Board of Supervisors’ resolution on social and racial equity passes

By Tabitha Reeves

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word “equity” as “justice according to natural law or right.” Loudoun County’s recently established equity resolution defines the term as “commitment to promote fairness and justice in the formation of priorities, policies, and programs,” along with specifying goals to promote individual well-being throughout the resolution document.

At the Board of Supervisors Business Meeting on Jan. 17, the differences between those two definitions raised concerns amongst some county residents before passing the “Resolution of the Board of Supervisors Regarding Social and Racial Equity as Fundamental Values.” This new resolution promises to develop a plan where matters from each County department will be analyzed through an equitable lens before making decisions, implementing equity as one of Loudoun County’s fundamental values.

After public comments, the resolution passed 6-1-1-1, with Supervisor Caleb E. Kershner (R-Catoctin) opposed, Supervisor Tony R. Buffington (R-Blue Ridge) abstaining and Supervisor Matthew F. Letourneau (R-Dulles) absent.

“Clearly, it’s controversial,” Buffington said, referencing the board’s Rules of Order that warn against passing controversial resolutions. “It’s not something that we’re all going to vote unanimously on when we’re representing our constituency.”

Buffington also argued that defining equity alone is not enough, and that justice should be defined too, specifically detailing how the concepts will be applied in county policymaking.

“There’s an unknown there, and I would rather know what I’m voting on than that unknown,” he said.

Explaining his opposition, Kershner expressed dissatisfaction with the government using “the lens of race” to determine hiring decisions, policy development and purchases. He reminded meeting attendees of racial injustices that have previously occurred at the hands of governments throughout the U.S.

“We’re actually, as a government, beginning to inject this stuff back in, which is what I thought we had fought forever to get rid of,” Kershner said.

The resolution mentions eliminating barriers due to not only race, but also eliminating barriers due to ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, language, age, disability and socioeconomic status.

In public comments, county residents from various identity-based organizations spoke on their support to the equity resolution.

“Freedom is not a pie,” one Loudoun Interfaith Coalition member said. “By giving someone freedom, no one ever had to take away from their own. The same goes with equity. It’s not a finite resource. By lifting each other up, you do not have to put yourself down.”

Greg Fenner, a Loudoun resident of 25 years, reinforced the same notion in his speech.

“More rights for one group does not mean less rights for another group,” Fenner said.

Despite support, there were also those that opposed particular aspects of the resolution, such as its wording, and what the document’s phrases and definitions could mean for the future of Loudoun County.

One local, Mike Taylor, expressed concern about the use of the term “equity” in general, as he said that various interpretations and overall vagueness easily opens the door for future community harm.

“Equality? I’m right there with you shoulder to shoulder,” Taylor said. “I’ve never met anyone that I didn’t consider my equal regardless of station in life, regardless of where I was. But when you start talking equity, often it is used to put in what’s sometimes called the ‘soft racism of low expectations.’”

Chris Rohland, a local from the Catoctin District, shared his opposition to the definition of equity used in the resolution, saying that it will hurt people in its implementation and that the Merriam-Webster definition is sufficient.

In response, Supervisor Michael R. Turner (D-Ashburn) mentioned that he found it clear that the widespread definition of equity used throughout the county does not work, “and hasn’t worked for 300 years,” based on historical precedent and racial inequality statistics.

“We kind of need to say, ‘If you’re in Loudoun County, that definition is not working, so we’re gonna give you this definition,’” Turner said. “‘It’s going to be very precise and very specific about the way we expect citizens of this community to treat each other.’”

Phyllis J. Randall (D-At Large) supported the resolution and defended its wording. According to Randall, being in elected office means being faced with controversial and difficult decisions. She explained that Loudoun County has grown to be successful in a variety of aspects by doing “hard things.”

“I’m sorry that the word equity is the issue, but we’re not going to change that word,” Randall said. “Because if it wasn’t the word equity, it’d be another word that would be the issue.”

Aside from the goals outlined in the social and racial equity resolution, the specific plans and policy decisions that will occur as a result of its passing have not come to fruition yet. Unsure of how the future looks, Loudoun County citizens remain in disagreement on the matter.

“Our collective goal, yours and mine, is to move Loudoun County forward in a very positive, connected way where residents feel united, and they feel they can celebrate each other and not feel divided,” Aparna Madireddi, a member of the Loudoun Multicultural Advisory Committee, said. “As I see it right now, many residents are already divided with this equity resolution, regardless of how well-meaning it is.”