Advertisement

Studies in Philosophy and Education

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 579–593 | Cite as

Admitting a Sense of Superiority: Aggrandized Higher Education Status as an Objection to Educational Inequality

  • John FantuzzoEmail author
Article

Abstract

Recalling the landmark US Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the advancement of educational equality is often associated with the reduction of stigmatizing differences in status or “sense of inferiority” engendered by separately and differentially educated citizens. This essay takes up the obverse concern, the sense of superiority sustained by educational inequality, with particular focus on the inequality signaled by higher education status (HES). I contend that the presence of aggrandized HES in a democratic society provides reasons to object to educational inequality for which institutions of higher education ought to be held responsible. Aggrandized HES not only demands a questionable deference from citizens in a democratic society; it also weakens HES’s signaling of epistemic authority and equality of educational opportunity, which harms the public’s motivation to learn by distorting beliefs about education. To address this problem, I argue that the best policy solution for curbing aggrandized uses of HES is to transform the positional aspect of higher education using an admissions policy originally suggested by Elizabeth Anderson, which I term the elite culture strategy. Beyond admissions policies, this essay addresses the larger concern of educating citizens to perceive and assess educational status according to democratic norms and not solely in terms of self-interested gain.

Keywords

Educational opportunity Higher education Status Democracy Epistemic authority Admissions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Author grateful to Megan Laverty for supporting early articulations of this essay. This essay, in its final form, benefited from feedback provided by Yoshiaki Nakazawa and Nicolas Tanchuck. Final thanks go to Valparaiso University for adopting a new mission statement that intentionally resists aggrandizing its status.

References

  1. Anderson, E. 2007. Fair opportunity in education: A democratic equality perspective. Ethics 117(4): 595–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. 2010. The imperative of integration. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, M. 2013. Hard feelings: The moral psychology of contempt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berrey, E. 2015. The enigma of diversity: The language of race and the limits of racial justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brighouse, H., and A. Swift. 2006. Equality, priority and positional goods. Ethics 116(3): 471–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brighouse, H., and A. Swift. 2009. Educational equality versus educational adequacy: A critique of Anderson and Satz. Journal of Applied Philosophy 26(2): 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deresiewicz, W. 2008. The Disadvantages of an Elite Education: Our best universities have forgotten that the reason they exist is to make minds not careers. American Scholar. Retrieved from http://www.newrepublic.com.
  8. Deresiewicz, W. 2014a. Excellent sheep: The miseducation of the American Elite. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  9. Deresiewicz, W. 2014b. Don’t send your kids to the Ivy Leagues: The nations top colleges are turning our kids into zombies. New Republic. Retrieved from http://www.newrepublic.com. Accessed 18 June 2018.
  10. Everson, S. (ed.). 1996. Aristotle: The politics and the constitution of Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fishkin, J. 2014. Bottlenecks: A new theory of equal opportunity. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frank, R.H. 1985. Choosing the right pond: Human behavior and the quest for status. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Giambrone, A. 2014. I’m a laborer’s son. I went to Yale. I’m not trapped “in a bubble of privilege.” New Republic. Retrieved from http://www.newrepublic.com. Accessed 18 June 2018.
  14. Hirsch, F. 1976. The social limits of growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hollis, M. 1984. Education as a positional good. Journal of Philosophy of Education. 16: 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hussain, W. 2017. Why should we care about competition? Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2017.1398859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacobs, L.A. 2004. Pursuing equal opportunities: The theory and practice of egalitarian justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Khan, S. 2011. Privilege: The making of an adolescent elite at St. Paul’s School. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Koski, W., and R. Reich. 2006. When Adequate Isn’t: The retreat from equity in educational law and policy and why it matters. Emory Law Review 56: 547–617.Google Scholar
  20. Kotzee, B. 2013. Educational justice, epistemic justice, and leveling down. Educational Theory 63(4): 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pinker, S. 2014. The trouble with Harvard: The Ivy League is broken and only standardized tests can fix it. New Republic. Retrieved from http://www.newrepublic.com. Accessed 18 June 2018.
  22. Rivera, L.A. 2016. Pedigree: How elite students get elite jobs. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Scanlon, T.M. 2003. The difficulty of tolerance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schwartz, Y. 2014. An attack on the Ivy League is an attack on meritocracy itself. New Republic. Retrieved from http://www.newrepublic.com. Accessed 18 June 2018.
  25. Shelby, T. 2016. Dark Ghettos. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Unz, R. 2013. Statistics indicate an Ivy League Asian quota. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com. Accessed 18 June 2018.
  27. Urbinati, N., and M.P. Saffon. 2013. Procedural democracy, the bulwark of equal liberty. Political Theory XX(X): 1–41.Google Scholar
  28. Zagzebski, L.T. 2015. Epistemic authority: A theory of trust, authority, and autonomy in belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationValparaiso UniversityValparaisoUSA

Personalised recommendations