Distributive Justice in Competitive Access to Intercollegiate Athletic Teams Segregated by Sex
Studies in Philosophy and Education 16 (4):347-372 (1997)
| Abstract | A theory of justice for the basic structure of society may constrain though not directly govern colleges. The principle of "equal opportunity" commonly applied to jobs either does or does not apply to varsity opportunities. If it applies, it interdicts sex discrimination but, one fallacious argument notwithstanding, it states no obligation to expend resources on new teams. If it does not apply, an analogue of Rawls's difference principle may appropriately constrain inequalities between the sexes. In either case the preferences of a majority of the sex affected by any inequality are pivotal in fashioning any tenable distributive policy. Those preferences are neglected by a government policy that assimilates equal opportunity to equality of (i) the ratio of male:female varsity athletes and (ii) the ratio of male:female students. It is argued that such policy rests on affirming the consequent. Its effects include misallocations of resources and overvaluation of athletics. It is argued that what should approximately be equal is competitive access, the ratio of available positions to aspirants, for each sex. Two versions of a principle of equal competitive access are proposed, the recommended one of which pertains to teams whose net consumption of resources is positive | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesSusan Leigh Anderson (1991). Equal Opportunity, Freedom and Sex-Stereotyping. Journal of Philosophical Research 16:1-10.
Timothy F. Murphy (2013). Getting Past Nature as a Guide to the Human Sex Ratio. Bioethics 27 (4):224-232.
Wei Xiaopin (2008). Distributive Justice, Injustice and Beyond Justice. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 50:857-872.
Richard J. Arneson (1999). Against Rawlsian Equality of Opportunity. Philosophical Studies 93 (1):77-112.
Samuel Freeman (2006). The Law of Peoples, Social Cooperation, Human Rights, and Distributive Justice. Social Philosophy and Policy 23 (1):29-68.
Rodney G. Peffer, What is to Be Distributed? The Paideia Project.
Azam Golam (2010). Distribution of Health Care Resources in LIC: A Utilitarian Approach. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
Marco Huesch (2012). One and Done? Equality of Opportunity and Repeated Access to Scarce, Indivisible Medical Resources. BMC Medical Ethics 13 (1):11-.
Matthias Hild & Alex Voorhoeve (2004). Equality of Opportunity and Opportunity Dominance. Economics and Philosophy 20 (1):117-145.
Gillian Brock (2005). Egalitarianism, Ideals, and Cosmopolitan Justice. Philosophical Forum 36 (1):1–30.
Marlene A. Dixon, Brian A. Turner, Donna L. Pastore & Daniel F. Mahony (2003). Rule Violations in Intercollegiate Athletics: A Qualitative Investigation Utilizing an Organizational Justice Framework. Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (1):59-90.
R. J. Arneson (1999). Equality of Opportunity for Welfare Defended and Recanted. Journal of Political Philosophy 7 (4):488–497.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-09-02Total downloads2 ( #232,382 of 549,065 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
