How many of us are paying for tuition with our parents’ money? What about our grandparents’ money? I’m one of the many students who have taken advantage of the success of past generations, furthering my own family legacy of higher education and white-collar careers. Is it fair? Well, no, but why should I refuse aid from my family because some of my friends’ parents can’t afford the cost of college on their own? It’s dog-eat-dog out there, after all.
The concept of “equality of opportunity” is a lingering topic in economics and government, often linked with meritocratic principles. Equality of opportunity is what Martin Luther King, Jr. and Betty Friedan advocated: It is the design in which everyone has the same opportunity to succeed in life. It is, in many respects, a counterpart to Social Darwinism.
In Social Darwinism, instead of white children going to better schools than black children, everyone goes to the same school, with the chance to receive the same education. No one receives any extra help, and therefore one’s success is truly based on his or her innate abilities and talents.
Wouldn’t it be nice if it worked like that?
In reality, nothing is fair. Some children have tutors and educated parents who can help them with schoolwork. Successful students can only go to college if they have the money — or the audacity to take out substantial loans — to pay for it. This leads to the exclusion of many financially disadvantaged students from higher education, even as financially advantaged students on the same intellectual level can continue their studies. This is the biggest tragedy of our nation’s so-called utilitarianism.
Now, imagine a society with true equality of opportunity. What if we couldn’t rely on the success of the generations before us?
Among the early French socialists of the 19th century was the little-known Henri de Saint-Simon. Even during his lifetime, his teachings were obscure. But after his death, his school spread and thrived (for a whopping seven years). Quite a few things can be taken from the Saint-Simon school, but its notion of the abolition of one particular practice seems essential to the creed of equality of opportunity. This practice has been a part of humanity for as long as we have recognized structured families. It has bound us together, connected us to the past and kept nations in order. It is the practice of inheritance, and if we ever want to be free from injustice, it must go.
All right, that’s a little extreme. But, really, just how fair is it?
Think of Paris Hilton or Prince Charles. What did they do to deserve their fame? Is it fair Barack Obama had to pull himself up by his bootstraps while George W. Bush attended the best schools with his family’s money? Maybe it is in our world, but in a Saint Simon world, this would be unacceptable. Imagine if every accomplishment — every fortune in the world — were one’s own doing, independent of inheritance or parents’ money.
My question is this: Could we aim for this idealistic meritocracy? Could we ever fully embrace true equality of opportunity? That’s a question we might wonder about forever.
Jon Saltzman is a freshman anthropology and government and politics major.
