Skip to main content Skip to secondary navigation


Main content start


Alexander, Larry. “What Makes Wrongful Discrimination Wrong? Biases, Preferences, Stereotypes, And Proxies”. University Of Pennsylvania Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1992, 149-219.

Notes: This paper discusses the ways of distinguishing wrongful and non-wrongful discrimination within the conception of formal equality of opportunity.

Alexander, Larry A. “Fair Equality Of Opportunity: John Rawls' (Best) Forgotten Principle”. Philosophy Research Archives, Philosophy research archives, 11 (1985): 197-208.

Notes: This paper argues that there are serious problems with the role of the conception of Fair Equality of Opportunity in Rawls as he sees that conception as guaranteeing that the least advantaged are as well off as possible but if that is so it should not have priority over the difference principle. The paper also raises concerns with the quality and quantity of opportunities that fair equality of opportunity distributes.

Anderson, Elizabeth. “Fair Opportunity In Education: A Democratic Equality Perspective”. Ethics, Ethics, 117, no. 4 (2007): 595-622.

Notes: This paper argues that debates about conceptions of opportunity in education should be focused on adequacy rather than equality. Anderson argues that an education adequate for a democracy will qualify students from all backgrounds to attain high positions.

Anderson, Elizabeth S. “What Is The Point Of Equality?”. Ethics, Ethics, 109, no. 2 (1999): 287-337.

Notes: This paper argues that the conception of equality of opportunity for welfare has a number of counter-intuitive implications and that it focuses on distribution at the expense of egalitarian relationships, which may mandate compensation to ‘responsible’ parties.

Anderson, Elizabeth S. “The Democratic University: The Role Of Justice In The Production Of Knowledge”. Social Philosophy And Policy, Social Philosophy and Policy, 12, no. 02 (1995): 186-219.

Notes: The paper defends a view of how the university, understood as a social institution, should be composed and reformed with reference to freedom of speech and democracy, which will reinforce relations of equality between inquirers and considers rival models.

Anderson, Elizabeth. “Rethinking Equality Of Opportunity: Comment On Adam Swift’s How Not To Be A Hypocrite”. Theory And Research In Education, Theory and Research in Education, 2, no. 2 (2004): 99-110.

Notes: This paper argues against Adam Swift’s critique of private schools by claiming that such schools are efficient, that meritocratic conceptions of equality of opportunity are undesirable in K-12 education and the paper develops the idea of solidarity, found in Swift, to apply to the context of democratic citizenship education.

Anderson, Elizabeth. The Imperative Of Integration. Princeton University Press, 2010.

Notes: The book argues that racial inequality remains great and that segregation, both formal and informal, contributes to this inequality. The solution, Anderson claims, is integration and she defends a qualified account of affirmative action. Anderson also examines a number of political arguments against integration and combines philosophical argument and empirical evidence.

Archard, David, and Colin MacLeod, eds. The Moral And Political Status Of Children. Edited by David Archard and MacLeod, Colin. Oxford University Press, 2002.

Notes: This edited collection contains important papers on the treatment of children including several which explore the rights and responsibilities of parents to their children and of states to both parents and children.

Arneson, Richard, and Ian Shapiro. “Democratic Autonomy And Religious Liberty: A Critique Of Wisconsin V. Yoder.”. Nomos, Nomos, 38 (1996).

Notes: This paper argues, speaking to the decision made in the Wisconsin v. Yoder case, that the state should develop autonomy through education and that this overrides the parents’ rights for reasons to do with the child’s flourishing.

Arneson, Richard J. “Equality And Equal Opportunity For Welfare”. Philosophical Studies, Philosophical studies, 56, no. 1 (1989): 77-93.

Notes: This paper provides a definition of the conception of equality of opportunity for welfare, people have decision trees with the same expected welfare, and argues that equality of opportunity for welfare is the best interpretation of a concern with equality.

Arneson, Richard J. “Against Rawlsian Equality Of Opportunity”. Philosophical Studies, Philosophical Studies, 93, no. 1 (1999): 77-112.

Notes: The paper argues against the conception of Fair Equality of Opportunity on the grounds that we should care about opportunities for welfare rather than opportunities to compete on fair terms with one another for social positions and that Rawls’ own argument for that conception does not support that principle. Arneson also notes that Rawls says nothing about the socialization of ambition, which can lead the operation of that conception to overlook some injustices.

Arneson, Richard. “Equality Of Opportunity”. Edited by Edward N Zalta. Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy, 2002.

Becker, Gary S. The Economics Of Discrimination. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971.

Notes: This book examines the economic impact of acts of discrimination, on grounds of religion, sex, race and others, and argues that discrimination lowers the real incomes of those who discriminate and those discriminated against.

Ben‐Porath, Sigal. “Defending Rights In (Special) Education”. Educational Theory, Educational Theory, 62, no. 1 (2012): 25-39.

Notes: The paper considers three approaches, capabilities, human capital and rights, to expressing the state’s commitment to the education of all through schooling, regardless of ability.

Bowen, William G, Derek Bok, and Glenn C Loury. The Shape Of The River. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998.

Notes: This book focuses on the role that race plays in college admissions in the US. The book explains the role that race plays in admissions and the effect that it has on students and contributes to debates about affirmative action.

Bowen, William G, Matthew M Chingos, and Michael S McPherson. Crossing The Finish Line: Completing College At America's Public Universities.. Princeton University Press, 2009.

Notes: The book provides a detailed empirical analysis of the difficulties and inequalities of completion of college in the USA. The study finds that minority students and students from poor backgrounds are much less likely to graduate. The authors argue for improved transfer policies and financial aid noting that these are obstacles to graduation for those disadvantaged groups.

Brighouse, Harry, and Kenneth Howe. Educational Equality. Continuum, 2010.

Brighouse, Harry. “Can Justice As Fairness Accommodate The Disabled?”. Social Theory And Practice, Social theory and practice, 27, no. 4 (2001): 537-560.

Notes: The paper examines the ways that liberal egalitarians, particularly Rawlsians, might extent their theory, or use existing resources, to address questions raised by disability.

Brighouse, Harry, and Adam Swift. “Educational Equality Versus Educational Adequacy: A Critique Of Anderson And Satz”. Journal Of Applied Philosophy, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 26, no. 2 (2009): 117-128.

Notes: This paper defends a conception of equality of opportunity in education against adequacy in education by appealing to some key advantages of equality and education as a positional good and also argues that inequalities in opportunity amongst those who have an adequate education can therefore be disturbing.

Brighouse, H.. On Education. Routledge, 2006.

Notes: This book is aimed at a broad audience and defends a particular view of the aim of education, to promote flourishing of children, and draws out its implications for educational policy in the curriculum, school funding and the ethos of the school. In particular, Brighouse argues that flourishing requires that all people have open to them objectively valuable ways of life that they can autonomously pursue.

Brighouse, Harry, and Adam Swift. “Legitimate Parental Partiality”. Philosophy & Public Affairs, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 37, no. 1 (2009): 43-80.

Notes: This paper argues that the scope of legitimate parental partiality is determined by the goods that justify the family in the first place. The paper sets out an account of familial relationship goods and argues that these have priority over equality of opportunity, but only partial acts between parents and children that are necessary to realize these goods are legitimate.

Brighouse, Harry. School Choice And Social Justice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Notes: The book addresses the issue of whether parents should be permitted to choose their child’s school and if so, how and why should they be permitted to do so. The book engages with various arguments across the political spectrum for school choice and provides a defense of a liberal theory of justice that focuses on individual autonomy and uses this to assess particular school choice proposals.

Brighouse, Harry, and Adam Swift. “Parents’ Rights And The Value Of The Family”. Ethics, Ethics, 117, no. 1 (2006): 80-108.

Notes: This paper argues that parents have fundamental rights over their children grounded in the interest in parenting.

Brighouse, Harry, and Adam Swift. “Equality, Priority, And Positional Goods”. Ethics, Ethics, 116, no. 3 (2006): 471-497.

Notes: The paper discusses the idea of positionality of goods and the way that inequalities with respect to such goods (including education) can be justified if they are required to improve the position of the least advantaged.

Brighouse, Harry. “What's Wrong With Privatizing Schools?”. Journal Of Philosophy Of Education, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38, no. 4 (2004): 617-631.

Notes: The paper argues that full privatization of schools would worsen the position of the least advantaged and would therefore be unjust.

Brighouse, Harry, and Adam Swift. “Putting Educational Equality In Its Place”. Education Finance And Policy, Education Finance and Policy, 3, no. 4 (2008): 444-466.

Notes: The paper defends a meritocratic conception of equality of opportunity against some common objections and argues that we should not pursue equality at the cost of the value of the family and economic growth if doing so also diminishes the prospects of the least advantaged.

Callan, Eamonn. Creating Citizens: Political Education And Liberal Democracy. Oxford University Press, 1997.

Notes: The book addresses the problem of maintaining liberal democracy, consistent with a commitment to pluralism about how human lives are best lived. The book identifies two fundamental commitments of civic education in liberal democracies as a sense of justice and liberal patriotism and certain rights that legitimately constrain their realization. The book also addresses practical issues around religious schooling and moral discussion within schools.

Campbell, TD. “Equality Of Opportunity”. Proceedings Of The Aristotelian Society. Proceedings Of The Aristotelian Society. JSTOR, 1974.

Notes: This paper focuses on ‘opportunity’ within the concept of equality of opportunity as a type of freedom and discusses possible justifications of various commonly held conceptions of equality of opportunity.

Carter, Ian. “Respect And The Basis Of Equality”. Ethics, Ethics, 121, no. 3 (2011): 538-571.

Notes: This paper explores answers to the question of why people are equals and in respect of what features they are so. Carter pays particular attention to the notion of respect and draws out implications of the basis of equality for the appropriate currency of justice, which is to be equalized among persons.

Cavanagh, Matt. Against Equality Of Opportunity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Notes: The book attacks vagueness and over-simplicity in the formulation and defense of some ideas of and conceptions of equality of opportunity. In particular, Cavanagh argues that meritocratic and formal ideals of equality of opportunity have more to do with efficiency than justice and overlook the discretion business owners may be due in hiring workers. However, Cavanagh does defend a version of non-discrimination that resembles formal equality of opportunity.

Chambers, Clare. “Each Outcome Is Another Opportunity: Problems With The Moment Of Equal Opportunity”. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 8, no. 4 (2009): 374-400.

Notes: The paper argues that conceptions of equality of opportunity must appeal to a moment of equality of opportunity, that is, a moment when we are concerned that opportunities are equal, e.g. 18th birthday. Chambers argues that this is the case because, for any one moment in time there will necessarily be many other moments of unequal opportunity that result from the differential outcomes of the earlier opportunities. For example, we may have an equal opportunity for a college place, but thereafter we have unequal opportunities since the winner of the college place is better qualified than the loser.

Charvet, John. “The Idea Of Equality As A Substantive Principle Of Society”. Political Studies, Political Studies, 17, no. 1 (1969): 1-13.

Notes: This paper argues that equality of opportunity for social positions implies that we accept meritocracy, but we need not attach unequal rewards to positions. The paper also argues that equality of opportunity is not an ideal to be realized but one to aim for.

Clayton, Matthew. “Rawls And Natural Aristocracy”. Croatian Journal Of Philosophy, Croatian journal of philosophy, no. 3 (2001): 239-259.

Notes: This paper argues that the conception of Fair Equality of opportunity’s differential treatment of social and natural luck is in conflict with Rawls’ argument for it.

Clayton, Matthew, and David Stevens. “School Choice And The Burdens Of Justice”. Theory And Research In Education, Theory and Research in Education, 2, no. 2 (2004): 111-126.

Notes: This paper argues that the obligations that we have to the worse off in non-ideal conditions may be more stringent than the obligations we have under ideal circumstances and this curtails the degree of parental partiality that is legitimate with respect to school choice.

Clayton, Matthew. “Justice And Legitimacy In Upbringing”. In. Oxford University Press, 2006.

Notes: This book sets out an account of justice in child-rearing that utilizes the idea that the parent-child relationship is similar in structure to the state-citizen relationship and should be governed by the same norms. Clayton argues that parenting should be guided by public reason, in that all exercises of parental rights should be free from reasonable disagreement on the part of the child.

Cohen, Gerald A. “On The Currency Of Egalitarian Justice”. Ethics, Ethics, 1989, 906-944.

Notes: This paper defends the conception of equality of opportunity for welfare against alternative conceptions of equality such as equality of resources and equality of capabilities.

Cohen, Gerald A. “The Structure Of Proletarian Unfreedom”. Philosophy & Public Affairs, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1983, 3-33.

Notes: This paper argues that competitive market economies actually trade off some freedom for others. The paper discusses the idea that while some individuals may have the opportunity to achieve some desirable end, leaving the working class, the structure of society may make it impossible for all to realize the desirable end that they all have an equal opportunity to achieve.

Daniels, Norman. “Merit And Meritocracy”. Philosophy & Public Affairs, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1978, 206-223.

Notes: This paper argues that underlying any notion of merit in the meritocratic conception of equality of opportunity is a notion of efficiency that cannot ground strong claims of desert, as it must to count as a demand of justice.

Duncan, Greg J. Whither Opportunity?: Rising Inequality, Schools, And Children's Life Chances. Edited by Richard J Murnane. Translated by Greg J Duncan. Russell Sage Foundation, 2011.

Notes: This edited collection contains several essays that combine social science and normative theory and consider the obstacles, including family background, to equal opportunity of children today in the US, with a specific focus on education.

Dworkin, Ronald. Sovereign Virtue: The Theory And Practice Of Equality. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002.

Notes: This chapter defends affirmative action on forward-looking grounds rather than compensatory grounds. It also argues that affirmative action is not unfair to whites.

Dwyer, James G. Vouchers Within Reason: A Child-Centered Approach To Education Reform. Cornell University Press, 2001.

Notes: This book defends an approach to educational reform that puts children’s interests, not adult’s, at its center and argues for a restrictive voucher-scheme for schools, which provides for each child’s interests in both state oversight of their education and a fair share of public funding for their education.

Finn, Chester E, Bruno V Manno, and Gregg Vanourek. Charter Schools In Action: Renewing Public Education. Princeton University Press, 2001.

Notes: This book provides a detailed empirical analysis of the rise of charter schools and their ability to improve public education.

Fishkin, James S. Justice, Equal Opportunity, And The Family. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1983.

Notes: The book defends a real conflict between equality and liberty in the case of equality of the family and equal opportunity. The book sets up an inconsistent trio of claims that many of us find attractive. The first is about the principle of merit, the second about equality of life chances and the third about the autonomy of the family. The book explores some ways of coming to terms with these tensions in ideal theory and in the real world. 

Fowler, Timothy Michael. “The Problems Of Liberal Neutrality In Upbringing”. Res Publica, Res Publica, 16, no. 4 (2010): 367-381.

Notes: The paper sets up a dilemma for political liberals in their treatment of children. The paper argues that political liberalism’s demands on upbringing are exhausted by the requirement to produce reasonable citizens, but that this may not rule out the inculcation of harmful beliefs by parents.

Frankel, Charles. “Equality Of Opportunity”. Ethics, Ethics, 1971, 191-211.

Notes: This paper surveys a number of common ways of understanding the ideal of equality of opportunity, and raises some problems with it. It concludes that equality of opportunity is not an ideal to be achieved but a policy goal as its pursuit brings about valuable effects

Friedman, Milton, and Rose Friedman. Free To Choose: A Personal Statement. Edited by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1990.

Notes: This essay (chapter 6) sets out a defense of the idea that by giving subsidies in the form of vouchers to consumers of education, parents, society could better meet the requirement of providing education to children and would also increase competition and choice.

Galston, William A. “Political Knowledge, Political Engagement, And Civic Education”. Annual Review Of Political Science, Annual review of political science, 4, no. 1 (2001): 217-234.

Notes: The paper examines education as a tool for enhancing political knowledge and political engagement or participation.

Gomberg, Paul. How To Make Opportunity Equal: Race And Contributive Justice. Blackwell, 2007.

Notes: This book defends the equal opportunity to contribute their talents to the production of certain social goods as a means to flourishing. Gomberg argues against competitive conceptions of equality of opportunity, which regard the opportunity to be distributed as necessarily unavailable to some, on the grounds that it denies some the opportunity to flourish at all.

Guinier, Lani. The Tyranny Of The Meritocracy. Beacon Press, n.d.

Notes: This book addresses the way that the idea of merit has been miss-applied in the context of higher education. In particular, Guinier examines the way that conventional measures of merit do not predict performance, but do track race and social class, and that beneficiaries of Affirmative Action do out-perform their peers.

Gutmann, Amy. Democratic Education. Princeton University Press, 1998.

Notes: This book argues for a democratic threshold principle for opportunity in education, which aims at securing for all the conditions under which children can become adults capable of participating effectively in a democracy. The book addresses issues such as higher education, primary education and democratic participation.

Jacobs, Lesley A. “Equality, Adequacy, And Stakes Fairness: Retrieving The Equal Opportunities In Education Approach”. Theory And Research In Education, Theory and Research in Education, 8, no. 3 (2010): 249-268.

Notes: This paper defends conception of equality of opportunity that is linked to stakes fairness, that is, how consequential certain choices or experiences are in determining our life prospects, as being better than adequacy approaches in evaluating schooling policies beyond school finance.

Jencks, Christopher. “Whom Must We Treat Equally For Educational Opportunity To Be Equal?”. Ethics, Ethics, 1988, 518-533.

Notes: This paper examines the meaning of equality of opportunity from the perspective of a teacher dividing her time and attention among students, considering whether any of the various conceptions of equality of opportunity provides us with satisfactory guidance and whether they contradict one another.

Joseph, Lawrence B. “Some Ways Of Thinking About Equality Of Opportunity”. Political Research Quarterly, Political Research Quarterly, 33, no. 3 (1980): 393-400.

Notes: This paper argues that equality of opportunity is not in tension with equality of outcome and that equality of opportunity requires that capacities and effort should determine outcome.

Kittay, Eva Feder. “At The Margins Of Moral Personhood”. Ethics, Ethics, 116, no. 1 (2005): 100-131.

Notes: This paper examines the connection between the basis of justice claims as being cognitive ability or capacity and the claims of justice of the disabled. Kittay argues that such capacities are not the basis of justice claims and that the exclusion of the disabled on these grounds is as repugnant and exclusion based on race or gender.

Knight, Carl, and Zofia Stemplowska, eds. Responsibility And Distributive Justice. Edited by Carl Knight and Stemplowska, Zofia. Oxford University Press, 2011.

Notes: This edited collection contains a number of papers on the theoretical and practical debates about the conception of equality of opportunity for welfare and responsibility in particular.

Koski, William S, and Rob Reich. “When "Adequate" Isn't: The Retreat From Equity In Educational Law And Policy And Why It Matters”. Emory Law Journal, Emory Law Journal, 56, no. 3 (2007).

Notes: This paper emphasizes the positional aspects of education and the superiority of equality of opportunity in education, over adequacy approaches, in addressing them.

Kymlicka, Will. In Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2002.

Lazenby, Hugh. “One Kiss Too Many? Giving, Luck Egalitarianism And Other‐Affecting Choice”. Journal Of Political Philosophy, Journal of Political Philosophy, 18, no. 3 (2010): 271-286.

Notes: The paper address the conflict between parental love and equality of opportunity. The paper explores how this problem relates to luck egalitarianism in particular and how it is part of a moral general problem of other-affecting choice.

Levinson, Meira. The Demands Of Liberal Education. Oxford University Press, 2002.

Notes: The book argues the state has an obligation to develop autonomy in all citizens through education and does so against the arguments of many political philosophers. This book uses empirical research in addition to political philosophy.

Liu, Goodwin. “Education, Equality, And National Citizenship”. The Yale Law Journal, The Yale Law Journal, 2006, 330-411.

Notes: Argues from the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing national citizenship, that a nation-wide floor of educational achievement must be realized to address the large inequalities between states that adequacy law suits have not been able to address as they have typically been within states.

Liu, Goodwin. “Affirmative Action In Higher Education: The Diversity Rationale And The Compelling Interest Test”. Harv. Cr-Cll Rev, Harv. CR-CLL Rev., 33 (1998): 381.

Notes: This paper argues that diversity norms are of ‘compelling interest’ and that this can justify affirmative action by appeal to the US constitution.

Loury, Glenn C. “Why Should We Care About Group Inequality?”. Social Philosophy And Policy, Social Philosophy and Policy, 5, no. 1 (1987): 249-271.

Notes: This paper examines the effectiveness and the grounds of affirmative action policy. Loury argues that some forms of preferential treatment constitutive of affirmative action actually undermine the basis for cooperation between ethnic groups in the US.

Marshall, Thomas Humphrey. “Citizenship And Social Class”. In Class, Citizenship, And Social Development. Class, Citizenship, And Social Development. Doubleday, 1964.

Notes: The paper discusses the way that citizenship has been understood as linked to civil, political and then social, or welfare, rights of citizenship.

Mason, Andrew. Levelling The Playing Field: The Idea Of Equal Opportunity And Its Place In Egalitarian Thought. Oxford Political Theory. Oxford Political Theory. Oxford University Press, 2006.

Notes: This book sets out and defends an account of when a playing field is level for the purposes of equality of opportunity. The account contains an appeal to meritocratic allocation of advantaged social positions with a number of policies that aim as removing inequality in circumstances, such as social background.

McKinnon, Catriona. Issues In Political Theory. Oxford University Press, 2012.

Miklosi, Zoltan. “How Does The Difference Principle Make A Difference?”. Res Publica, Res Publica, 16, no. 3 (2010): 263-280.

Notes: This paper argues that given the priority of the conception of Fair Equality of Opportunity within Rawls’ theory, the difference principle will have very little role to play in a theory of justice.

Miller, David. “Equality Of Opportunity And The Family”. In Toward A Humanist Justice: The Political Philosophy Of Susan Moller Okin. Toward A Humanist Justice: The Political Philosophy Of Susan Moller Okin. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Notes: This paper addresses the question of whether the family and equality of opportunity can co-exist and examines a number of different ways of understanding equality of opportunity and how that effects the answer to the question.

Miller, David. “Two Cheers For Meritocracy”. Journal Of Political Philosophy, Journal of Political Philosophy, 4, no. 4 (1996): 277-301.

Notes: The paper defends a version of the meritocratic conception of equality of opportunity, where merit is understood as the combination of both talent and effort.

Munoz-Darde, Veronique. “Is The Family To Be Abolished Then?”. Proceedings Of The Aristotelian Society. Proceedings Of The Aristotelian Society. JSTOR, 1999.

Notes: This paper explores the possibility of abolishing the family and asks whether people would have reason to prefer that arrangement, which may fare better with respect to some justice requirements, such as equality of life chances.

Nozick, Robert. “Life Is Not A Race”. In Equality: Selected Readings. Equality: Selected Readings. Oxford University Press, 1996.

Notes: The paper argues that many conceptions of equality of opportunity cannot be a requirements of justice since it would require addressing present unequal initial abilities, unequal family environment and unequal arbitrary transfer of resources and addressing those requires use of resources over which people already have entitlements to do what they want. These entitlements cannot be overridden consistent with justice.

Nussbaum, Martha C. Frontiers Of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. The Tanner Lectures On Human Values. The Tanner Lectures On Human Values. Belknap, 2007.

Notes: The book develops an alternative to social contract theories of justice. The alternative appeals to capabilities as the metric of justice and can respond to important limitations of the social contract tradition, including dealing with non-human animals, recognizing the claims of the disabled and recognizing those outside of our state as a matter of global justice.

Nussbaum, Martha C, and Amartya Sen. The Quality Of Life. Wider Studies In Development Economics. Wider Studies In Development Economics. Oxford University Press, 1993.

Notes: This collection of essays on what contributes to the quality of life. Different essays comes from different philosophical perspectives and responses to each essay are given by philosophers who hold opposing views.

Orfield, Gary, John Kucsera, and Genevieve Siegel-Hawley. E Pluribus.. Separation: Deepening Double Segregation For More Students. Translated by The Civil Righ Civiles. University of California, Los Angeles, 2012.

Notes: This book provides a detailed empirical study of how segregation has affected Latino and Black students.

Parfit, Derek. “Equality And Priority”. Ratio, Ratio, 10, no. 3 (1997): 202-221.

Notes: In this paper Parfit clearly distinguishes a concern for improving the position of the worse off and a concern for equality. Parfit shows that the two can be distinguished in important cases and sets out the influential levelling down objection to equality.

Phillips, Anne. “Defending Equality Of Outcome”. Journal Of Political Philosophy, Journal of political philosophy, 12, no. 1 (2004): 1-19.

Notes: This paper argues that taking equality of opportunity seriously with respect to race, gender and political representation means that we should care about and expect equality of outcome.

Rawls, John. A Theory Of Justice, Revised Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Notes: This book introduces the notion of fair equality of opportunity as supplementing and developing meritocratic equality of opportunity with a fair chances condition, which requires that everyone has a fair chance to be the best qualified candidate based on native talent and willingness to use them.

Reich, Rob. “Common Schooling And Educational Choice As A Response To Pluralism”. In School Choice Policies And Outcomes: Philosophical And Empirical Perspectives On Limits To Choice In Liberal Democracies. School Choice Policies And Outcomes: Philosophical And Empirical Perspectives On Limits To Choice In Liberal Democracies. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2008.

Notes: The paper addresses debates about the co-existence of common schooling and choice by appealing to the normative significance of pluralism and argues for a reconciliation.

Reich, Rob. “Equality, Adequacy, And K12 Education”. In Education, Justice, And Democracy. Education, Justice, And Democracy. University of Chicago Press, 2013.

Notes: This chapter provides a conceptual clarification of the differences between equality and adequacy approaches against a background of legal history and practical policy debates about schooling.

Richards, Janet Radcliffe. “Equality Of Opportunity”. Ratio, Ratio, 10, no. 3 (1997): 253-279.

Notes: This paper presents equality of opportunity as a term given to many distinct ideas and uses examples from the educational context to show that many of the policies we associate with equality of opportunity have no common element.

Risse, Mathias. “What Equality Of Opportunity Could Not Be*”. Ethics, Ethics, 112, no. 4 (2002): 720-747.

Notes: This paper argues that John Roemer’s version of Equality of Opportunity should be rejected as the best conception because that view requires us to accept a claim that is only plausible to libertarians and also requires us to accept compatibilism, which is incompatible with libertarianism.

Robeyns, Ingrid. “Three Models Of Education Rights, Capabilities And Human Capital”. Theory And Research In Education, Theory and Research in Education, 4, no. 1 (2006): 69-84.

Notes: This paper assesses three approaches to educational reform with particular attention to gender. Robeyns argues that the intrinsic value of education lies in its ability to promote capabilities.

Roemer, John E. Equality Of Opportunity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998.

Notes: The book sets out and defends a conception of equality of opportunity whereby a person should be held responsible for their choices and not their circumstances. This is in contrast to the non-discrimination approach to equality of opportunity, which is also discussed herein.

Sachs, Benjamin. “The Limits Of Fair Equality Of Opportunity”. Philosophical Studies, Philosophical studies, 160, no. 2 (2012): 323-343.

Notes: The paper considers some ways of filling out the conception of Fair Equality of Opportunity defended in Rawls, in particular the currency and the timing. The paper argues that such a principle will have very limited ability to ground certain social policies.

Satz, Debra. “Equality, Adequacy, And Education For Citizenship*”. Ethics, Ethics, 117, no. 4 (2007): 623-648.

Notes: This paper argues that an account of educational adequacy that focuses on equal status of citizens and allows some inequalities of funding, so long as it stems from private rather than public sources, is superior to many equality approaches to education.

Scanlon, T. M. “The Diversity Of Objections To Inequality”. In The Difficulty Of Tolerance: Essays In Political Philosophy, 202-218. The Difficulty Of Tolerance: Essays In Political Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Notes: This paper discusses the importance of equality of outcome and equality of opportunity as a proper response to the badness or injustice of inequality.

Scheffler, Samuel. “What Is Egalitarianism?”. Philosophy & Public Affairs, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 31, no. 1 (2003): 5-39.

Notes: This paper argues that the conception of equality of opportunity for welfare misunderstands the meaning and value of equality and that Rawls’ theory is best understood not as a luck sharing project but as a relational equality view.

Scheffler, Israel. Of Human Potential: An Essay In The Philosophy Of Education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985.

Notes: This book examines the concepts of human nature and human potential as they apply to the educational context.

Schoeman, Ferdinand. “Rights Of Children, Rights Of Parents, And The Moral Basis Of The Family”. Ethics, Ethics, 91, no. 1 (1980): 6-19.

Notes: This paper argues that the importance of intimacy prohibits anything more than an clear and present danger condition applying to parental rights since the possibility of intimacy requires that participants, and not the state, determine the terms of such relationships.

Schrag, Francis. “Justice And The Family”. Inquiry, Inquiry, 19, no. 1-4 (1976): 193-208.

Notes: This paper argues that the perspective required from justice is different from and inconsistent with that of the family since the family requires the establishment of relationships that are constituted by partiality and favoritism.

Scott, Janelle, ed. School Choice And Diversity: What The Evidence Says. Edited by Janelle Scott. Teachers College Press, 2005.

Notes: This book contains a number of essays that examine many aspects of school choice policies, including issues around diversity, integration and charter schools.

Segall, Shlomi. “Why Egalitarians Should Not Care About Equality”. Ethical Theory And Moral Practice, Ethical theory and moral practice, 15, no. 4 (2012): 507-519.

Notes: This paper argues that versions of Luck Egalitarianism that hold that only inequalities can be unjust are as plausible as more orthodox versions and this entails that equality of outcome is never unjust.

Segall, Shlomi. “Should The Best Qualified Be Appointed?”. Journal Of Moral Philosophy, Journal of Moral Philosophy, 9, no. 1 (2012): 31-54.

Notes: This paper argues that the meritocratic conception of equality of opportunity is mistaken and that we should instead be concerned with allocating jobs in accordance with luck egalitarianism and not merit or qualification.

Sen, Amartya. “Merit And Justice”. In Meritocracy And Economic Inequality. Meritocracy And Economic Inequality. Princeton University Press, 2000.

Notes: This paper examines the way that merit has been understood and how it must be grounded in an idea of what a good human life and good society is.

Shiffrin, Seana Valentine. “Race, Labor, And The Fair Equality Of Opportunity Principle”. Fordham L. Rev, Fordham L. Rev., 72 (2003): 1643.

Notes: This paper discusses the absence of discussion of race in Rawls’ work and responses to it. The paper discusses the ways that considerations about labour and race might be better accommodated and the possibility of including an anti-discrimination principle alongside the conception of fair equality of opportunity.

Stark, Cynthia A. “Luck, Opportunity And Disability”. Critical Review Of International Social And Political Philosophy, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 16, no. 3 (2013): 383-402.

Notes: This paper argues that the conception of equality of opportunity for welfare is in tension with the conception of  fair equality of opportunity and that this is likely to mean the view cannot adequately respond to the claims of the disabled.

Stemplowska, Zofia. “Holding People Responsible For What They Do Not Control”. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 7, no. 4 (2008): 355-377.

Notes: This paper argues that it is more inegalitarian to not hold people responsible for their actions than it is to hold them responsible, even if they ultimately lack free will. Thus deflecting criticism of luck egalitarianism or the conception of equality of opportunity for welfare.

Stemplowska, Zofia. “Making Justice Sensitive To Responsibility”. Political Studies, Political Studies, 57, no. 2 (2009): 237-259.

Notes: This paper argues for an account of the conditions under which we should hold people responsible for the costs of their choices and stresses the importance of the interests in freedom and security when considering whether to hold someone responsible or not, in addition to having initially equal opportunities.

Swift, Adam. How Not To Be A Hypocrite: School Choice For The Morally Perplexed Parent. Routledge, 2003.

Notes: The book examines the many values related to educational choice, including equality of opportunity, the value of education, parental partiality, and parents’ rights and brings these to bear upon real world policies and decisions about school choice. 

Swift, Adam. “Justice, Luck, And The Family: The Intergenerational Transmission Of Economic Advantage From A Normative Perspective”. In Unequal Chances: Family Background And Economic Success. Unequal Chances: Family Background And Economic Success. Princeton University Press, 2005.

Notes: This paper addresses the inequalities that follow from familial partiality and proposes a framework for thinking about which ways of transmitting advantage are legitimate and which are not.

Swift, Adam. Political Philosophy: A Beginners' Guide For Students And Politicians. Polity, 2013.

Tan, Kok-Chor. “A Defense Of Luck Egalitarianism”. The Journal Of Philosophy, The journal of philosophy, 2008, 665-690.

Notes: This paper defends luck egalitarianism or the conception of equality of opportunity for welfare against the critiques of Scheffler and Anderson by clarifying the scope and purpose of the conception.

Taylor, Robert S. “Self-Realization And The Priority Of Fair Equality Of Opportunity”. Journal Of Moral Philosophy, Journal of Moral Philosophy, 1, no. 3 (2004): 333-347.

Notes: This paper argues that the conception of Fair Equality of Opportunity should have high priority in our thinking about justice because it is associated with higher order interests in shaping our interest in forming and revising plans of life.

Terzi, Lorella. “Beyond The Dilemma Of Difference: The Capability Approach To Disability And Special Educational Needs”. Journal Of Philosophy Of Education, Journal of philosophy of education, 39, no. 3 (2005): 443-459.

Notes: This paper argues that common ways of treating the disabled in a theory of justice face a dilemma, in which we must choose between treating people the same, without acknowledging special needs, or that we must treat people differently, sacrificing equality. Terzi proposes that the capabilities approach can help us to avoid this dilemma.

Terzi, Lorella. Justice And Equality In Education: A Capability Perspective On Disability And Special Educational Needs. Continuum, 2010.

Notes: The book presents a theory of justice in education that is especially attentive to special educational needs and the plight of the disabled. The book develops a capability-based theory of justice and considers the issues of equality and rejects alternative models.

Vallentyne, Peter. “Left Libertarianism And Private Discrimination”. San Diego L. Rev, San Diego L. Rev., 43 (2006): 981.

Notes: This paper argues that there is nothing wrong with private discrimination, which is discrimination by private individuals and not the state, but that there is something wrong with not promoting equal life prospects, which can sometimes justify prohibitions on private discrimination as it can be an obstacle to the life prospects of some and not others.

Walzer, Michael. Spheres Of Justice: A Defense Of Pluralism And Equality. Basic Books, 1983.

Notes: This book contains arguments for the importance of equal outcomes with respect to some goods, such as literacy, and discusses different demands of equality with respect to other goods.

Westen, Peter. “The Concept Of Equal Opportunity”. Ethics, Ethics, 1985, 837-850.

Notes: This paper provides us with a formula for thinking about equality of opportunity as a relation between agents, obstacles and goals.

White, John. “The Dishwasher's Child: Education And The End Of Egalitarianism”. Journal Of Philosophy Of Education, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 28, no. 2 (1994): 173-182.

Notes: The paper argues that some equality based approaches to education fail to meet relevant criteria but some sufficiency, or adequacy, based approaches do. The paper then draws out the implications for schooling.

White, Stuart. The Civic Minimum: On The Rights And Obligations Of Economic Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Notes: The book sets out and defends an account of the rights and obligations of citizens as they apply to the economy and to economic goods. The book develops an account of fair reciprocity as the appropriate standard for evaluating economic arrangements, this requires that people who benefit also contribute. However, this arrangement must also satisfy other principles of justice such as a civic minimum in order to offer work-related benefits.

Williams, Bernard. “The Idea Of Equality”. In Philosophy, Politics, And Society, 110-131. Philosophy, Politics, And Society. London: Basil Blackwell, 1962.

Notes: This paper identifies a problem with the conception of meritocratic equality of opportunity, which requires that the most qualified individuals obtain social positions at the expense of fairly distributed access to qualification.

Wolff, Jonathan. “Fairness, Respect, And The Egalitarian Ethos”. Philosophy & Public Affairs, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 27, no. 2 (1998): 97-122.

Notes: This paper argues that if luck egalitarianism or the conception of equality of opportunity for welfare were applied to our society now then it would require shameful revelations and would strike at individual self-respect in ways that seem contrary to egalitarian concern.

Young, Michael Dunlop. The Rise Of The Meritocracy. Transaction Publishers, 1958.

Notes: The book coins the phrase ‘meritocracy' in what is supposed to be a parody of taking intelligence plus effort as the sole criterion for one’s place in society.