Leadership Studies: Justice and Civil Society

by Patrick DePeters

In the United States, our traditional political philosophy has followed the helpful concept that we should provide the greatest good for the most significant number of people—and that the relatively disadvantaged should submit to the majority’s interests.

It is then no surprise that there lies a considerable gap between the frequency of the goods (income, wealth, power, self-respect, and opportunities) experienced by the white community as compared with that in the black community. John Rawl’s Theory of Justice presents an alternative egalitarian (political and moral) philosophy that aims to give all an equal opportunity to have one’s conception of the good.

From his theory, I conclude that the educational divide among the races is an injustice because 1) the social and economic inequalities are in favor of the most advantaged members of society and 2) there is not total equality of opportunity for blacks—both of which are contradictory to the difference and liberty principle, respectively.

As this essay focuses on the educational inequality among the two races in particular, I will define further why the majority is responsible for this injustice and how, as principal owners of the good, they can ease the divide between races in a just society.

As Rawls points out, “Any modern society, even a well-ordered one, must rely on some inequalities to be well-designed and effectively organized.” There are, however, a few inequalities that we must “be particularly concerned to avoid” to stay true to the principles of justice in a fair system (55).  Undoubtedly, near the top of the list is education, primarily when inequality is related to racial discrimination.

Education has long been considered “the great equalizer” of economic and social standing, but today, this utopian ideal hardly exists. If all have the right to education—as a central doctrine of our democratic society—why, then, do people claim blacks experience an injustice?

If our community does not “deny” education, what, then, is the problem?

The problem is the discrepancy between the achievement of white and black students, indicating that the education received, among other factors, is not the same.

Rawls immediately points to various social and economic factors as the most influential. Economically, predominately white schools tend to have far greater resources (books, qualified teachers, money, etc.) than predominately black schools. The most qualified teachers often go where their skills are needed the least (good schools) because they lack incentives to teach in underperforming schools.

An expert on the topic, journalist Paul Tough, has found that “in majority-white schools, bad teachers are rare: just 11 percent of the teachers are in the lowest quartile. But in schools with practically no white students, 88 percent of the teachers are in the worst quartile. And instead of compensating for these inequities, the utilitarian policies of the government often make them worse.

In states with a larger population of poor children, spending per pupil is lower” (Tough, 11). Socially, blacks still experience the lingering effects of a de jure segregated society that distributed primary goods unfairly. Their population remains concentrated in poor neighborhoods, which, in effect, isolates them from advantaged white networks and disadvantages them in their pursuit of the good.

Empirically, the best predictors of a school’s achievement scores are the race and wealth of its student body, further proving the dichotomy of the problem. These predictors could not exist under a strict Rawlsian system (Tough, 6).

One’s social class of origin is among the three contingencies that Rawls identifies as influential to one’s life prospects. As it is today, we let these conditions “work themselves out,” which does not result in a fair and just system:

“If one can predict where people will end up in the competition merely by knowing their race…then the conditions under which their talents and motivations have developed must be grossly unequal. It is unjust that some people are provided every conceivable advantage while others never really have a chance, in the first place, to develop their talents.

The principle of equal life chances, when combined with the merit principle, would require equal developmental conditions for talent development (Fishkin, 5).

Rawls similarly believes that if we are to have justice as fairness in our society, we must not ignore background contingencies but instead use public principles of justice to regulate the institutions of background justice (56). Although they rarely do, schools should ideally make background discrepancies null and void, providing each individual with equal opportunity over a lifetime.

What matters, [ as Rawls agrees], is that everyone is provided with the essential condition for the realization of his aims, regardless of the absolute level of achievement that may represent” (Kukathas). Education, as Rawls sees it, is vital because it can have profound and far-reaching influences on effectively regulating these economic and social inequalities.

This idea, however, does not exist in the United States. Douglas Harris, a professor of education and economics at Florida State University, found that “A public school that enrolls mostly well-off white kids has a 1 in 4 chance of earning consistently high test scores; a school with mostly poor minority kids has a 1 in 300 chance” (Tough, 6).

As neighborhood schools are mostly homogenous racially, socially, and economically, integration by natural forces is unlikely. If we can assume that flagrant racism is no longer a factor, there is no incentive for more privileged white students to desegregate and bring the underachieving black students up to their level (Chasin).

Until recently, policy initiatives aimed at enhancing educational outcomes in underprivileged schools have been sidelined in favor of measures that bolster the performance of privileged institutions and their students.

This de facto segregation is the reason for the gap that remains between races. We can further identify this injustice by focusing on Rawls’s Theory of Justice.

Rawls is concerned with inequalities such as this because they inhibit the underprivileged black student from the equal prospects of primary goods over a complete life. Primary goods are:

Various social conditions and all-purpose means that […] enable citizens adequately to develop and fully exercise their two moral powers, and to pursue their determinate conceptions of the “good” […] these goods are things citizens need as free and equal persons living a complete life […]” (58).

The disparity between the black-and-white expectations of primary goods over a complete life is unjust according to Rawls’ second principle of justice, the difference principle.

The difference principle requires that social and economic inequalities be attached to positions open to all under fair equality of opportunity and to the most significant benefit of the least well-off members of society (42).

The underlying notion behind this principle comes from a self-interested person in the original position. If we assume that the rational person is behind a veil of ignorance, then it would be in his best interest to employ the “maximin” strategy to provide the greatest good for the least well-off.

Under these circumstances, everyone agrees to the social contract in the initial state of equality because the just principles of the system are fair to all.

Once the veil is removed and the reality of one’s position is made clear, everyone must ensure that the minimum share of primary goods is maximized for the least well-off members of society.

If a form of discrimination (such as segregation) were to be agreed upon by all in the “original position,” then a person, in reality, would still be at an economic disadvantage and would be denied specific opportunities and would, therefore, be prevented from pursuing their conception of the good (15). This economic disadvantage is apparent in the gap in achievement between races and is, therefore, an injustice.

Having identified the achievement gap as an injustice, it is our responsibility as the advantaged to maximize the well-being and future opportunities of blacks by, in this instance, addressing the educational system.

Rawls is not in favor of everyone being materially equal in society, so the redistribution of wealth would not necessarily be to the benefit of the community as a whole. The variety of factors involved complicates the education problem.

Some propose that mandatory integration would fix the problem of educational inequality. If mandatory integration is necessary to benefit black students, then it is permissible and encouraged.

Even if the integration of the disadvantaged blacks somehow lessened the achievement of white students, Rawls would favor integration because it benefits the least well-off members of society—which, according to the social contract—is our responsibility.

As per the “maximin distributive principle,” which prefers any improvement, “however slight for the bottom stratum, above all interest, however great, of all other strata.” (Rishkin, 15). So long as mandatory desegregation improves the standing of the less fortunate, then Rawls finds the efforts justified.

But if Rawls wants us to commit whatever resources necessary to improve the lot least advantaged, then empirical evidence has, for the last fifty years, proven that merely an equal (desegregated) education is insufficient to fix the problem. “The evidence is now overwhelming that if you take an average low-income child and put him into an average American public school, he will almost certainly come out poorly educated” (Tough, 12). This result would certainly not correct the injustice.

Equal education is not good enough (at least for a few generations) and understanding this fact would influence Rawls’s stance when talking about simply integrating schools as the primary solution.

A few generations of blacks schooled under a specialized system, such as the Knowledge is Power Program, would help lessen the influence of factors such as poverty (Tough, 11).

When Black students receive an education that meets or exceeds the standards of their middle-class counterparts from other racial backgrounds, seamless integration between races and classes will flourish as never before.

This complete integration is not just a matter of appropriate and ethical public policy but a fundamental step towards building a society where every individual, irrespective of race, has the opportunity to thrive and contribute meaningfully.

“Students who enter middle school significantly behind grade level don’t need the same good education that most American middle-class students receive; they need a better education to catch up. Simply sending money to poor, under-performing schools will not fix the problem if they don’t implement the right programs.

This generation of Black students needs more in-class time than middle-class white students, “better-trained teachers and a curriculum that prepares them psychologically and emotionally, as well as intellectually, for the challenges ahead of them” (Tough, 11).

Rawls would urge that we implement incentive packages to bring the best teachers and programs to the worst schools, even if that means taking these valuable resources from white students.

The ultimate goal here is to encourage and support Black students to develop their native endowments, to dream big, and to have an equal opportunity to pursue their conceptions of the good.

If we could achieve this, we would be one step closer to fulfilling Rawls’s dream of a just and fair society. It’s our collective responsibility to work hard toward this noble end.

Works Cited

Chasin, Sheryll. Failures of Integration: How Race and Class are Undermining the American 

Dream. New York: Public Affairs, 2004. 

Fishkin, James S. Justice, equal opportunity, and the family. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. 

Nagel, Thomas. “John Rawls and Affirmative Action” The Journal of Blacks in Higher 

Education, No. 39. (Spring, 2003), pp. 82-84. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1077-3711%28200321%290%3A39%3C82%3AJRAAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X

Tough, Paul. “What it Takes to Make a Student.” The New York Times 26 Nov. 2006.

LexisNexisAcademic. LexisNexis. 20 Nov. 2007

Wells, Amy Stuart. Crain, Robert L “Perpetuation Theory and the Long-term Effects of School Desegregation.” Review of Educational Research, Vol. 64, No. 4. (Winter, 1994), pp. 531-555.

 

Works Cited

Chasin, Sheryll. Failures of Integration: How Race and Class are Underming teh American 

​Dream. New York: Public Affairs, 2004. 

Fishkin, James S. Justice, equal opportunity, and the family . New Haven: Yale University Press,

​1983. 

Nagel, Thomas. “John Rawls and Affirmative Action” The Journal of Blacks in Higher 

Education, No. 39. (Spring, 2003), pp. 82-84. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1077-

3711%28200321%290%3A39%3C82%3AJRAAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X 

 

Tough, Paul. “What it Takes to Make a Student.” The New York Times 26 Nov. 2006.

​LexisNexisAcademic. LexisNexis. 20 Nov. 2007 <http://web.lexis- &nbsp;    nexis.com/universe>. 

Wells, Amy Stuart. Crain, Robert L. “Perpetuation Theory and the Long-Term Effects of School 

Desegregation.” Review of Educational Research, Vol. 64, No. 4. (Winter, 1994), pp. 531-555. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00346543%28199424%2964%3A4%3C531%3

APTATLE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7