Equality of Opportunity - Essay Example

1. Should Williams warrior society feed the poor competitors until they are well nourished before they hold the warriors competitive? Why or why not? Aristotle himself has stated in his Nicomachean Ethics that “we need to be brought up in fine habits if we are to be adequate students of fine and just things". Since the class of warriors is a subject of so much social prestige in this hypothetical society (Williams, 1973), it is but logical that every section of the society would wish to have its representation within this elite. The fact remains that passing of a law that theoretically opens the position for all members of the society does not ensure that all the members have equal chances to gain admittance. The poor by themselves cannot uplift themselves to attain competitiveness (or they would have done so already). Therefore, we can be sure that an external help is a definite requirement. The question now becomes who should help the poor and how? Should the rich bear the burden of the poor? Since it is the requirement of the society that the law is implemented, the society should also bear the responsibility of feeding the poor. All this transpires to say that the rich does not have any obligation to directly feed the poor, but through any system of economic reforms, they can indirectly be responsible for their nourishment. The rich have to held accountable ultimately as the money has to come from somewhere. It does not make good logic to suggest that the rich should first allow others to enter the competition and then also to ask them to feed the poor. This would be like punishing the upper class for being rich. Once the idea of equal opportunity is firmly rooted, then a balance has to be established between the needs of both the classes. In short, the rich is not ‘required’ to feed the poor but can instead be encouraged and legally required to ‘contribute’ by the authority within the framework of a just and responsible system of taxation. 2. Should funding for schools in New York City be increased to the level of schools in more affluent communities in New York State? Why or Why not? Education in today’s egalitarian society is a direct state responsibility and as such there is no doubt that the funding for the schools in New York City should be increased. This is made urgent by the fact that these schools are not just given lesser funds than suburban schools but also because they are seriously underfunded. The instances mentioned in the text where the author cites examples of schools with defunct infrastructure and an absence of even basic facilities (Kozol, 2005)are quite frankly horrifying and should be rectified immediately. The future of many thousands of students and consequently that of the nation is what that is in question here. Conjecturing a hypothetical situation where we have provided such schools with all the required amenities that we deem ‘basic’ and satisfying ourselves to an extent that these students are getting an education in a setting that is in no way detrimental to their development, the question now becomes if we should give them additional support so as that there is no discrepancy between the funding given to both the schools. That is should we give the under – developed schools so much funding as to equal the revenue of an affluent school? The idea is a fine example of equality and would be wonderful if implemented as this will ensure that all the students now study in a totally utopian environment. The benefits that can be reaped by the nation cannot even be quantized. But this can never be realized due to the simple reason that it is not practically feasible to do so. Once again quoting the text, there is a difference of as much as $50, 000 in the per-pupil spending of a suburban and city school. If this amount is multiplied by the number of students in all the city schools, it would amount to an astronomical figure, one which definitely cannot be met by the state or the city. If the rich can afford to send their children to expensive pre-schools and give them a boarding school education, why should we stop them if the poor are also satisfied with the education of their children? It would be prudent to question if beyond a particular extent, the poor have a right to complain about the amenities available for the rich. As has been mentioned, the rich can be asked to contribute to the proper functioning of the society but should never be punished for simply being rich. In conclusion, the under developed schools of New York should be given as much aid as is necessary to ensure that they are run smoothly with enough infrastructure, excellent teacher to student ratios, good libraries and other facilities that is deemed essential by standard educational requirements. Beyond that, it is a prerogative of the affluent schools to utilize the money that they posses in any manner that they deem fit. Total equality in monetary spending would be an impossible demand. 3. Should Wollen pick Lewis for the London assignment "and make that assignment work by sorting out all biases and creating expectations for his success"? Why or why not? Yes, Lewis should be selected and Lewis alone should be selected. The other option would imply that African Americans cannot be successful anywhere where there is a slight rumor of racial discrimination, which is even statistically proven to be false as is given in the text itself (qtd in Gentile). Lewis’ experience, company policy and talent all make him the most ideal candidate for the job. Further, he had definitely withstood similar hostile environments in his home country and had proven resilient. If Lewis does not take up the position, he would be giving up a huge career enhancing opportunity in his life and it can only affect him adversely, not to mention the blow his self confidence would take. Wollen should definitely try to make the transition as smooth as it is possible for Lewis even if that means having to conduct extensive negotiations with both Abbot and Jordan. The biases mentioned are not easy to be sorted out but given time and the charismatic nature of Lewis’s character, would definitely be mitigated. 4. Should Wall Street firms "make managers more accountable for systematic forms of inequality" and "make room for family life"? Why or why not? The text quotes numerous incidences of ‘inequality’ where women workers are paid less than their male counter parts who do the same amount of work. Also, numerous instances have been mentioned where women who take maternity leaves or opt for flextime receive a cut in yearend bonuses despite showing no significant reduction in their productivity. These are violations of all anti- discrimination laws and as such it is a direct responsibility of the managers to remove such systematic failures from their system. Instances where the manager is responsible for improper sexual advances to female workers (Roth) must be dealt with seriously by the administration and not covered up as is the usual practice. Women workers have proved their merit in numerous instances and do not lag behind in either education or in professional efficiency required for the job. They have consistently performed on equal terms with their male counterparts and often have even outranked them. The age that we now live in no longer considers a working Wall Street woman as a work place anomaly. If these women were denied the right to raise their families, then the society itself would suffer a tremendous loss not to mention the personal gratification that we deny them. There is no justice in penalizing a woman who has had a child by reducing her remuneration or withholding her promotion. Doing so only disregards the work that she has carried out for the firm and her potential for future accomplishments. Hence, it is absolutely necessary for Wall Street managers to remove all instances of systematic discrimination from their companies. Retrospection All these answers suggest that a mere legislative reform does not carry any significance if it does not have the necessary institutional and infrastructural support to back it. Bernard’s warriors can all be drawn from the poorer classes and women can be made to populate the Wall Street, only of it is ensured that by changing the existing management systems, we are not pushing our own advocates to great challenges. The work environment must first change suitably to support the specific requirements of the group being accommodated. Also, under no circumstances must the group that is being dislocated be punished for being privileged so long as the privilege has not been gained at the expense of others. In short, the rich must not be punished for being rich and men should not be punished for well, being men. There must be suitable infrastructural support to accommodate the new classes that are being welcomed. Equality of opportunity does not always translate to equality of success. The failure of most of our equality measures is due to the inability of our policy makers to consider the effects of changed demographics in the work environment. Changing a law is easy, allowing for infrastructural changes are tough but changing the mindset of a population is the hardest. The new entrants must be willing to face a cold reception as it is on their consistent performance and success that the equality reform depends. Equality is a requirement of the success of a modern society. There is no scientific or historical background to suggest that some sections of the society consistently underperform when compared to others. An equal opportunity reform allows us to draw the maximum cooperation of all the sections of the society thereby increasing our talent pool and creative output. It also reforms friction between different layers of the society resulting in the creation of social hegemony and communal harmony. In today’s multicultural world, that is definitely a priority. References Kozol, J. (2005). Hitting Them Hardest When They are Small. In J. Kozol, Shame of the Nation - Apartheid Revisited. Crown Publishers. Roth, L. M. Women on Wall Street : Despite Diversity measures, Wall Street remain vulnerable to sex discrimination charges. Williams, B. (1973). The Idea of Equality. In B. Williams, Problems of the Self. Cambridge University press. Gentile, "The case of the inequality opportunity" Read More