Threats to Social Equity and Justice: New Challenges for Americans

Current economic conditions in the United States appear to be creating a social conditioning that is the antithesis of social equity, which Frederickson (2005) posited involves “justice, fairness, [and] equality,” especially in the realm of public policy (p.32).  As the recession continues to affect employment, and legislative bodies seek solutions to their budgetary problems, austerity measures increasingly target the poor and unemployed, calling into question the government’s allegiance to egalitarian and fairness principles.  In this essay, I will review the roles of justice and social equity in civil society and demonstrate how failure to endorse these threatens civil society and the democratic governance system of the United States.

Social Equity

Distributive justice and social equity are based upon a similar premise--that every individual is entitled to equal opportunities to access basic resources (food, shelter, safety), and that from this “level playing field,” they can determine their own degree of material success (Kranich, 2005; Frederickson, 2005; Lamont & Favor, 2008).  Concurrent with this simple foundational principle, are the “burdens” of society, meaning that while every individual may theoretically be entitled to essential equality, he or she is also expected to participate in the construct of contributing to the welfare of society as a whole(Lamont & Favor, 2008).  Hence, distributive justice becomes a balance of “give” and ‘take,” so that no individual is unduly burdened or profits excessively from the distribution of resources (Lamont & Favor, 2008). 

Social equity demands a more rigorous examination of social stratification, economic advantages, and historical inequities that contribute to an individual’s inability to access the same resources as his or her peers.  Frederickson (2005) and Kranich (2005) argued that equity demands an active participation in ensuring parity, even if it means allocating temporary privilege in order to ensure the disadvantaged can achieve it.   Frederickson (2005) expanded this concept to ensuring diversity in the workforce, and making sure public policies are equitable. 

Current legislative attempts to balance the budget by restricting access to such benefits as unemployment insurance and food stamps appear to violate the basic tenets of social equity and distributive justice.  HR3630, as amended, makes citizens who do not have a high school diploma or a GED ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, unless they enroll in and make satisfactory progress in remedial classes; it also enjoins that states require applicants to pass a drug test (Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Introduced in House - IH), 2011).  These measures can have the effect of removing the  neediest from eligibility rolls, endangering their ability to survive in an environment that is becoming increasingly difficult.  Receiving additional education is a laudable goal, but placing the additional financial burden on the poor to pay for the classes and materials, find child care and commute, in order to receive benefits they are legally entitled to, does not reflect social equity principles.

Justice

            Justice seen through the lens of virtue is ambiguous and subjective; Slote (2010) noted that while Aristotle, Plato and other rationalist philosophers posited that justice entailed deserving a fair portion of society’s good because of one’s virtuous behavior, defining virtue and what a fair portion consisted of, was difficult.  The concept of justice based upon universal love was a later development; it suggested that people should care about each other and because of this benevolence, should not behave toward others in a manner as to cause them harm (Slote, 2010).  Granting the validity of morality as a fundamental aspect of justice implies a degree of awareness of society’s moral principles and ethical imperatives.  This appears to make justice mutable and circumstantial, although modern western societies agree on most fundamental precepts of justice and ethics.

A recent development than can be considered a threat to justice as a moral principle is the Florida senate’s attempts at controlling food stamp use.  Senate bill 1658, if passed, would forbid food stamp recipients from using their benefits to purchase “non staple items,” including foods containing trans-fats, sweetened beverages, sweets, and salty snack foods (1658, 2012).  The concept of justice as a virtue includes that “the rightness of an action has to do with the inner state or motive that lies behind it” (Hume, 1739, as cited in Slote, 2010).  It seems dubious that this bill in any way reflects benevolence, but is instead an effort to limit choice for food stamp recipients, under the guise of saving taxpayer dollars.  As such, it fails to meet the standard of benevolence, respect, or community that justice emphasizes.

Conclusion

            Justice and social equity are social constructs based upon cultural norms and imperatives. In western democratic societies, social equity has been associated with the principle of distributive justice, ensuring that every individual has access to essential resources needed to survive; without this fundamental equality, the concept of equal opportunity becomes meaningless (Lamont & Favor, 2008).  Justice as a virtue enshrines ideals of caring and benevolence, and as such can be said to be subjective and circumstantial (Slote, 2010), except that without this sense of justice, involvement, and good will, social equity would be an intellectual exercise without much meaning. Both justice and equity are necessary for democracy to survive, as great disparities in wealth, opportunity, and privilege create an unbalanced social construct, and rob the majority of their ability to participate in governance. Restoring these to their central position would help restore balance in our system of government.

           

References

1658, 0-01432B-12 Florida Statutes §§ 402.82 (2012).

Frederickson, G. (2005, Winter). The State of Social Equity in American Public Administration. National Civic review, 94(4), 31-38.

Kranich, N. (2005). Equality and Equity of Access: What’s the Difference? Retrieved January 31, 2012, from http://www.ala.org/office/oif/iftoolkits/toolkitrelatedlinks/equalityequity

Lamont, J., & Favor, C. (2008). Distributive Justice. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 ed., ). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=justice-distributive

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Introduced in House - IH),  U.S.C. § 2122-2127 et seq. (Thomas 2011).

Slote, M. (2010). Justice as a Virtue. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 ed,, ). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/justice-virtue/