Therein lies the problem of the idea of equal opportunities for all. Some people are simply better able to take advantage of opportunities. See also: discrimination; age discrimination; equality between women and men; gender equality; gender mainstreaming; affirmative action; social exclusion. It is agreed that the concept of equal opportunities lacks a precise definition. [2] [110] Although it generally describes “open and fair competition” with equal opportunities for coveted jobs or positions[4] as well as non-discrimination,[4][12][111] the term is elusive with a “wide range of meanings.” [41] It is difficult to measure and implementation raises problems[2] as well as differences of opinion on what to do. [18] The consensus is that it is difficult to try to measure equality of opportunity,[70] whether it is a single hiring decision or groups over time. It is generally accepted that programmes to achieve certain types of equal opportunities can be difficult and that efforts to achieve a result often have unintended consequences or cause other problems. There is consensus that the formal approach is easier to implement than the others, although there are difficulties here too. One report suggests that left-wing thinkers who advocate equality of outcomes even criticize formal equality of opportunity on the grounds that it “legitimizes inequality of wealth and income.” [18] John W. Gardner proposed several views: (1) that inequalities will always exist, whether or not one tries to erase them; (2) that everyone is brought “equitably to the starting line” without facing the “destructive competitiveness that follows”; (3) All the equality achieved will lead to future inequalities.
[112] Substantive equality of opportunity has raised concerns that efforts to improve equity “will eventually disintegrate into the different question of equality of outcomes or conditions.” [18] Substantive equality refers to a fair distribution or outcome (equality of outcome) as opposed to equality of opportunity or equal treatment. People with different political views often see the concept differently. [11] The importance of equal opportunities is discussed in areas such as political philosophy, sociology and psychology. It applies to an increasingly broad spectrum beyond employment,[8][12] including loans,[13] housing, university admissions, voting rights and elsewhere. [1] In the classical sense, equality of opportunity is closely aligned with the concept of equality before the law and ideas of meritocracy. [14] Although the focus has been on gender balance, the Equal Opportunities Programme has also been applied to other groups excluded from the labour market. For example, following the Treaty of Amsterdam, the new Article 19 TFEU conferred competence on `appropriate measures to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation`. Following previous initiatives, the Employment Guidelines 1998-19 promoted the integration of people with disabilities into working life. The 1999 Employment Guidelines called on Member States “to pay particular attention to the needs of people with disabilities, ethnic minorities and other groups and individuals who may be disadvantaged and to develop appropriate forms of preventive and active measures to promote their integration into the labour market” (Council Resolution on the 1999 Employment Guidelines, [1999]). In addition, the 2002 Guidelines included provisions on developing strategies for “active ageing” (Guideline 3) and on promoting social inclusion through improved access to employment (Guideline 7). And you know, I hope we get to a point where everyone has an equal opportunity to work in professional sports because there are a lot of great qualified coaches.
The substantive position was adopted by Bhikhu Parekh in 2000 in Rethinking Multiculturalism, in which he wrote that “all citizens should have equal opportunities to acquire the skills and abilities required to function in society and pursue their chosen goals equally” and that “compensatory measures are justified on grounds of justice, of social integration and harmony”. [32] [54] Parekh argued that equality of opportunity includes so-called cultural rights, which are “guaranteed by the recognition policy.” [32] But it has never been and never will be the place of equal mercy. In terms of content, the starting point before the start of the race is unfair because people had different experiences before they even approached the competition. The content-based approach assesses the candidates themselves before applying for a job and assesses whether they have equivalent skills or talents; And if not, it suggests that authorities (usually the government) are taking steps to make candidates more equal before they reach the point where they apply for a job, and resolving problems before they start has sometimes been described as “equitable access to qualifications”. [18] It aims to eliminate inequalities that may be due to “unfair disadvantage,” sometimes based on “past prejudices.” [8] Equality of opportunity, also called equal opportunity, in political theory, the idea that people should be able to compete for positions and privileged positions under equal conditions or under “equal conditions of competition”. Proponents of equal opportunities believe that the principle is compatible with any inequality of outcome and may even justify it, but there is considerable disagreement about the extent and nature of the inequalities it justifies and how it does so.