John P. Terry, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief
Summer 1999, v15-3
	From the Editor If justice is, as Plato suggests, giving each his due, then social justice is no more or less than providing each their due. Sounds simple and straightforward. But what if what I, as an individual or a member of a class or elite insist that my just due is greater than yours? In looms the two-headed monster: one head rampant individualism, the other an insatiable appetite for power, prerogative, goods, services, and resources. How is the giving and taking equation balanced? What is owed me? What do I give back? This is more than a debate between the libertarians and communitarians; it strikes to the very nerve of social relations within society. Elitists provide clear, if not palatable answers to some of these questions. Let's look at three dominant and reoccurring positions. Natural aristocracies, be they divinely appointed or derived through entrepreneurial or military success, are entitled to vastly disproportionate amounts of prerogatives, privileges, goods, and services-and, by right-may pass these onto their progeny, no matter how prodigal. Meritocrats take issue, claiming that merit alone should determine one's due. Fortuitously, they claim psychometricians can measure "potential" merit early on by employing some shaky socio-metric device, such as an IQ test. Youngsters can be segregated by "potential" at an early age and provided education to fit their needs, thus ensuring the meritorious will rise. Conveniently, poor and minorities consistently score on the low end of "potential." Finally, there's the less eloquent pernicious argument of racial and ethnic differences. Apologists here simply profess that some races are superior to other races and therefore due more. Examples include the eugenics movement in the Great Britain, U.S., and Canada in the early part of this century, as well as the classic of all time: Adolph Hitler's Third Reich. Do Somalia and Kosovo come to mind? Giving each his due is not simple. When abstract theories hit the road things can get pretty ugly: cultural values, norms, and practices often determine the dominant view of justice. Many cultures callously devalue women and children. Cultural relativism-with its condonation of inequality-acknowledges that the rights of a child in Calcutta are different from those in Thornhill, Canada (see the book review in this issue). Is there some universal concept of justice? In 1990 the U.N. voted "Yes" on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Only two countries have not signed onto the Convention: the US and Somalia. Ask your Congressperson why the U.S. has not. Social justice is not a scientific precept; it is a human value. Social justice means a guarantee of equal rights and opportunities that allow each of us the option to become self-actualizing individual and collective members of our communities: those who want to share in decisions that effect their lives and communities should be able to do so. It means an end to racism, sexism, homophobia, and ageism-an outcome that may not be palatable to racists, misogynists, homophobes, and pedophiles. Frederick Douglass observed, "If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing. They want the ocean without awful roar of its many waters, they want rain without thunder and lightening." This is as true for social justice as it is for freedom. Think! Organize! Act! Join us for an interesting discussion on schools and communities in our Fall 1999 issue. John P. Terry, Editor-in-Chief
	NEW DESIGNS FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT © 1999