Equality Of Opportunity Analysis

2262 Words 10 Pages
Register to read the introduction… These would be, as stated in the introduction, rights that make everyone equal. This requires a careful examination of the phrase, “equality of opportunity”. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy defines equality of opportunity as the idea that regardless of birthright, where people end up in life is dependent on competition on equal terms ("Equality of Opportunity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).”) Nation-building skews the terms of competition: there is no equal opportunity and access to political, economic, and educational …show more content…
Law 101, the Charter of the French Language that became law in 1977, mandated French as the required language in schools, courts, workplaces, and communications in Quebec ("Bill 101 - The Canadian Encyclopedia."). By that virtue, this group-specific legislation helped achieve greater equality of opportunity by opening up many more education, and commercial opportunities. In the context of this argument, Law 101 was justified through the rejection of marginalization caused by the English language, thus bringing about the equality of opportunity and satisfying conditions of liberal democracy.
Other cases show that group-specific rights and equality of opportunity can produce benefits, thereby reinforcing their worthiness of protection. An important case is raised by Charles Taylor. He claims that the absence of this recognition of differing identities, or a misrecognition thereof, could lead to damage to groups of people in that they would lead a confined, reduced and oppressed way of life (Taylor and Gutmann 25). Group-specific rights would thus serve an instrumental role in reversing these fortunes for minority
…show more content…
One such difficulty is the consideration of women in the context of cultural rights. Some cultures blatantly oppress females; thus, allowing group-specific cultural rights would enable these groups to oppress females legally, which is contradictory to the liberal principles of equality and freedom (Okin 12-13). A response to this difficulty, as raised by Kymlicka, would be to restrict the provision of group-specific cultural rights to only those rights that improve the condition of the minority group, so as they have greater equality of opportunity compared to the majority. Okin complicates the difficulty, claiming that discreet oppressive practices could go unnoticed, and that such practices pertain to most cultures (21-22). A valid response would be to increase the specificity of group-specific laws and research into such cultures before legislation, so that they do not permit such

Related Documents