Category: Equality

Introduction

In this essay, I want to address the overshadowing of gender equality by feminism within painting. Gender equality is defined as having equal rights, responsibilities, and opportunities for women and men. In the realm of painting the issue of gender inequality has been steeply shadowed by the importance being placed on feminism- the perceptions of women and the purpose of the female body as many female artists are reclaiming their bodies through painting women’s reality and using their work as a social commentary on the pressure to fit into societies ideals. Artists like Jenny Saville explore the issues of plastic surgery, eating disorders, and many other body image issues, but solely in regards to women, even though hospitalizations of males with eating disorders went up 53% between 1999 and 2009, with men now equating over 25% of the total people living with eating disorders and according to the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS), the total number of cosmetic surgical procedures performed among men was 1.2 million in 2015.

Analysis

Saville is one of the most prominent examples of how gender equality can be seen to have been overshadowed by Feminism. Jenny Saville is a contemporary British painter, her studies focused on her interest in the “imperfections” of flesh with all of its societal implications and taboos. Saville’s work relates to and influences the concept of gender through her focus on destroying the social control and social regulation of women’s bodies by centering her work on the reality of plastic surgery and obesity, issues that are normally glossed over or completely ignored in painting as society considers them ugly or unconventional, but three out of four men are classified as overweight, compared to two in three women, yet she only uses the female body.

Saville (1994) stated in an interview ‘I’d always wondered why there had been no women artists in history. I found there had been but not reported. I realized I’d been affected by male ideas, going through a male-dominated art college’. In trying to undo the male gaze she stereotypes men, she creates a female gaze assuming that all men are the same and all want to objectify and sexualise women through painting which is almost derogatory to the contemporary’s man’s humanity, making her both for and against gender equality. She wants to create a platform with painting that empowers women and that they can relate to but carrying the view that there is a male or female way of doing things is a very narrow perception of what gender itself is.

The fact that Saville uses her work as a social commentary to speak to society’s expectations of the ideal body and repression has made her a key figure in the feminist art movement. Her work is seen to be incredibly empowering as she paints women how they see themselves, painting a women’s reality instead of a sexualized version of women for the pleasure of men but this only addresses the ideals placed on women but the patriarchal society as she ignores it’s counterpart toxic masculinity. Masculinity is defined as a set of traits or a culture we consider masculine and toxicity refers to behaviours, feelings, and thoughts that hurt the individual and those around them, so toxic masculinity therefore refers to when traits considered masculine are exaggerated to a point at which they become harmful, as well as traits which if expressed at all will harm others. Saville’s work is surrounded by the idea that women will not submit to men, but that in itself puts men in the dominant position, fuelling the stereotypical ideal that men are always in control, strong, and don’t share the same weaknesses and vulnerabilities as women which only adds to the problem of toxic masculinity. Men are far less likely to admit to themselves or others that they are struggling which leads to them having a higher suicide rate, this is partially due to the current lack of artists focusing on the vulnerability of men and this is only reinforced by Saville’s dismissal of gender equality in favor of feminism. There have been debates over how feminist Saville’s paintings are, some suggest the abscess of the flesh is also supposed to represent women’s inner entrapment and imprisonment, and in other cases, the flesh is suggestive in a general way of meat, with implications about submission and the consumption that follow, these feelings are universal yet she didn’t assume men would have the same insecurities.

Lucian Freud was a painter from a Jewish family; he was the grandson of a famous neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud. Freud has been criticized by many feminists for the differentiation of the stances he had his sitters pose depending on sex. He had most of his female sitters sit in positions considered submissive and weak, with his most common stances for them being- helplessly lying on the floor or across a sofa and his men stand in strong, dominant positions showing his disregard for both feminism and gender equality. This is part of the problem that leads 61 percent of Britain’s young men to feel pressured to “man up” as a result of damaging gender stereotypes, new research from YouGov revealed

Freud (1987) stated ‘When I look at a body it gives me a choice of what to put in a painting, what will suit me and what won’t’, he paints his social construct of how he thought men should be, which can reflect the period in which Freud’s nude figurative paintings were beginning to be created. The 50s saw the beginning of the crisis of masculinity as corporations rose, making the white-collar worker the commonplace and discarding of the traditional blue collar careers. Factories and traditional manufacturing jobs were declining leaving men and the stereotypical masculinity displaced. There was a rise in the need for soft skills that were previously considered feminine, so there was a lot of pressure at the time to reclaim masculinity. His views can also be seen as a reflection of his grandfather’s views, as within Freud’s writing women were theorized to suffer from envy of the male penis, but Freud did not acknowledge the possibility of wanting women’s breasts, also Freud had the idea that woman was emotionally unstable and weak. Schama (2011) wrote in the Financial Times- ‘I sometimes think that if Lucian Freud had a heart, as well as the eye of a hawk, he might have become as great a painter of the human body as Jenny Saville already is.’ Freud’s inability to see women as more than submissive objects and see men with equal emotional capacity hindered his place in current society. Some state that the bold naked positions of the male sitters drew all attention to them and made them vulnerable. Freud also explored the topic of pregnancy before Jenny Saville, showing women as more than just a sexual object and giving a diverse range of body types though it is painted in a more domesticated and submissive light that would play into his ideals and opinion of women. Although towards the end of his career, he had a few pieces that reflected gender in a contemporary light including ‘After Cézanne’ where he imaged male instead of a female crisis, but even with the social dissonance of the man, there are women in the painting domesticated and looking after the male figure, whereas his female sitters are portrayed as alone in their isolation sending a mixed message on gender equality.

Alex Kanevsky is a Russian artist who came to America in the early 1980s and began painting in 1989. Kanevsky structures his loosely representational paintings according to his sensations, rather than the dictates of narrative or strict naturalism. The fact that he groups people universally rather than gender labels allows him to make insecurities and emotions applicable to everyone and this approach creates equality and allows the vulnerability in men that was missing from Freud’s work. His work contrasts the social norm as he didn’t make his male sitters stand in strong ‘masculine’ stances, which allows the men to be more than emotionless objects and gives men diversity reflecting current society and doesn’t reinforce the toxic masculinity that is so common with painting. He also embraces the body empowerment and acceptance evident in Saville’s work as he is inclusive of all body types and shows how society’s expectations can affect people emotionally. His openness to paint any gender permits him not to get caught up in the politics of feminism and create gender equality. This works against the overshadowing theory, solely seeing emotions without internally labeling them masculine or feminine allows Kanevsky to break down gender barriers and stereotypes.

When I questioned him on the idea of gender equality Kanevsky (2019) stated – ‘I am not a great fan of identity politics, or any political issues grafted onto painting’, this suggests that the reason his work demonstrates gender equality is because he isn’t using his work as a social commentary or a political point. His aversion to politics allows him to create non-biased work that simply portrays people true to life without an agenda such as promoting feminism to overshadow his interpretation of the sitter. Whilst this aversion to politics seems to inhibit Kanevsky from creating gender-equal paintings, it may also be the problem. Many female artists like Saville have used their works to speak against the repression that women have faced, yet men especially white men like Kanevsky, feel unable to see or acknowledge the repressiveness of the masculine trope, enabling the issue to have a voice and almost hindering gender equality as only the judgment of women is heard. This creates the idea that only women are suffering from society’s stereotypes. When asked whether he believed feminism had overshadowed gender equality Kanevsky (2019) stated- ‘I think our struggles for equality are more than anything power struggles due to lack of compassion or even love on either side’. I also asked to what extent he believed the portrayal of men in painting can be seen as a sign of toxic masculinity. He stated- ‘Is there its counterpart toxic femininity? Are we all defined by gender stereotypes? because that’s what they are.’ This almost dismisses the idea of toxic masculinity but does raise an interesting idea of toxic femininity. Any perceptions we have, are just made up by what we construct or stereotype. Kanevsky’s not being a fan of gender politics and his questioning of the reality of the concepts of toxic masculinity and femininity show in itself an opinion that needs to be explored before the idea of whether feminism is overshadowing gender equality can truly be answered.

Conclusion

In conclusion, feminism has largely overshadowed gender equality, whilst the undoing of female stereotypes within painting has been making strides thanks to artists like Jenny Saville, yet the male counterpart of masculine norms has sorely been forgotten. When looking at Freud’s works, many feminists call him out for being degrading to women. Most seem to be in submissive positions giving the idea that they are just object to men, but don’t think of the negative impact the constant reinforcement that men have to be dominant and strong, leading many men to stay silent about their troubles to conform to the social norms. Kanevsky’s works are the closest to the idea of gender equality as he doesn’t aim to paint gender but capture emotion, making vulnerability universal, but his dislike of gender politics means his work is unable to make him a large figure for the barriers within the subject of gender in painting. He simply paints the feelings he sees in his sitters but tries not to use his work as a social commentary, so there are no deeper meanings to the paintings than the basic emotions. Overall about the overshadowing of gender equality, the importance put on feminism means that even when the painting is done of a male figure, all the gender politics are based on how it affects women instead of how toxic the stereotypical masculinity can be to men to men’s self-image.

Websites

1. Cancer Research UK. (2019). Overweight and obesity statistics. [online] Available at: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/risk/overweight-and-obesity [Accessed 31 Mar. 2019].
2. Information, H., Statistics, H., Statistics, O., Statistics, O., Center, T. and Health, N. (2019). Overweight & Obesity Statistics | NIDDK. [online] National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Available at: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/overweight-obesity [Accessed 31 Mar. 2019].
3. Davies, H. (1994). Interview: This is Jenny, and this is her Plan: Men paint female. [online] The Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/interview-this-is-jenny-and-this-is-her-plan-men-paint-female-beauty-in-stereotypes-jenny-saville-1426296.html [Accessed 1 Apr. 2019].
4. MACKENZIE, M. (2018). Why More Men Are Getting Plastic Surgery Right Now. [online] Allure. Available at: https://www.allure.com/story/more-men-getting-plastic-surgery-trend [Accessed 31 Mar. 2019].
5. National Eating Disorders Association. (2019). Men & Eating Disorders. [online] Available at: https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/men-eating-disorders [Accessed 31 Mar. 2019].
6. Beat. (2019). Statistics for Journalists. [online] Available at: https://www.beateatingdisorders.org.uk/media-centre/eating-disorder-statistics [Accessed 31 Mar. 2019].
7. Trainingcentre.unwomen.org. (2019). Gender Equality Glossary. [online] Available at: https://trainingcentre.unwomen.org/mod/glossary/view.php?id=36&mode=letter&hook=g&sortkey= [Accessed 31 Mar. 2019].
8. Cooke, R. (2019). Jenny Saville: ‘I want to be a painter of modern life and modern bodies’. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/jun/09/jenny-saville-painter-modern-bodies [Accessed 1 Apr. 2019].
9. The Art Story. (2019). Jenny Saville Biography, Life & Quotes. [online] Available at: https://www.theartstory.org/artist-saville-jenny-life-and-legacy.htm [Accessed 1 Apr. 2019].
10. En.wikipedia.org. (2019). Jenny Saville. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Saville [Accessed 1 Apr. 2019].
11. Petter, O. (2019). A new survey claims toxic masculinity is having adverse effects on more than half of young men. [online] The Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/toxic-masculinity-international-mens-day-2018-gender-stereotypes-man-up-a8641136.html [Accessed 3 Apr. 2019].
12. En.wikipedia.org. (2019). Sigmund Freud. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud [Accessed 3 Apr. 2019].
13. Marcus, J. (2019). How Psychology Deals With The Concept Of ‘Toxic Masculinity’ – Thrivetalk. [online] Thrivetalk. Available at: https://www.thrivetalk.com/toxic-masculinity/ [Accessed 3 Apr. 2019].
14. Weir, K. (2019). The men America left behind. [online] https://www.apa.org. Available at: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/02/men-left-behind [Accessed 3 Apr. 2019].
15. Hollistaggart.com. (2019). Alex Kanevsky – Artists – Hollis Taggart. [online] Available at: https://www.hollistaggart.com/artists/alex-kanevsky [Accessed 3 Apr. 2019].
16. UKEssays. November 2018. Psychoanalytical Concepts of Crisis in Masculinity. [online]. Available from: https://www.ukessays.com/dissertation/examples/psychology/psychoanalytic-theory-masculinity.php?vref=1 [Accessed 3 Apr 2019].
17. Luxartinstitute.org. (2011). Alex Kanevsky – Lux Art Institute. [online] Available at: https://www.luxartinstitute.org/artists/alex-kanevsky/ [Accessed 3 Apr. 2019].
18. Gagosian. (2019). Jenny Saville | Gagosian. [online] Available at: https://gagosian.com/artists/jenny-saville/ [Accessed 4 Apr. 2019].

Journals

1. Kuspit, D. (2019). Jenny Saville’s Tragic Women.: EBSCOhost. [online] Web.a.ebscohost.com. Available at: http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=1c60ee6d-e69f-48dd-8a60-a19f37ea118f%40sessionmgr4010 [Accessed 1 Apr. 2019].
2. Kuspit, D. (2019). artnet Magazine – Features – Shameless and Unashamed. [online] Artnet.com. Available at: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/kuspit/kuspit10-06-05.asp [Accessed 4 Apr. 2019].
3. The Changing Body Architecture. (2018). Blouin Modern Painters, 7(August 2018), pp.58-61.

Books

1. Mercurio, G. (2006). Damien Hirst, David Salle, Jenny Saville. Milano: Electa.
2. Mellor, A. and Freud, L. (2002). Interpreting Lucian Freud. London: Tate Pub., pp.10-42.
3. Stevens, C. (2016). Reality. England: Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, pp.54-55, 132-133.

This essay will accentuate whether the dismissal of equality of opportunity is a reasonable one. Throughout this essay, I will be denoting fair equality of opportunity, which reaches deeper into the social background than formal equality of opportunity. Rather than clearing away any obstacles for any position, it allows itself to prevent the differential effects of the social lottery at earlier stages of individuals’ lives. First, this essay will explore the arguments supporting the dismissal of equality of opportunity pioneered by Radcliffe Richards. In support of my argument, I will consider Peterson and William’s logic and portray how, despite the weakness in his argument highlighted by Rawls and Sandel, this can be overcome using supporting arguments. Therefore, this will lead me to conclude that this dismissal of equality of opportunity is unreasonable as its expectations to correct the natural lottery inequalities are unfeasible. The current meritocratic system of equality of opportunity is required for society to function efficiently and is satisfactory.

One argument refuting that equality of opportunity is satisfactory is postulated by Radcliffe Richards (1997). He depicts an equality scenario that he labels a ‘typical descent’, instantiating the shift between different stages in educational institutions to tackle the broad problem of equality of opportunity. In the first stage, the private school has a ‘son’s-of-gentlemen’ admissions policy, favoriting legacy, and a ‘cultural tone’. This nepotistic approach is seen as discriminating, consequently, the school is committed to a new approach, and formal barriers are abolished. The headmaster enables any intelligent applicant who will keep the cultural tone of the school. Richards identifies that we only have ‘ground-level impartiality’ (Richards, 1997: 260). Arbitrary restrictions have been rectified for candidates wanting to apply, however, it is a limited form of an equality of opportunity principle. In other words, it has “no positive, normative content of its own” (Richards, 1997: 260) as it retains a position on the cultural tone policy. This leads to the scrutinization of policy, and in stage two being enforced, the cultural tone policy is seen as disadvantageous for certain infants. Thus, it is replaced with an academic ability policy. As a result of this new principle, social mobility increases, supporting the notion that people should advance in society according to their abilities and skills. As opposed to the first stage, it adheres to the impartiality principle but varies with it having positive content rather than negative. In stage three, academically talented students with socially deprived backgrounds are unfairly disadvantaged, so compensation policies are implemented. Richards states that the principle at stage three follows the concept that “there is equality of opportunity when people have equally rich formative backgrounds” (Richards, 1997: 265). This principle can be called the equal social background principle. Stage four identifies that the academic ability policy negatively impacts those who are genetically unlucky in the natural lottery. A fair lottery will be generated at random in place of this admission policy, giving everyone the same chance to get in. This principle can be called the equal chances principle. The principles in stages three and four commonly believe that balancing formative environments cannot count as genuine equality of opportunity because of the genetic disparities facilitating unjust opportunities for success. The natural lottery is not malleable, implying that true equality of opportunity should permit the admission of everybody. In other words, equality of outcome is required for true equality of opportunity, resulting in a descent that the school’s headmaster would never consider to be the end goal. However, stage four is incompatible with stage three because it has abandoned the academic standards relevant to stage three. Stage four fundamentally discards a reasonable standard for the thoughtless motive of widening opportunities to a greater extent. In Richards’ scenario, there are limited spaces for everyone to be accepted, closing the real-life variation with equal chances rather than equal outcomes. Richards identifies that “equal chances operate here as a proxy for equal outcomes” (Richards, 1997: 269). I think this typical descent strongly emphasizes that rectifying the natural lottery points toward equality of outcome. Therefore, Richards’ real-life example stresses the flaws of ‘authentic’ equality of opportunity as it is ultimately dedicated to a conclusive assertion of equality of outcome.

However, this is a tenuous case as it is illogical to say that equality of opportunity is unsatisfactory when the end objective is distorted by an aim of equality of outcome, which is immensely improbable. Peterson (2018) defends contemporary equality of opportunity as being satisfactory. It is unreasonable to dismiss it based on it not correcting the natural lottery, as that is adopting an unattainable equity position. This is a position favoring equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. The fundamental idea of equality of opportunity is to remove arbitrariness and discrimination from the recruitment procedures to support everyone getting a fair chance of success. The expectation and end objective should be to ‘level the playing field’ and have a society whereby the most complex jobs are allocated to the most qualified people. The egalitarian desire for everything to be equally distributed is erroneous and not pragmatic. Society must have a competence hierarchy structure to facilitate a reasonable functioning civilization. Every individual is not capable of understanding and practicing certain occupations in the world. For example, a neurosurgeon is responsible for performing to the highest degree of standards, as lives are at stake. It is crucial for the neurosurgeons recruited to be as competitive as possible, and the same applies to plumbing, carpentry, and contractors for society to run efficiently (Peterson, 2018). A hierarchy of excellence is a prerequisite for a civilization to flourish. The hierarchy is salient not only so we know who the most capable are but also so we can reward them sufficiently to incentivize them to keep reproducing their excellence for the benefit of the rest of society. Peterson states that psychological literature implies that intelligence and conscientiousness are the most crucial determinants of achievement and success in the Western world. Intelligence is vital to ensure bright people occupy more complex positions to benefit the rest of society. Conscientiousness is crucial to identify diligence and hard work to maintain consistency. Thus, those that rise to the top of the hierarchy are smart and hard-working people, portraying that the meritocratic system is satisfactory. Unfortunately, many of the world’s greatest thinkers are the beneficiary of the natural lottery. It takes a sedulous and hard-working individual to apply genetic talents effectively, but having a significantly high IQ is something granted as a child. The harsh reality is that the nature of the world is out of our control; countless external factors cannot be changed. The distribution of traits such as intelligence and conscientiousness results from enumerable fortuitous genetic and cultural processes. A lot more is decided from birth than people like to believe. To pursue equality of outcome, you will end up with a catastrophic dystopian society which would be undesirable as it would lack all the benefits of competition. Equality of outcome society would be organized such that every category of outcome has exactly proportional representation from every possible category of person. There would be a devastating amount of social force to make that happen, and the negative consequences will far outweigh the benefits. It is more desirable to open the marketplace and permit an enormous range of hierarchies to arise and allow people to compete for their positions. Furthermore, who decides how the groups are categorized? For example, if you stratify the population by IQ, then an equal number of people would be drawn from every category of IQ to be surgeons, which is substantially ludicrous and will cost lives. Thus, there is excessive social engineering required to produce equality of outcome. The historical data on civilizations that desired and aimed for equity is the disastrous communistic societies of the 20th century, which were murderous and counterproductive (Peterson, 2018). As seen historically, “you have to cede so much power to the authorities to the government in order to ensure equality of outcome that a tyranny is inevitable” (Peterson, 2018). Another salient problem with equality of outcome is how would you measure it. There is a multitude of ways to attempt to measure, the outcome of happiness, well-being, affluence, social mobility, social connections, and quality of relationships (Peterson, 2018). It is an endless list of magnitudes of evaluation between people. It is impossible to achieve equality of outcome on every one of those measures (Felkins, 1997). Arguably, it is unfair to be biased and concerned towards only economic justice, so why not consider factors such as the quality of social circles? The problem is that there is no place to prevent equality of outcome from spiraling out of control. Therefore, this is a strong argument against the dismissal of equality of opportunity as unreasonable because it exposes how the expectations of correcting the natural lottery inequalities are unachievable and undesirable. I believe the current meritocratic system of equality of opportunity is necessary for society to function resourcefully and is satisfactory.

Peterson’s analysis may be criticized because he defends equality of opportunity as a satisfactory system with unequal distribution. It is clear from scientific evidence that as inequality increases, society destabilizes. There is no solution postulated of how to ably move resources to the lower end of the competence hierarchy to prevent destabilization. The notion that if you work hard you can defeat inequality further exacerbates the destabilization. It leads the successful to trust that their achievement is their own doing and they, therefore, deserve the salary the market delivers them with. However, it also implies that those at the bottom of the competence hierarchy deserve their luck, increasing the indignance many working people have against the governing elites. Sandel (2021: 155-157) also highlights that those essential meritocratic principles are not met. For example, Ivy League universities received substantial monetary assistance for low-income families in the USA. Despite this support, the privileged dominate the occupied places, with more people in the top 1% strata than the entire bottom half of the country combined. Thus, the social mobility at the forefront of the ‘American Dream’ does not match the statistics. The expectation of equality of opportunity providing a ‘level playing field’ and allowing everyone to have the same chance of succeeding is fallacious. This expectation does not consider prevalent nepotism, in which candidates gain an advantage based on their contacts, not their skills. For example, Harvard refuses to reveal details, but data required to be made public in court exposed that the acceptance rate for legacy applicants was 34%, compared with 6% for candidates without legacy prestige (Binkley, 2022). However, I believe that Peterson’s argument can answer such criticisms. He does not hide from the fact that hierarchies can sometimes be corrupt. For example, there are cases where individuals rise to the top because they have psychopathic traits, but all these occurrences are disproportionately representative. Most of the time, our hierarchies of competence are reasonably functional and respected. The hierarchies are also valuable in motivating the youth to be ambitious and aim toward the hierarchies of their choice. It is essential to recognize that not everyone rises towards their merit, and corruption certainly reduces the correlation. This acknowledgment, however, does not support that merit is a corrupt idea, that is, an unconnected set of propositions with totally different consequences (Peterson, 2021). To say that equality of opportunity is unsatisfactory when an aim of equality of outcome distorts the end objective suggests the demonization of the acquisition of competence. This is what Peterson calls a ‘war on competence’ and explains that it is occurring because competence implies value, which implies a hierarchy of people with differential abilities that directly contradicts the notion of equality. Thus, it can be argued that equality of opportunity is satisfactory. The point is not to say that it is a flawless system or that there are no prejudiced parts, but to dismiss it because it is not correcting the natural lottery is unreasonable.

This is supported by Williams (1973). The idea of equality also epitomizes how correcting the inequalities of the natural lottery leads to an unpragmatic end objective. Williams requests the reader to visualize an obsolete society founded on a traditionally privileged warrior class, which has now decided to oblige the idea of equality of opportunity. The first step towards equality of opportunity is eliminating class boundaries and choosing the warrior elite based on merit. New candidates can be considered from low-income families, and now there are no limitations to gender. The problem here is that girls are usually physically weaker than boys. The unprivileged individuals in the lower class of society are also disadvantaged as they are malnourished; this is significant as they cannot reach their full potential strength. However, let us say that regardless of caste, everyone is nourished correspondingly. It would still leave the genetically feeble unable to meet the necessary standards. Thus, the genetically impaired would have unequal likelihoods of success, and reformers would protest that equality of opportunity has not been achieved. Williams asks the question, “Where should this stop? Should it even stop at the boundaries of hereditary?” (Williams, 1973: 247). For example, imagine there have been contemporary technological advancements in a society that has eliminated all social lottery inequalities. It recognizes the unjust abilities produced by the natural lottery and develops a genetic brain-altering operation to eradicate this. Even in a fictional scenario trying to correct the natural lottery, there are still arguments of this is an unreasonable attempt to achieve true equality of opportunity. Presume that this operation is only accessible to those who can afford it. More affluent individuals would utilize this practice to make their children rise to the top of the educational system. This is discriminative towards low-income families as they do not have equal opportunities, and the opportunity to correct their genetic weaknesses is out of reach. Despite Williams identifying that these objections against the fictional society are moral rather than metaphysical, it still represents that true equality of opportunity will engender genetic engineering, leading to equality of outcome. An introspective analogy would be to compare equality of opportunity with the renowned game ‘Snakes and Ladders’. To pursue equality of opportunity is a bit like landing on a snakes-and-ladders snake, which leads you on a slippery slope with no grasps to support you until you land on a square that looks disconcertingly like the one you left earlier. An institution committed to equality of opportunity will instantly recognize this problem, even though many misdiagnose the issue as a failure to reach the objective instead of not having a clear objective. I believe this is a strong argument as it perfectly demonstrates how catastrophic the attempt to correct the natural lottery is.

However, there is still an underlying question unanswered: how can we overlook the idea of correcting the natural lottery when it is equally arbitrary to the social lottery? A moral and impartial way of approaching this question is assuming Rawls’ (1971) ‘veil of ignorance’, where you decide what is best for humanity, with information gaps on one’s genetic and social advantages. Using this philosophy, Rawls concluded that any collective structure that allows the benefits of the social and natural lottery to be utilized for wealth and income gains is flawed; both are arbitrary from a moral perspective. “Once we are troubled by the influence of either social contingencies or natural chance on the determination of distributive shares, we are bound, on reflection, to be bothered by the other” (Rawls, 1971: 74-75). Rawls would support the current equality of opportunity structure being considered unsatisfactory. Rawls would state that society is built upon concerning intellectual ability testing as a form of raffle whereby the ability to process and analyze information is valued most significantly. This society does not regard moral criteria such as altruism, compassion, or bravery; thus, we have embarked on a new form of impoverishment. It must be affirmed that expecting this moral criterion to exist in an efficient society is nothing more than a fantasy. If there were a perfect solution, then it would be implemented. It is entirely rational to be a free-market advocate and strongly support equality of opportunity simultaneously. Equality of opportunity should be defined as attempting to eradicate impediments to people demonstrating talents that would make them efficacious and competent players in the productive market. Therefore, it must be argued that equality of opportunity is satisfactory in correcting inequalities whilst maintaining a utilitarian culture.

To conclude, the dismissal of equality of opportunity is unreasonable because the prospects of correcting the natural lottery inequalities are impossible and will cause undesirable impacts across society. The arguments defending the dismissal of equality of opportunity on the grounds of it failing to rectify the natural lottery proposed by Richards are adequate. Nevertheless, they lack a necessary clear objective as an alternative. It is critical to explicitly explain why the natural lottery cannot be corrected using Peterson and Williams’ rationale primarily. I believe the current meritocratic process of equality of opportunity is indispensable for society to function efficiently, and I would consider it as satisfactory. Therefore, the dismissal of equality of opportunity is an unreasonable one.

Martin Luther King Jr once said, ‘The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.’ In ancient times, the ability to read separated the wealthy and the poor, the educated and the ignorant, the free and the enslaved. The theme of perseverance continues to be prominent themes in many peoples lives as they face adversary. These themes are even more explicit within the lives of those marginalized and facing injustice in both small and large ways each and every day. In Malcolm X’s ‘A Homemade Education’ and Fredrick Douglass’s ‘Learning How To Read and Write,’ Douglass and X share different personal stories in these writings. Neither allowed their lives to be defined by the opportunities they lacked or by the systems which oppressed them, persevering far beyond what was expected of them by the societies they lived in. Both authors go through horrible experiences that feel like life long punishments. With perseverance through the belief that their hardships would someday carry them to greater things they are able to learn and grow through these experiences, ultimately turning these hard times into ways to learn and better themselves. Douglass and X taught themselves perseverance, finding power and self-betterment from their deprecating and incriminating experiences. This can also be seen in the criminal justice system and systematic oppression. I can apply this to my life through my experiences with the mental health care system. Which systemically has been built to hold those subjected to it back, but has instead allowed me to persevere beyond the labels that this system has tried to define me by, and live outside of them.

Douglass comes from the perspective of being a very young man at the age of twelve and telling his story of his first experience being taught to read by a mistress in one of his homes, who was told by her husband that slaves were not allowed to be educated. Douglass knew this to be wrong, in turn paving the way for him to start teaching himself in his spare time and utilizing the children in the neighborhood. He states, “The plan which I adopted, and the one by which I was most successful, was that of making friends of all the little white boys whom I met in the street. As many of these as I could, I converted into teachers.’ (Douglass 2). Even when Douglass had his initial opportunity to learn taken from him, he was able to adapt and persevere through his shortcomings. He discusses his epiphanies of how white men in particular were seemingly aware of their ongoing injustice towards their slaves. They actively wanted to keep them from education in order to keep their opportunities limited due to them ‘being uneducated’. He used this as means to learn, and it became one of the hardest things in his life to accept. Although he had freed himself with his unstoppable perseverance, he still did not have the same opportunities as the other men around him solely due to his race. Douglass realization arose that, although he was mentally freed, he still would never have the same opportunities as a white man.

He states I was afraid that these seemingly good men might use me so; but I nevertheless remembered their advice, and from that time I resolved to run away…I wished to learn how to write, as I might have occasion to write my own pass. I consoled myself with the hope that I should one day find a good chance.(Douglass 4)

Before he was able to read, Douglass was somewhat ignorant to his misfortune. Unfortunately, with perseverance he came to the harsh realization that his oppression was far beyond him, that active systemic oppression can not be completely overcome. Even with perseverance, there are many issues Douglass would have never been able to change in his lifetime. Through his writings he was able to lay the foundations for others to see him as an example of persevering though grim situations.

Not to say that being in prison was a good thing for him, but X turned it into an opportunity for himself. Instead of dwelling over his circumstances he persevered and used his time doing nothing but learning, educating himself on how to read, write and spell. When X first arrived in prison, he had no idea how to read or write efficiently. X realized his lack of reading and writing skills had begun to deeply effect him, he knew something had to change. With perseverance to learn, he pushed himself daily to slowly become literate. X discusses his time in prison, “I believe it took me a day. Then, aloud, I read back, to myself, everything I’d written on the tablet. Over and over, aloud, to myself, I read my writing'(X 2). With his time in prison, X was able to persevere through his struggles to read. Using this knowledge, He found a great deal of power in having access to historical texts written by people of color, about people of color. He learned pieces of history for which he would have never learned had he never been to prison. He also would not have had such access to all of the texts that he did. He describes this as a turning point when he says, “I have often reflected upon the new vistas that reading opened to me. I knew right there in prison that reading had changed forever the course of my life”(X 9). He found nothing but freedom from the knowledge he obtained. Due to the racism during this time surround people of color, he was aware of his initial disadvantage. X also knew he was going to have more opportunities in life then those around him due to his perseverance. Although he would have to work much harder. In order to even have a chance in society, X knew he would need to learn how to properly read and write. Without this, he would not have had the opportunities that were available to him

In similar way to what was demonstrated by Douglass and X, perseverance is being expressed today by many marginalized and oppressed groups. Skin color matters a great deal in the US, and the racial boundary between blacks and whites. There are numbers of hurdles you have to pass through before you achieve your goals in life, many things can effect the opportunities presented to you. Unfortunately, this causes some groups of people to face more hurdles than others. For example, in housing and criminal justice, race often directly impacts outcomes even after controlling income and education. Black people make up more than one- third of people in federal and state prisons, nearly three times their representation in the population. Once they become involved in the prison system, black people are more likely to carry these consequences throughout their lives.(Simms). The main quality in the people able to whom succeed is the quality of perseverance. It is this quality that makes impossible tasks possible. The issue stands in the inequality of police brutality between races. This is shown in ‘Becoming African American: African Immigrant Youth in the United States and hybrid assimilation’ One father states, ‘The majority of the youth interviewed clearly identified experiences or attitudes they had encountered as racially discriminatory.(…)Not so much for my girls, but for my son. The statistics show that he has a very high chance of being stopped by the police.”(Simms). Even through everything, these groups must adapt and persevere in order to survive in society. Although this form of slavery may no longer be present in the United States.

Even with perseverance, people of color often face more obstacles obtaining their goals. Not only do many worry about discrimination at school, many also have to worry about their safety around those meant to protect us. There are groups that work to counter this problem, such as Race Forward in California. Groups like this work by fighting for racial justice through building awareness, working towards realistic solutions and assisting development for leadership and mentor groups within communities of color.

Race Forward also organizes the Facing Race National Conference…. This conference features talks, panels, workshops, films, and performances by rising leaders in the racial justice arena and brings together advocates, students, academics, journalists, community organizers and leaders, and artists(Race,2017).

By bringing these groups together in one place, it allows a variation of perspectives to be represented on one platform. Working together to persevere during these times.

In addition, I have demonstrated perseverance in my own life, this can be seen specifically when it comes to my mental health. Growing up I have always struggled with with my emotional and mental health, more specifically my attention span and my ability to manage stress. This has affected my life in every way possible, straining my relationships, effecting my grades and testing my confidence. School was always easy for me, I never had to study and could easily learn a subject without extensive help from my teachers. Unfortunately, this lead me to never really develop concrete study skills, along with never learning how to fail. The true problem arose once things began to get difficult. In time, it caused immense panic and stress, further clouding my ability to think clearly. Often to the point where I lose motivation to even try. When it comes to stress management, It used to be a crippling problem. Just the thought of receiving a disappointing grade sends my brain into a spiral, losing focus on my work due to the stress of the outcome. Stress management through years of therapy and anti-anxiety medications used to be a major part in my life. However, due to the prices of these resources, it is not financially sustainable for me to continue consistently. Not only is medical help expensive, often times mental health affects your ability to persevere through both difficult and basic daily tasks, in turn hindering the ability to attend class and keep up with grades. For a huge percentage of people facing these dilemmas, perseverance through willpower is one of the only ways to overcome these obstacles. Having the awareness of what is holding you back is an important step in understanding what you can do to overcome a problem. In order to overcome my problem with focus, I tend to limit my distractions as much as possible and reach out to my support systems when I’m feeling overwhelmed. When it comes to my mental health, I try to persevere and take one day at a time. No matter how hard things get, I remember the importance of perseverance. In high school, I did not have the constructive self-criticism that comes with hindsight. As I reached college I knew I could not continue with the habits that I have had in the past because they were not allowing me to succeed in school because than in turn was not allowing me to feel that I was going to succeed in life. Although I still persevered as I worked on developing better daily habits that were beneficial to my mental health. I realized that these habits were going to allow me to be a better student as well. I set up daily goals for myself in order to keep myself on track in work and school. Actually being able to balance my priorities allows me to better manage tasks that I once deemed to difficult because I was not organized mentally. This helps prevent the feeling of drowning in my everyday responsibilities, leaving me able to continue persevering through my daily struggles instead of giving up.

In conclusion, we all learned a lot from X and Douglass. They tell incredibly powerful stories that tell the lives of men that came from nothing to becoming one of the most influential and controversial men in the history of our nation through true perseverance. X was an advocate for the equality of African Americans in the United States, and played a major role in where we are today. Eventually becoming a strong advocate for the rights of all people no matter the color of their skin. Douglass is another hero in America because of his perseverance in breaking the walls down that have separated the ‘whites’ and ‘blacks’ in America for so long. He is an impactful figure because of his perseverance to put an end to slavery ever since his escape from enslavement. Although he began as a slave, he changed how Americans thought about race, and slavery, becoming a great role model for U.S citizens today. These two men are not only an inspiration to African-Americans, but many Americans who practice the value of equality, justice, and freedom for everyone.

1. Habecker, Shelly. ‘Becoming African Americans: African immigrant youth in the United States and hybrid assimilation.’ Journal of Pan African Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, 2017, p. 55+. Gale OneFile: Diversity Studies,
2. Simms, Margaret. “Say African American or Black, but First Acknowledge the Persistence of Structural Racism.” Urban Institute, Urban Wire, 1 Mar. 2018,

«I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character » by Martin Luther King

Two concepts have become part of the common-sense in current thinking about equality, they are considered to be opposite concepts by a various of sociologist, the first one is the foundational principle of meritocratic societies, and defines equality in terms of opportunity, to understand this form of equality, it is mandatory to examine the different conceptions of the idea, which specify the agents, obstacles and goals. The second form focuses on the outcome, some defines this form by the narrower metric of income and wealth, but I am more interested in the broad spectrum of resources, occupations, and roles.

First of all, let’s focus on the definition of an opportunity, which is a situation when a person may, if he chooses, engage in some effortful activity which is desirable either instrumentally – as an instrument to achieve a specific goal – or for its own sake. It is very important to make the difference between an opportunity and a chance in which a person might or is likely to obtain a desirable goal or possession, but where the results do not depend only on his efforts.

The equality of opportunity invokes other concepts, such as fairness, because it creates a level playing-field where people’s social circumstances should not differentially affect their life chances in any serious way (Mason, 2004). This means that a particular set of obstacles should, or should not, be allowed to differentiate the individuals’ achievement of some object. This does not mean that individuals face the same obstacles to achieve the goal.

For example, in the labor field, equality of opportunity between some group of job candidates exists, when the candidates are filtered without reference to particular characteristics such as race or gender. On the given conception, then, race and gender must not constitute obstacles that differentiate between candidates for equality of opportunity to exist.

In terms of education, equality of opportunity is achieved when everyone is accorded the same chance to develop his or her capabilities and to be acknowledged for personal accomplishments regardless of characteristics such as gender, religion, political stance, color of the skin, or social background, that is, characteristics which are not related to personal performance.

Equality of opportunity can also be defined by extending the concept of liberty, in this case, equality of opportunity exists when two persons are free from the same limitations or obstacles which could prevent them from achieving the same objective. In other words, equality of opportunity depends on a desirable goal which no prohibitions or obstacles could prevent any individual from pursuing this specific goal.

Nevertheless, equality of opportunity is criticized because in some extent it rewards the lucky and penalizes the unlucky. As some sociologists (Peter Singer, John Schaar) consider that not everyone was born with the same talents or abilities, and in the society that values those specific talents. Therefore, this early given chance, challenges the notion that a person deserves any advantages because of their abilities.

As an example, John Schaar mentions the case of people born with disabilities, who were born with more obstacles and limitations to develop certain skills, or achieve a certain education level, which makes them in a disadvantage comparing to other individuals because of their simple luck in life.

In consequence, we must think about another form of equality that has the ability to compensates the differences in abilities, wealth or talents in which the individual has no impact on. Also, considering the example of employment, and specifically the female participation in the job market, although it has expanded post World War II, reducing the gender wage gap in many countries, significant inequalities continue to exist in regards to access to jobs, unequal occupational choices and earning gaps between the sexes. Under this circumstance, it has become imperative to find another way to enforce the ideal of equality.

Another limit of the equality of opportunity is achieving democracy and better representation of the societies. As equality of opportunity does not guarantee the outcome and therefore the results and fair representation of all individuals of different origins, gender and background in the society because it takes under account only the skills and abilities related to fulfilling the objective.

To explain my point of view, let’s analyse the example illustrated in the article “What is equality of opportunity in education?” of Hugh Lazenby related to installing a new policy in the university demanding extra weight to applications from individuals of a specific racial group, which is Native Americans in this example. The reason behind this policy is that Native Americans are underrepresented in universities and in the positions of power in government, and by giving access to high education in the university for these individuals, it’s likely to increase representation of this individuals of a particular racial group, which will lead to a higher quality of democracy and better civic outcomes.

To me, in this example, equality for certain individuals with a specific racial group is obtained by forcing a quota in the university and giving extra weight to these specific candidates. This example could generate two type of scenarios:

• Recruiting very talented Native Americans who previously did not have access to the university because inequalities regarding race, still exists and it is manifested in the university. Therefore, equality and representation of this group of individuals is improved by implementing a metric and possible way to evaluate equality. In consequence achieving a better representative democracy and breaking down the inequalities circle in order to achieve ideally the equality of opportunity. In this case outcome equality is a metric instrument for the university in the quest of opportunity equality as an ideal and preventing inequalities based on race in the university.
• The second scenario, is indeed accepting candidates with a lower level of excellence comparing to individuals that could have been recruited if this policy was not established, but who have a high potential of development and achieving excellence. It seems to me that in this case Native Americans candidates were not able to achieve excellence, because they were not giving the opportunity to fulfil their full potential, and that is the same reason why they are underrepresented in the society. Therefore, this form of equality compensates the inequalities previously experienced by these individuals. In this case outcome equality is a metric instrument for the society in the quest of opportunity equality as an ideal and stopping inequalities based on race in the society. However, in this case the academic excellence of the university may be affected, because candidates are only selected based on their potential of achieving excellence which is a less guarantee then proven talent and ability.

To sum up this example, I consider that equality of outcome could be an instrument to install equality of opportunity in a society and special circumstances where specific individuals are underrepresented, which could mean inequalities are still existing either in education, job access … in the light of this analysis equality of outcome is a key measure of equality of opportunity. When the outcomes are representative of the society, it means that individuals did have equal opportunities, but If there is an analogical difference of outcome, it means that the opportunities were themselves unequal, in this case equality of outcome could be a way to overcome these inequalities.

Although, it should be taken under consideration that the difference of outcome could also be explained by reference to differences in personal preference in particular social groups, for example some argue that women care more about children than men, or have less of a taste for political power. Furthermore, these personal preferences could be seen as the motivations that push each individual to choose a goal that could be a job or field of activity. Even if I believe that these particular assumptions (regarding women) are only stereotypes that should not be taken under account in the pursue of equality, many social researches have demonstrated that motivations could be shared among a social group, making it even more difficult to analyze and build conclusions from outcome measuring.

Therefore, equality of outcome could be a complimentary tool to achieve equality of opportunity -which I personally consider as an ideal- in certain circumstances, where a social group, with the motivation to reach that opportunity, does not have access to it due to stereotypes and existing inequalities. But it also could generate inequalities if it eliminates or forbid access to talented individuals against less talented if motivation is not taken under consideration.

In conclusion, choosing between the two types of equality depends on the circumstances, needs a deep assessment of the situation, but also a clear understanding of the objectives of the equality we are trying to install. For example, in regards of a company, the objective of equality is to achieve a working atmosphere that encourages productivity and diversity, consequently companies are promoting equality of opportunities but with encouragement from top management of recruiting more diverse candidates as it was proved that diversity increase productivity and brings new and creative ideas to the table.

In politics and government, the objective is to have a well-represented society in order to achieve democracy, therefore a multitude of politicians try to include a representation for the minority social groups in their parties. As prime minister of Canada promoted the 50/50 gender quota in his cabinet to look like Canada. Using equality of outcome to achieve a better representation for his country.

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal. This quote by Aristotle sums up David Miller’s conjecture in the article, Against Global Egalitarianism.

Miller’s work confronts and dismantles the view that there needs to be substantial equality between humans as a matter of justice irrespective of the society they belong to. As a nationalist and minimalist, he does not fail to acknowledge and support the value of equality within individual societies but rejects the idea of extending this equality to a global level. In order to prove why equality should not be seen as an extension of social justice in a global world; he orientates his argument towards the principles of global equality of opportunity and resources.

These principles according to him require that people with similar talents and motivations are owed similar opportunity sets and resources irrespective of the society they come from. Hence, whatever opportunity or resources available to an individual in France should also be available to an individual in Ghana, as long as they share similar characteristics, which in this context would be the mere fact that they are humans.

In Miller’s opinion, advocating for such a level of equality is utopian and would not yield global justice. Instead, it would push justice so far away that people will no longer make efforts to attain it. Miller answers the why of his argument on the basis of two premises. The first premise suggests that it is impossible to neutrally measure equality in a culturally plural world. The second premise further proposes that even if it were possible to find a neutral measurement of equality, this will place an unbearable burden on productive political communities and undermine their national self-determination. With this, his conclusion rejects the idea of global egalitarianism; advocates for the absence of serious injustice in social relationships and international cooperation; and promotes the fulfillment of an individual’s right to basic needs and a nation’s right to self-determination on a global scale.

For the purpose of this review, Miller’s two arguments would be addressed separately as the metric problem (for equality of opportunity) and the dynamic problem (for equality of resources).

The Metric Problem

In trying to prove the irrelevance of global equality in global justice, Miller makes reference to Moellendorf’s demonstration of how equality of opportunity works, i.e. the Mozambique child and the child of a Swiss executive illustration. To him, it is impossible to have identical opportunity sets on a global scale because of limitations that are inevitable such as migration rules, citizenship, and even language skills. But it would be more tangible to argue for equivalent opportunity sets which then introduces a metric problem that uses cultural understanding to determine when two opportunity sets are equivalent. According to Miller, cultural understanding makes it easy to measure the value of equality within nation-states but an attempt to do so on a global level would be difficult as such cultural understanding does not exist on a global level. Miller uses engaging illustrations such as the comparison of two villages with access to enlightenment and then the availability of a church and a school to prove that not all things are substitutable. He concludes this argument with a claim that a lack of common culture means we cannot make general judgments about equality of opportunity, hence what seems like a matter of inequality could merely be a matter of severe poverty.

Miller may have presented a realistic and pragmatic argument on how to attain global justice without global equality but his argument becomes invalid when he claims that cultural understanding makes it easy to measure equality within a nation-state but not on a global level. This is because even within a nation-state, most especially with the level of cultural diversity that exists, it remains difficult to identify and measure up valuable opportunities. Take Nigeria for example, a nation with over 100 ethnic groups with different cultures, traditions, and languages. There is a dearth of cultural understanding that avails an individual from one ethnic group similar opportunities as an individual from another ethnic group. This proves that these limitations Miller has identified on a global level can also be seen on a national level. So if he believes that cultural understanding can help promote equality within a state, then the same can be done on a global level; the ultimate goal remains that all individuals get an equal opportunity for a better life. While it is easy to agree with Miller that it is impossible to have identical opportunity sets, ensuring all individuals have equal opportunities to minimum basic necessities like health care provision, educational opportunities, access to enlightenment, and so on to achieve their potential remains necessary. It may not be easy but as long as it is possible, attaining global justice through global equality will be worth it for a more just and fair world.

The Dynamic Problem

Miller argues against the relevance of global equality in global justice through equality of resources – where he asks that we consider two societies that have been provided with equal resources but along the line due to poor policy choices, there becomes an inequality of resources. For Miller, expecting aid transfer from one country to another in such a case does not restore equality of resources between the two societies, nor should it be seen as an act of justice. Instead, it would ignore the relevance of national responsibility, create poor incentives and place unfair burdens on the aid-giving country most especially when the inequalities can be traced back to that country’s decision towards the available resources. Collective and individual inheritance comes to play when Miller has no interest in whether members of the country were in agreement with the decision or those who were not born when those decisions were made. So for him, as long as you are a part of that country, there is a collective responsibility for past actions and decisions in the distribution of resources and the present generation will have to bear both the burden and benefit.

Once again, it is safe to say that Miller may have a reasonable but selfish approach while arguing against the equality of resources. There is no harm in advocating for national self-determination and national responsibility but his claim that aid transferred between societies to restore equality caused by the society’s poor choices is a misinterpretation of global egalitarianism. Global egalitarianism deals with situations where the inequality that exists results in some sort of human rights violation like severe poverty. If a country has the means to assist in restoring social justice to another country and alleviate poverty through redistribution of resources then that country has a moral obligation and duty to do so. Over the years, the use of aid or transfer of resources as a tool to tackle global issues such as climate change, poverty, HIV/AIDS, preventable diseases, and inequality has to an extent assisted in economic, social, and political development in the aid recipient countries like Iraq, Tanzania, Vietnam, and Rwanda. Hence, it is not just an act of charity or an attempt to place an unfair burden but a sheer act of justice. More so, Miller’s claim that societies are not obligated to help the less fortunate societies dismisses the positive and negative duty that is being owed to any individual in the global system. This act of justice and equality also has a positive impact on the aid-giving countries such as building trade partnerships, allies, promotion of international cooperation and relations, etc. which all comes back to play a significant role in attaining global justice and making the world a better place for all humans.

As a nationalist, Miller is aware of the evolution of global relationships into the sort of relationships one finds within nations but refuses to not only embrace the fact that these changes have an effect on global justice but also the role of global egalitarianism. He has chosen to maintain the idea that nationality has certain features of moral significance such as political decisions, health care benefits, security, safety, etc. which makes it difficult to apply the principle of global egalitarianism. For Miller, inequality provides incentives that move people to work hard to develop important skills. Inequality increases the social pie and makes everyone better off. Inequality encourages national growth, development, and self-determination.

In conclusion, the principles of global justice cannot be viewed from a minimalist approach. The world may have an unjust nature but that does not mean that the injustice and inequality that exist should be ignored. In a world where we continue to face global challenges that violate our rights as humans, one cannot live in isolation and attempt to tackle these challenges on their own. It is more productive for everyone to work together in making a more peaceful, just, and inclusive world for ourselves and generations to come. The first step would be to have a cosmopolitan egalitarian approach where we see ourselves as more than citizens of a state and as equals.

Justice and Equality in The Labor Market

The reason for choosing the topic:

It is the grace of Allah that we should make Islam inclusive of all values and good morals that people should try to abide by and apply in all matters of their lives. And because of the importance mentioned in the holy Quran and confirmed by the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. Because everywhere relies on where there must be justice and equality for coexistence and continuity, in family, work, study, the organization today, the right of a person, all require justice. hence we have chosen justice and equality it helps for work to be more accurate because everywhere there is justice there was continuous successful work that achieves its goals and aspirations and develops well, and injustice will be a failure and lack of success causes. if justice is required between the manager and employees, and customers.

To what extent do we think the topic is critical:

The importance of justice and equality is great. When you demand your rights and fairness in governance, you should ask yourself first whether you have done all the rights and duties that you have. If you want justice in your life, you must first take the initiative to provide for yourself. This is important in all aspects of professional and moral life.

The Islamic standpoint:

The view of Islam (1): Islam is a religion of justice and equality, justice is the intent in matters of fairness and equality between people, which is an inquiry and similarity between the two rivals, (2): and justice from the names of Allah, (3): Justice is one of the most important characteristics of prophet Mohammed, (4): prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and the great values of Islam stand justice in expressing the greatness of this religion and obliges the individual and society to adhere to it starting from the guardian to the individual people each in his responsibility small or grown .accordingly the owner of public responsibility must settle among his subordinates and amend them. the nation of Islam is responsible to raise the banner of justice and equality in its judiciary and protect the right stated by the Quran and Sunnah.

The positive and negative consequences of justice and equality in the labor market:

On the positive side: Opportunity, in the workplace When equality and justice are present all individuals will have the same chance to go after the opportunities and develop their skills. Contribution, when opportunities are available to all employees in the workplace that means employees might be able to contribute to the company in many different ways and take advantage of everyone’s talents and abilities. For example, a worker who has some training in accounting and finance might sooner or later move to the finance department. If employers have to cancel certain positions, employees who are in those positions may apply for other jobs within the company. Therefore, the employer can maintain loyal workers and may not worry and have not put as much effort into recruitment. Lawsuit Protection, Companies that implement the justice and equality system are less likely to have lawsuits. Reputation, Companies that follow the justice and equality system and enforce its regulations can comply with the public and show their beliefs this will improve the company’s reputation which could also as a result translate to more sales.

On the negative side: The loss of Unique Culture, although equality and justice in the workplace point out under the lens of tolerance and cultural celebration, in practice means that no one culture is promoted over any other and all people interact with each other. Moreover, workers who are from different regions and backgrounds may lose traits that make them unique. Accommodation, occasionally equality and justice in the workplace mean that the employers have to make accommodations to provide everyone a fair chance and this can be expensive, such as if an employer has to purchase a costly ergonomic desk for someone who is in a wheelchair. In a bureaucracy, to seek equality and justice in the workplace legislators and employers have to define exactly what workplace equality and justice are this can be difficult. Because the perceptions of equality and justice aren’t always the same. Employers have to put formal policies about workplace equality and justice in place or they can’t implement strict action or provide incentives. Additionally, to this, employers often have to train employees based on those regulations and policies. As a result, this education may take employees away from the jobs they were hired to do.

How can we overcome this challenge in our society and eliminate it from the organization?

We must care about raising awareness and delivering the message of justice and equality to people and consolidating it and how it’s important and has an impact in many ways. The concept of proper justice and equality must be clarified for people, equality does not mean all people doing very similar work, or similar homes, or living in very similar types of families. It does not mean all people being paid the same or all schools being the same.

It means moving towards all people being respected and fairly rewarded for the work they do, the contributions they make, and the needs they have. It means respecting reciprocity and giving them their rights. With all of that, we can overcome this challenge, and the justice and equality effect can appear magical.

References:

1. Dorling, D., Dorling, D., Dorling, D., & Dorling, D. (2017, November 6). Equitable societies thrive, and inequitable ones suffer. Here’s why. Retrieved from https://newint.org/features/2017/07/01/equality-effect.
2. Thibodeaux, W. (2017, November 21). Advantages and Disadvantages of Equality in the Workplace. Retrieved from https://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-equality-workplace-24365.html.
3. Islam is the religion of justice. (2018, January 20). Retrieved from https://www.alukah.net/sharia/0/124807/.

John Rawls’ idea of fair equality of opportunity is that an individual receives an equal and fair chance at success based on their talent and not social class. Citizens with the same talents and eagerness to use them have the same educational and career opportunities, regardless of whether they were born wealthy or in a different class. The theory is that each individual faces obstacles of not income or wealth difference but instead talent and capability while trying to achieve offices and positions. But the existence of private schools stands against that idea. They create a social class and wealth-based difference among children, and later on adults. These highly selective schools are independent of state funding and aim to increase chances of opportunities in higher education and the job market. Ideally, to ensure that children from all social classes receive proper education to achieve realistic career prospects and that social welfare is increased, educational equality is essential.

Private schools prove to provide unfair benefits to children, they receive a higher number and quality of opportunities than public school students. But even though equality is for the common good, self-interest does acquire higher precedence over the former. The 21st century has a rapidly growing job market wherein high payoffs are received by those who hold significant academic achievements and are mostly positions held by elites educated in private schools. Parents, especially rich parents, have an extreme desire for their children to do well in their lives. A huge number of parents, most of whom have too received private education, see nothing wrong with it and encourage it instead. And even if parents try to send their children to state schools, the quality of education in state schools is ‘unacceptably inadequate’, thus forcing parents to resort to sending their children to private schools and avoiding hypocrisy as they have no other choice. But the main problem is that 7% of children who attend private school are harmful to the other 93% who don’t. Education now works on zero-sum impact. The better the students do at private schools, the worse it gets for students at state schools, and since there is immense competition in the market, private schools provide a significant advantage to their own students, which in turn worsens the problem for state school students. This makes it more difficult for parents to voluntarily choose to send their children to state schools, knowing that they would have ‘an unfairly bad chance’ at getting a job and would fair better at private schools instead. Even if wealthy parents do think that they would sacrifice the chance their child has to receive A-grade education in the name of social justice, their sacrifice isn’t adding a significant contribution to social justice if private schools keep existing.

Although to cater to this idea, there has been a shift from educational equality to educational adequacy, mostly in the States. Educational adequacy comprises two things: absolute standards of adequacy, which are standards concerned with the overall financial support and outcomes of public schooling, and relative standards of adequacy, which are standards that relate to the divergence of costs of achieving outcomes for children with different educational needs or children learning in different educational contexts. The motive is to provide all students with adequate and the same quality of education and opportunities. In order to achieve this, all children must enjoy adequate educational opportunities, but they needn’t have equally valuable educational opportunities. Advocates of this view might still object to elite private schools on other grounds and, in particular, concerning the way in which these schools segregate society in a way that makes equal relations impossible.

With educational adequacy, state schools can improve, and the zero-sum impact may too vanish with time, thus instigating that even if public schools do exist, equality of opportunity would not be undermined and all students would be judged on the basis of talent instead of social class and wealth. It would naturally decrease the preference people have for private schools and would not make any difference if they be banned or let exist.

References

1. Anderson, E. (2007). Fair Opportunity in Education: A Democratic Equality Perspective. Ethics, 117, no. 4 (July 2007): 595-622. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/518806
2. Satz, D. (2007). Equality, Adequacy and Education for Citizenship. Ethics, 117 (2007): 623-648.
3. Sheppard, S. (1998). The Perfectionisms of John Rawls. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 11(2): 383-415.
4. Swift, A. (2004). The Morality of School Choice. School Field, 2 (1): 4-7, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/

Values represent our subjective, personal principles which typically, but not always, help guide our beliefs, attitudes, and actions and determine what is important to us (Hawkes, 1996, Halstead, 1996). They are distinct from our characteristics as they are not perceptible, are largely shaped by our experiences (good and bad), and inform what we believe to be morally right (Heilbronn, 2018; Roccas, Sagiv, et al., 2002). These core values have an ethical foundation as they determine our treatment of others and our teaching (Cox, 2012; Sellars, 2012). Teachers have personal beliefs and values, but they also have professional values, (Heilbronn, 2018) and an ethical responsibility not to impose their religious preferences, moral standards, or personal beliefs in the classroom (Sellars, 2012). In addition, teachers also have a responsibility to the core values held by their school, the Teachers’ Standards, and in Legislation such as the Equality Act 2010, which protects 9 characteristics (Appendix 11) linked to Fundamental British values (Sellars, 2012; Cox, 2012; Bills and Husbands, 2005), some of which may be in direct opposition to their values (Halstead and Taylor, 2000).

Educational values and their use and presence have changed over time (Cox, 2012), shifting from a conformist, didactic structure with models such as Frier’s (1968) ‘Banking Model’ where learners are receptacles into which knowledge is poured through an ‘imaginary’ child-centered approach in the 1980’s. The 1990s saw the concept of dialogic teaching and ethical vocabulary in schools gain considerable recognition (Hawkes, 2005; Mercer and Dawes, 2008), with schools promoting ethical values such as respect for children, participation, and reflection (Galton, 1995; Veugelers and Vedder, 2003; Hawkes, 2005; Cox 2012), an idea which Dewey (1964) foresaw as ‘ the ideal school’ The concept of schools putting values at the forefront of all areas of education has become known as value-based education (VBE) Hawkes (2005) and encompasses Fundamental British Values, which are required to be promoted in all schools in England (Department for Education (DfE), 2014).

There is a difference between the values espoused by a school and whether they are actioned and lived (Halstead and Taylor, 2000). Whilst all schools in England must promote these fundamental ‘British’ values, the degree to which some schools do this is widely divergent. Thus, some schools have moved toward specific VBE schools as promoted by Hawkes (2005). In these VBE schools education is holistic and a whole-school approach is taken with teachers modeling desired behaviors, learners using an ethical vocabulary, and reflection lived as integral to school life with personal, social, moral, spiritual, and cultural values of education promoted in all areas of the school and curriculum (Hawkes, 2005). Schools that adopt this approach work broadly around the Seven Pillars of VBE (Appendix 5) where all stakeholders (teachers, parents, children, and local community) are fully involved in creating and living the school values (Halstead and Taylor, 2000) These values are developed in consideration of the schools unique, diverse social and cultural context to enable children to be effective members of society and are ingrained in every aspect of school life (Hawkes, 2005). Thus, no two schools will have the same values and there is no one-size-fits-all approach.

Proponents of VBE suggest there are significant advantages for the school including (Hawkes, 2005): creating respectful, responsible children, enhancing the quality of teaching, increasing parental and community engagement, and enhancing staff contentment, recruitment, and retention. For the learner, the espoused benefits are children with a strong moral compass, ethical intelligence, self-awareness, and reflection, and will be empowered to fulfill their full potential (Values Based Education Website). In addition, it has been suggested that VBE may have a significant impact on behavior because teachers model desired behaviors and children know what is expected in behavioral terms (Halstead and Taylor, 2000).

However, VBE are not without criticism. First, teachers and parents have personally held values that may be in direct opposition to those of the school, making full buy-in and a whole-school approach problematic (Halstead and Taylor, 2000; Sellars, 2012). Second, Wragg (2000) suggests that the difference between a VBE school and a non-VBE school is the degree to which the values penetrate the whole school program. He suggests the VBE approach of values in every aspect of school life might be too much and that, as schools are left to decide their values, there is no standardization, and a ‘best approach’ is not easily identifiable.

Reflecting on values, I turned to consideration of my values and found that my Creed (Appendix 1) and my Learning Journey (Appendix 3) provided useful signposts to my core values. Several values were clear, but the value of equality in education was the most significant, deeply held core value for me, one which has roots back to my early education and has remained resonant throughout my life. My understanding is bound by characteristics such as inclusion, access, respect, self-esteem, fairness, and impartiality. These values underpin both Fundamental British values and VBE. I see equality in education, through my own experience, as the right for all children to be empowered by education, regardless of socio-economic or geographical circumstance, religious or ethnic background, to participate, to be heard, and to be encouraged to reach their full potential. As Burgh et al. (2005) suggest, there is an ethical and moral commitment to prepare, not only a select few, but all students to be lifelong learners and productive members of society.

The work of Ball (1985) spoke personally to my own experience of schooling as the link between those from low socio-economic backgrounds and low educational outcomes is well documented, making children from poorer backgrounds more likely to suffer from educational inequalities (Ball, 1981; Pickett and Vanderbloemen, 2015).

In England, whether a child is entitled to free school meals is considered an indicator of whether a family is living below the poverty line (Gorad, 2013). However, the stigma attached to free school meals is as relevant today as it was decades ago with 29% of the 1.4 million eligible children do not participate in the UK’s Free School Meals as it is dogged by stigma and lack of information (Holford, 2014). This creates a health inequality issue for children, as Maslow (1933) suggests, children need to have their basic needs such as food met and do not learn when they are hungry (Busby, 2019). My experience of free school meals and the associated stigma was, at the time, the norm. Children on free school meals lined up in front of everyone, were escorted to the food, were told what they could eat, and had to sit at the free school meals table. This experience resulted in me not going to eat lunch as it was a humiliating experience that treated us unequally, marked us as ‘different’, and excluded us from the norm.

Whilst equality in education deems that every child should be able to participate in all aspects of the educational process such as learning facilities, resources, and extra-curricular programs, the reality for those from lower-income families is somewhat different. Music, and access to it, is a case in point. As Gill suggests, music is part of the national curriculum and so should already form part of everyday state school activities, yet it is not accessible and the gap between the state and private sector is widening (Gill, 2017). Music lessons and associated instruments cost money, and are therefore inaccessible to those with low income, thereby perpetuating that music is elitist and only for others. Whilst Picket and Vanderbloemen (2015) point out, that teachers are affected by social class and status and may discriminate against those they see with low status my own experience of music and equality was very different. The Head of Music at my secondary school believed that all children should have access to learning an instrument if they wished and that affordability should not be a barrier. Whilst many children did have private lessons, he ran a 3 lunchtime session with 2 other teachers to allow any child who wished to come along and learn to play piano, violin, or flute. As he opened this to everyone, it was highly inclusive and, as a result, the majority of attendees were children whose families could not afford lessons. He is a teacher who embodied equality in education.

My main value of equality is intrinsically bound to respect, belief in self and others, fairness, justice impartiality, and all that these include. Whilst I acknowledge that a range of other variables will impact the practitioner I wish to be, from my own experience, I believe that equality combined with believing in children is a powerful combination that will equip children with the tools and resources to succeed. It is a good starting point as, teachers are all too frequently expected to ‘fix’ educational inequalities regardless of the broader social context of poverty and inequality (Blanden et al, 2005). Nowhere has this been more evident than during the COVID-19 pandemic which increased the gaps between educational attainment between rich and poor.

John Rawls’ idea of fair equality of opportunity is that an individual receives an equal and fair chance at success based on their talent and not social class. Citizens with the same talents and eagerness to use them have the same educational and career opportunities, regardless of whether they were born wealthy or in a different class. The theory is that each individual faces obstacles of not income or wealth difference but instead talent and capability while trying to achieve offices and positions. But the existence of private schools stands against that idea. They create a social class and wealth-based difference among children, and later on adults. These highly selective schools are independent of state funding and aim to increase chances of opportunities in higher education and the job market. Ideally, to ensure that children from all social classes receive proper education to achieve realistic career prospects and that social welfare is increased, educational equality is essential.

Private schools prove to provide unfair benefits to children, they receive a higher number and quality of opportunities than public school students. But even though equality is for the common good, self-interest does acquire higher precedence over the former. The 21st century has a rapidly growing job market wherein high payoffs are received by those who hold significant academic achievements and are mostly positions held by elites educated in private schools. Parents, especially rich parents, have an extreme desire for their children to do well in their lives. A huge number of parents, most of whom have too received private education, see nothing wrong with it and encourage it instead. And even if parents try to send their children to state schools, the quality of education in state schools is ‘unacceptably inadequate’, thus forcing parents to resort to sending their children to private schools and avoiding hypocrisy as they have no other choice. But the main problem is that 7% of children who attend private school are harmful to the other 93% who don’t. Education now works on zero-sum impact. The better the students do at private schools, the worse it gets for students at state schools, and since there is immense competition in the market, private schools provide a significant advantage to their own students, which in turn worsens the problem for state school students. This makes it more difficult for parents to voluntarily choose to send their children to state schools, knowing that they would have ‘an unfairly bad chance’ at getting a job and would fair better at private schools instead. Even if wealthy parents do think that they would sacrifice the chance their child has to receive A-grade education in the name of social justice, their sacrifice isn’t adding a significant contribution to social justice if private schools keep existing.

Although to cater to this idea, there has been a shift from educational equality to educational adequacy, mostly in the States. Educational adequacy comprises two things: absolute standards of adequacy, which are standards concerned with the overall financial support and outcomes of public schooling, and relative standards of adequacy, which are standards that relate to the divergence of costs of achieving outcomes for children with different educational needs or children learning in different educational contexts. The motive is to provide all students with adequate and the same quality of education and opportunities. In order to achieve this, all children must enjoy adequate educational opportunities, but they needn’t have equally valuable educational opportunities. Advocates of this view might still object to elite private schools on other grounds and, in particular, concerning the way in which these schools segregate society in a way that makes equal relations impossible.

With educational adequacy, state schools can improve, and the zero-sum impact may too vanish with time, thus instigating that even if public schools do exist, equality of opportunity would not be undermined and all students would be judged on the basis of talent instead of social class and wealth. It would naturally decrease the preference people have for private schools and would not make any difference if they be banned or let exist.

References

1. Anderson, E. (2007). Fair Opportunity in Education: A Democratic Equality Perspective. Ethics, 117, no. 4 (July 2007): 595-622. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/518806
2. Satz, D. (2007). Equality, Adequacy and Education for Citizenship. Ethics, 117 (2007): 623-648.
3. Sheppard, S. (1998). The Perfectionisms of John Rawls. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 11(2): 383-415.
4. Swift, A. (2004). The Morality of School Choice. School Field, 2 (1): 4-7, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/

Values represent our subjective, personal principles which typically, but not always, help guide our beliefs, attitudes, and actions and determine what is important to us (Hawkes, 1996, Halstead, 1996). They are distinct from our characteristics as they are not perceptible, are largely shaped by our experiences (good and bad), and inform what we believe to be morally right (Heilbronn, 2018; Roccas, Sagiv, et al., 2002). These core values have an ethical foundation as they determine our treatment of others and our teaching (Cox, 2012; Sellars, 2012). Teachers have personal beliefs and values, but they also have professional values, (Heilbronn, 2018) and an ethical responsibility not to impose their religious preferences, moral standards, or personal beliefs in the classroom (Sellars, 2012). In addition, teachers also have a responsibility to the core values held by their school, the Teachers’ Standards, and in Legislation such as the Equality Act 2010, which protects 9 characteristics (Appendix 11) linked to Fundamental British values (Sellars, 2012; Cox, 2012; Bills and Husbands, 2005), some of which may be in direct opposition to their values (Halstead and Taylor, 2000).

Educational values and their use and presence have changed over time (Cox, 2012), shifting from a conformist, didactic structure with models such as Frier’s (1968) ‘Banking Model’ where learners are receptacles into which knowledge is poured through an ‘imaginary’ child-centered approach in the 1980’s. The 1990s saw the concept of dialogic teaching and ethical vocabulary in schools gain considerable recognition (Hawkes, 2005; Mercer and Dawes, 2008), with schools promoting ethical values such as respect for children, participation, and reflection (Galton, 1995; Veugelers and Vedder, 2003; Hawkes, 2005; Cox 2012), an idea which Dewey (1964) foresaw as ‘ the ideal school’ The concept of schools putting values at the forefront of all areas of education has become known as value-based education (VBE) Hawkes (2005) and encompasses Fundamental British Values, which are required to be promoted in all schools in England (Department for Education (DfE), 2014).

There is a difference between the values espoused by a school and whether they are actioned and lived (Halstead and Taylor, 2000). Whilst all schools in England must promote these fundamental ‘British’ values, the degree to which some schools do this is widely divergent. Thus, some schools have moved toward specific VBE schools as promoted by Hawkes (2005). In these VBE schools education is holistic and a whole-school approach is taken with teachers modeling desired behaviors, learners using an ethical vocabulary, and reflection lived as integral to school life with personal, social, moral, spiritual, and cultural values of education promoted in all areas of the school and curriculum (Hawkes, 2005). Schools that adopt this approach work broadly around the Seven Pillars of VBE (Appendix 5) where all stakeholders (teachers, parents, children, and local community) are fully involved in creating and living the school values (Halstead and Taylor, 2000) These values are developed in consideration of the schools unique, diverse social and cultural context to enable children to be effective members of society and are ingrained in every aspect of school life (Hawkes, 2005). Thus, no two schools will have the same values and there is no one-size-fits-all approach.

Proponents of VBE suggest there are significant advantages for the school including (Hawkes, 2005): creating respectful, responsible children, enhancing the quality of teaching, increasing parental and community engagement, and enhancing staff contentment, recruitment, and retention. For the learner, the espoused benefits are children with a strong moral compass, ethical intelligence, self-awareness, and reflection, and will be empowered to fulfill their full potential (Values Based Education Website). In addition, it has been suggested that VBE may have a significant impact on behavior because teachers model desired behaviors and children know what is expected in behavioral terms (Halstead and Taylor, 2000).

However, VBE are not without criticism. First, teachers and parents have personally held values that may be in direct opposition to those of the school, making full buy-in and a whole-school approach problematic (Halstead and Taylor, 2000; Sellars, 2012). Second, Wragg (2000) suggests that the difference between a VBE school and a non-VBE school is the degree to which the values penetrate the whole school program. He suggests the VBE approach of values in every aspect of school life might be too much and that, as schools are left to decide their values, there is no standardization, and a ‘best approach’ is not easily identifiable.

Reflecting on values, I turned to consideration of my values and found that my Creed (Appendix 1) and my Learning Journey (Appendix 3) provided useful signposts to my core values. Several values were clear, but the value of equality in education was the most significant, deeply held core value for me, one which has roots back to my early education and has remained resonant throughout my life. My understanding is bound by characteristics such as inclusion, access, respect, self-esteem, fairness, and impartiality. These values underpin both Fundamental British values and VBE. I see equality in education, through my own experience, as the right for all children to be empowered by education, regardless of socio-economic or geographical circumstance, religious or ethnic background, to participate, to be heard, and to be encouraged to reach their full potential. As Burgh et al. (2005) suggest, there is an ethical and moral commitment to prepare, not only a select few, but all students to be lifelong learners and productive members of society.

The work of Ball (1985) spoke personally to my own experience of schooling as the link between those from low socio-economic backgrounds and low educational outcomes is well documented, making children from poorer backgrounds more likely to suffer from educational inequalities (Ball, 1981; Pickett and Vanderbloemen, 2015).

In England, whether a child is entitled to free school meals is considered an indicator of whether a family is living below the poverty line (Gorad, 2013). However, the stigma attached to free school meals is as relevant today as it was decades ago with 29% of the 1.4 million eligible children do not participate in the UK’s Free School Meals as it is dogged by stigma and lack of information (Holford, 2014). This creates a health inequality issue for children, as Maslow (1933) suggests, children need to have their basic needs such as food met and do not learn when they are hungry (Busby, 2019). My experience of free school meals and the associated stigma was, at the time, the norm. Children on free school meals lined up in front of everyone, were escorted to the food, were told what they could eat, and had to sit at the free school meals table. This experience resulted in me not going to eat lunch as it was a humiliating experience that treated us unequally, marked us as ‘different’, and excluded us from the norm.

Whilst equality in education deems that every child should be able to participate in all aspects of the educational process such as learning facilities, resources, and extra-curricular programs, the reality for those from lower-income families is somewhat different. Music, and access to it, is a case in point. As Gill suggests, music is part of the national curriculum and so should already form part of everyday state school activities, yet it is not accessible and the gap between the state and private sector is widening (Gill, 2017). Music lessons and associated instruments cost money, and are therefore inaccessible to those with low income, thereby perpetuating that music is elitist and only for others. Whilst Picket and Vanderbloemen (2015) point out, that teachers are affected by social class and status and may discriminate against those they see with low status my own experience of music and equality was very different. The Head of Music at my secondary school believed that all children should have access to learning an instrument if they wished and that affordability should not be a barrier. Whilst many children did have private lessons, he ran a 3 lunchtime session with 2 other teachers to allow any child who wished to come along and learn to play piano, violin, or flute. As he opened this to everyone, it was highly inclusive and, as a result, the majority of attendees were children whose families could not afford lessons. He is a teacher who embodied equality in education.

My main value of equality is intrinsically bound to respect, belief in self and others, fairness, justice impartiality, and all that these include. Whilst I acknowledge that a range of other variables will impact the practitioner I wish to be, from my own experience, I believe that equality combined with believing in children is a powerful combination that will equip children with the tools and resources to succeed. It is a good starting point as, teachers are all too frequently expected to ‘fix’ educational inequalities regardless of the broader social context of poverty and inequality (Blanden et al, 2005). Nowhere has this been more evident than during the COVID-19 pandemic which increased the gaps between educational attainment between rich and poor.