed for us in the first place.
But honestly? The reason this thing stays viral is because it’s a Rorschach test.
When you look at the middle person getting an extra crate, do you see a "fair leg up" or do you see "unfair favoritism"? Your answer says more about your personal worldview than it does about the drawing itself.
How to Use This Concept Without Starting a Riot
If you’re a manager, teacher, or just someone trying to explain these concepts, don't just post the picture and walk away. That’s how you get 200 angry comments.
- Acknowledge the crates. Admit that in the real world, resources are finite. Talk about where the crates come from.
- Focus on the fence. Most people can agree that "The Fence" (outdated laws, bias, lack of physical access) is the real enemy. Focus the conversation there.
- Define the Goal. Is the goal for everyone to see the game, or is the goal to make sure nobody has more crates than anyone else? Those are two very different objectives.
- Use specific examples. Instead of talking about "height," talk about "internet access for remote students" or "mentorship programs for junior employees." Specificity kills the "culture war" vibe of the cartoon.
The equity versus equality cartoon isn't a perfect map of reality. It was never meant to be. It’s a conversation starter. The problem is that most people use it as a conversation ender.
Next time you see it, look past the crates. Look at the fence. Look at the game. Think about who built the stadium in the first place. That’s where the real story is.
Actionable Steps for Implementation
If you want to move beyond the cartoon and actually apply equity in your own life or business, start with these moves:
- Conduct an Audit: Look at your current processes. Are you offering "equal" resources that some people can't actually use? (e.g., a mandatory 7 AM meeting that parents with school-aged kids can't attend).
- Identify the "Fences": Ask your team what's blocking them. Sometimes it’s not a lack of crates; it’s a policy that shouldn't even be there.
- Differentiate Needs: Recognize that a "top performer" might need different support than a "new hire." Giving them both the exact same "box" of training is actually a waste of resources.
- Monitor the Outcome: Don't just give out crates and assume it worked. Check if everyone can actually see the game. If they can't, the crates were the wrong solution.