Résumés
Abstract
This paper aims to establish three things. First, that the capabilities approach is the best candidate for an adequate theory of justice to provide just educational opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities. Second, that the capabilities approach, while possessing many merits over rival conceptions of justice, must acknowledge that a prioritization of some capabilities over others is essential. Third and finally, that intellectual disability presents a particularly urgent case for educational justice, because those with intellectual disabilities are historically under-serviced within educational institutions and stand to lose much more than others because of the potential for the compounding of corrosive disadvantage. A stronger claim to justice for people with intellectual disabilities represents a potential for change in the policy and funding associated with education more generally, and for people with intellectual disabilities more specifically.
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Arneson, R. (2006). Distributive justice and basic capability equality: “Good enough” is not good enough. In A. Kaufman (Ed.), Capabilities equality: Basic issues and problems (pp. 17–43). New York: Routledge.
- Brighouse, H. (2005). On education. New York: Routledge.
- Brighouse, H., & Unterhalter, E. (2010). Education for primary goods or for capabilities? In H. Brighouse & I. Robeyns (Eds.), Measuring justice: Primary goods and capabilities (pp. 193–214). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Dworkin, R. (1983). Comment on Narveson: In defense of equality. Social Philosophy and Policy, 1(1), 24–40.
- Engels, F. (1993). The condition of the working class in England. Oxford: Oxford World’s Classics.
- Gutmann, A. (1980). Children, paternalism, and education: A liberal argument. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 9(4), 338–358.
- National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). The condition of education. Washington: National Center for Education Statistics.
- National Disability Navigator Resource Collaborative. (2014). Population specific fact sheet: Intellectual disability. Maryland: National Disability Navigator Resource Collaborative.
- Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
- Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
- Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Riddle, C. A. (2011). Responsibility and foundational material conditions. American Journal of Bioethics, 11(7), 53–55.
- Riddle, C. A. (2012). Defining disability: Metaphysical not political. Medicine, health care and philosophy, 16(3), 377–384.
- Riddle, C. A. (2013). The ontology of impairment: Rethinking how we define disability. In M. Wappett & K. Arndt (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on disability studies (pp. 23–40). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Riddle, C. A. (2014). Disability and justice: The capabilities approach in practice. Lanham: Lexington Books/Rowman & Littlefield.
- Riddle, C. A. (2016). Human rights, disability, and capabilities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Riddle, C. A. (2020). Disability and disadvantage in the capabilities approach. In A. Cureton & D. Wasserman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of philosophy and disability (pp. 229–224). New York: Oxford University Press.
- Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–114.
- Ryan, A. (2011). J. S. Mill on education. Oxford Review of Education, 37(5), 653–667.
- Sen, A. (1973). On economic inequality. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Sen, A. (1995). Equality of what? In S. Darwall (Ed.), Equal freedom: Selected tanner lectures on human values (pp. 307–330). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
- Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Shakespeare, T. (2013). Disability rights and wrongs revisited. London: Routledge.
- Skrtic, T. M., & Kent, J. R. (2013). Rights, needs, and capabilities: Institutional and political barriers to justice for disabled people. In A. Kanter & B. Ferri (Eds.), Righting educational wrongs: Disability studies in law and education (pp. 58–101). Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
- Terzi, L. (2008). Justice and equality in education: A capability perspective on disability and special educational needs. London: Bloomsbury.
- Vorhaus, J. (2016). Giving voice to profound disability: Dignity, dependence and human capabilities. New York: Routledge.
- World Health Organization. (1986). The Ottawa charter for health promotion. Geneva: World Health Organization.
- World Health Organization. (2011). World report on disability. Geneva: World Health Organization.