Laura, Laubeová (2000)

 Encyclopedia of The World’s Minorities, 

Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers

Equal opportunity                                                                                         

This complex and contested concept often assumes shared meaning that in further exploration proves to be superficial or erroneous. Often, its meaning is reduced only to “avoiding unjust discrimination and prejudice” or “treating everybody the same”. A broader meaning entails that all individuals have an equal opportunity to reach their potential by developing their particular talents, in this sense it is also related to the debate over positive action. Equal opportunity can be analysed both on societal as well as organisational levels.

In order to understand the concept it is useful to distinguish at least four types of equality:

Formal equality, as equality under the law (everyone is equal and entitled to equal treatment under the law);

Equality of opportunity, as a provision of equal access to institutions and social positions among relevant social groups;

Equality of condition, as a variable that actually allows for equal access through securing equal circumstances of life for different social groups. The argument here is that inequalities of condition obstruct real equality of opportunity because all those who are competing do not start from the same point (levelling the playing field);

Equality of outcome, as the application of different policies or processes to different social groups in order to transform inequalities of conditions at the beginning into equalities at the end. This is often viewed as a radical approach to equal opportunity, and is linked to positive action that aims to compensate the disadvantages that restrict equal opportunities. Proponents of this concept claim that the idea of preferential treatment for disadvantaged groups is, despite its limitations, one of the few policy tools capable of breaking through the self-perpetuating cycle of deeply embedded inequalities. Critics argue that this approach requires considerable intrusion on individual liberties and the family and that it is both unrealistic and impossible to enforce.

            However, the above categorisation is regarded as problematic, as it may seem that formal equality, equal opportunity, and equality of outcome are mutually incompatible.

Affirmative Action Plans required of federal contractors in the USA can serve as a useful example:  The composition of the workforce of a business ought to reasonably reflect the ethnic make-up of the local population, both in the numbers employed and their positions within the business hierarchy. However, there is a major problem:  the proportion of minorities that contractors must endeavour to replicate in their workforce is a measure of the current situation, which is itself the result of past discrimination. There is a difference between the concept of equality of opportunity as applied to individuals and to groups of people, identifiable by their colour, culture or ethnicity. Equality of opportunity applied to groups reduces itself to a power struggle. It may be argued that the practice of equalising opportunities is then an exercise in promoting fairness.

Most academic debate about the concept of justice starts with John Rawls´ famous difference principle, which asserts that inequalities in the distribution of scarce goods (power, money, access to health care) are justified only if they serve to increase the advantage of the lest favoured groups in society. The difference principle in Rawls theory of justice and fairness has lower priority than the principle of greatest equal liberty and the principle of equality of fair opportunity (Marshall, 1996).

Parekh argues that “equal treatment involves absence of direct or indirect and institutionalised discrimination”, therefore “the law should require all public institutions periodically to examine the hidden biases of their rules and procedures, and should set up appropriate bodies such as the Commission for Racial Equality in the UK and the Equal Employment Opportunity agency in the USA”. Moreover, he argues, “positive equality requires equality of rights and opportunities”, including cultural rights, ensured by the politics of recognition. Parekh further notes that “all citizens should enjoy equal opportunities to acquire the capacities and skills needed to function in society and to pursue their self-chosen goals equally effectively” and continues that additional help or “equalising measures are justified on grounds of justice as well as social integration and harmony” (Parekh, 2000, pp. 210–211).

According to Parekh, “a theory of equality grounded in human uniformity is both philosophically incoherent and morally problematic. Equality involves equal freedom or opportunity to be different, and treating human beings equally requires us to take into account both their similarities and differences“ (p. 240).  In other words, equality requires differential treatment.

Many policy makers argue that the principle of equal opportunity in its broadest sense enshrines the principle of merit. Thus in recruitment, when positive action is either taken in the form of advertising or training, the final selection for posts must be made according to the principle “ the best person for the job”. In other words, positive action should not be committed to the preference of a less qualified candidate.

Very often, equal opportunity is used in its narrow sense as equality of access. According to Cashmore (1996) the principle of equal opportunities was appropriated by the conservatives in the late 1970´s and used as an alternative to policies that emphasised equality of results, as opposed to opportunities. He argues that it was a “perfect complement to the conservative egalitarianism, that was pre-eminent in the US and Britain through the 1980 and 1990´s. The appeal to market forces, absence of government in the expansion of opportunities, and the opposition to the granting of special privileges or rights made it a successful weapon with which to challenge some forms of modern liberalism. In contrasts to policies that urged an active role for government in the advancement of disadvantaged groups, conservative egalitarianism emphasised laisses- faire and  ´supply- side´ economic theory as the way to correct the glaring inequalities in the distribution of resources.”

Apart from the societal level of theory and practice, equal opportunity policies can be analysed on the organisational level. Bahilgole (1997), provides the following categorisation of different approaches to equal opportunity in organisations (pp. 183-184, 37-39):

Minimalist position, reflects colour blind approach while complying with antidiscrimination legislation;

Liberal perspective (also referred to as short agenda), focuses on the Equality of treatment, assuming that a level playing ground will ensure equal opportunities, and recognising that institutional discrimination may exist in the form of unfair procedures and practices;

Radical perspective (referred to as long agenda), focuses on the equality of outcome as opposed to procedures, rejecting the individualistic conceptions of fairness and promoting positive action. EOP as a part of general organisational change theory;

Managing diversity approaches aim to increase productivity and meet employees needs through challenging the cultures of organisations.

Further reading:

Barbara Bagilhole, Equal Opportunities and Social Policy: Issues of gender, race and disability, London: Longman, 1997

Cashmore, Ellis, Dictionary of Race and Ethnic Relations, London: Routledge, 1996

Marshall, Gordon, editor, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, Oxford - New York: Oxford University Press, 1996

Mithaug, Dennis E., Equal Opportunity Theory (Fairness in Liberty for All), Sage Publications Inc (USA), 1996

Blakemore, K., Drake, R. F., Understanding Equal Opportunity Policies, London: Prentice Hall, 1996

Howe, Kenneth R., Understanding Equal Educational Opportunity (Social Justice, Democracy, and Schooling) - Advances in Contemporary Educational Thought Series, Teachers College Press, 1997

Parekh, Bhikhu, Rethinking Multiculturalism. Cultural Diversity and Political Theory, London: Macmillan Press, 2000

Roemer, John E., Equality of opportunity, Harvard University Press, 2000

© Laubeová, 2000