Distributive Justice in Competitive Access to Intercollegiate Athletic Teams Segregated by Sex

Studies in Philosophy and Education 16 (4):347-372 (1997)
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 athletics  equal opportunity  local justice  sex discrimination  Title IX
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2004
DOI 10.1023/A:1004970219413
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 25,751
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Equal Opportunity, Freedom and Sex-Stereotyping.Susan Leigh Anderson - 1991 - Journal of Philosophical Research 16:1-10.
Distributive Justice, Injustice and Beyond Justice.Wei Xiaopin - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 50:857-872.
Against Rawlsian Equality of Opportunity.Richard J. Arneson - 1999 - Philosophical Studies 93 (1):77-112.
What is to Be Distributed?Rodney G. Peffer - 1998 - The Paideia Project.
Equality of Opportunity and Opportunity Dominance.Matthias Hild & Alex Voorhoeve - 2004 - Economics and Philosophy 20 (1):117-145.
Egalitarianism, Ideals, and Cosmopolitan Justice.Gillian Brock - 2005 - Philosophical Forum 36 (1):1–30.
Equality of Opportunity for Welfare Defended and Recanted.R. J. Arneson - 1999 - Journal of Political Philosophy 7 (4):488–497.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

18 ( #261,004 of 2,146,802 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

12 ( #56,354 of 2,146,802 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums