social justice essay definition

Roosevelt Review (Archives, 2014-2018)

Archives of roosevelt review: the roosevelt university alumni magazine, faculty essay: what is social justice.

May 14, 2015 by Susan Torres-Harding, associate professor of psychology 2 Comments

Susan Torres-Harding is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology. Her research interests include understanding the impact of sociocultural factors on physical and psychological health and assessing the development of social justice attitudes and social activism. She earned her PhD in Clinical Child Psychology from DePaul University in 2001.

Social justice has always been an important value to me and a foundation for my career aspirations. Therefore, in 2006, I was pleased to join the faculty at Roosevelt University, a university founded on inclusivity and one with a strong focus on social justice and social action. I quickly realized that this was a friendly “home” where I could continue to discuss the impact of societal inequalities and discrimination in health care, my own area of research.

At the same time, I was intrigued by the reactions of friends and colleagues when I told them that I was now at Roosevelt. Invariably, I would meet people who had been at Roosevelt in those early years, and they would tell me stories about what a special place Roosevelt is. They described Roosevelt as a school where people of all races came together—a college unlike others. The pictures hanging on the walls of the Auditorium Building from those early years are visual reminders of this truly unique integration of people from diverse racial groups at a time when racial segregation was the norm. Today Roosevelt continues to be ethnically and racially diverse, but the world has changed since Roosevelt came into being in 1945. In addition to racial injustice, which regrettably remains prevalent in our society, we now truly confront other forms of discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, social class and disability status.

As a Roosevelt psychology professor, I often talked in my classes about social justice as a key value for the Roosevelt community, but I found students grappled with the meaning of social justice. What is social justice? Whom is it for? Many students talked about social justice as if it were a high-minded ideal, unrealistic or impractical to do in real life. While we often discussed the need to use our knowledge and skills to work for a more fair and just society, I wondered if students had become overwhelmed with the amount of injustice in society and whether they believed they could actually make a difference in the world.

This led me to ask myself, what do students think social justice is all about? More importantly, I wanted to know what I could do to empower them to take action and strive to make a difference while at Roosevelt and after.

In response to these questions, I started a series of studies to investigate how students understood social justice and how, if at all, they were learning about our social justice message and integrating it into their own lives. What did all of this talk of social justice mean to the students? And, how could we, as educators, facilitate the goals of students who had the sincere desire to promote social justice, but who also had the notion that it was too hard, impractical, unrealistic or idealistic? As an educator, I had a personal stake in these questions. I wanted to know if integrating social justice concerns into my classes was actually making a difference in how students viewed themselves, their communities, and their own personal and professional actions. In other words, were we living up to the Roosevelt University mission of educating “socially conscious citizens”? Does talking about social justice make a difference, or is it all a lot of feel-good talk that is disconnected from reality?

Students Define Social Justice

To begin answering some of these questions, my research team and I embarked on a study to first understand how students defined social justice. In textbooks, researchers and educators define social justice as “involving the recognition of the existence of social injustices based upon being a member of a non-dominant or marginalized social group.” These marginalized social groups can include people who live in poverty, women, people who are LGBTQ, people who are disabled, people from racial and cultural minority groups, and people who have severe mental illness or have a substance abuse disorder. Researchers also defined social justice as “a value or desire to increase access of power, privileges and socioeconomic resources to people from socially marginalized groups.”

But is this how students thought about social justice? I believed it unlikely that most students would think about social justice in such abstract terms. So we conducted a study with Roosevelt students simply asking how they defined social justice. We found that students were relatively consistent in their definitions. They tended to describe social justice as addressing injustices in equality and promoting opportunity, rights, fairness and acceptance of everyone, including people from diverse backgrounds. Interestingly, a significant proportion (44 percent) of the students said they engaged in some activity that promoted social justice.

Additionally, we asked students to describe what they were actually doing to promote social justice. In most academic papers, social activism is defined as political activism: marching in protests, attending rallies, writing legislators or voting in order to promote policy or legal changes.

They tended to describe social justice as addressing injustices in equality and promoting opportunity, rights, fairness and acceptance of everyone, including people from diverse backgrounds.

Interestingly, there was a tremendous range of responses to our question. In addition to political activism, we identified many different categories of social justice activities, including conducting social-justice-related research, being a member of or volunteering for an organization that focused on social activism, seeking out educational opportunities to learn more about social justice, engaging in advocacy on behalf of people from disadvantaged or marginalized groups, and talking to family and friends about social justice.

What was most impressive to me was the creativity displayed by students as they sought to promote social justice, as well as the diversity of issues addressed by their actions. Many students reported participating in marches, protests and other direct social actions for economic or racial change. One participant was working to promote social justice by acting in a short film that aimed to foster acceptance of LGBTQ youth during the coming out process. Some students were using a social justice approach when providing clinical services to children with developmental disabilities. A few reported that they were engaged in youth mentoring or were working on behalf of youth within the juvenile justice system. Others were working to promote racial justice, women’s empowerment and awareness around diversity-related justice. Still others described being LGBTQ allies or serving as advocates for women who have endured domestic and sexual violence. We also had students who volunteered at community or religious organizations to help individuals around issues of poverty and food security.

A significant number of students indicated that they spoke with family or friends about these issues. I think that these kinds of actions are more quiet forms of activism. Discussing issues of social justice with significant others might have the impact of changing attitudes or gaining support from them. In turn, this might ultimately increase awareness of social issues and might influence others to take action in some way in their own lives.

Many of the students’ efforts involved using resources available at Roosevelt University. These included engaging in social-justice related research, attending lectures, being part of student groups and organizations that promoted social justice such as RU PROUD (a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning and ally organization) and Students for a Sensible Drug Policy , engaging in social justice as part of their professional clinical training and volunteering as part of service learning. Although less than half of the students we surveyed reported engaging in activism, those who were active appeared to take advantage of the resources and opportunities available at Roosevelt, and many sought to integrate these experiences with their academic studies.

Connecting With The Mission

The second study that my research team and I conducted focused on the role of the University mission in promoting positive attitudes toward social justice. I wanted to understand whether students who felt more involved at the University and agreed with its mission were in fact more likely to engage in social activism. Interestingly, I found that students who reported having a high sense of community—that is, feeling as if they belonged to the “Roosevelt family”—said they valued the social justice mission more.

Students who respected the social justice mission were much more likely to state that they intended to work for social justice in the future and felt that they possessed the skills to effect positive change. These students were also more likely to report having engaged in social activism, talk about social justice issues with family and friends and personally identify as social activists. It seems that Roosevelt’s social justice mission influenced students by impacting both positive attitudes toward social justice and facilitating the integration of social justice concerns into their personal and professional lives. Feeling a part of the Roosevelt community mattered because it allowed them to share in this core community value.

Thus, the mission and values of Roosevelt University are having an impact on our students’ actions. We are currently conducting additional studies where we hope to follow undergraduate students over time to see how their ideas and views of social justice might change as they move from freshman to senior year. We are also interviewing student activists to learn from their unique experiences, motivations and perceptions of their own work.

Indeed, it has been a pleasure to be able to assess and document the amazingly diverse and creative activism that is going on at Roosevelt. In addition to the examples listed above, Roosevelt students have participated in walk-outs and rallies in Grant Park, lobbied at the state capital, made videos to help educate others about traditionally marginalized groups, conducted interventions to promote health and wellness in our communities, and organized programs that give our students and people in the community a voice. We have so much to learn from our students!

An important part of social justice education is to trust that students are able to evaluate the information we provide and use it in a way that is valid, realistic and relevant to their own lives. Because students are able to come up with so many unique and creative ways to address injustices in their interpersonal and professional lives, professors should not provide answers, but rather should pose questions to help students recognize the real challenges in our society. We can encourage them to critically evaluate their own views and the views of others and provide them with a range of interventions and interpersonal skills that they can then use to confront a range of social problems and issues in their own ways. We also need to recognize that this is hard, risky work.

An important part of social justice education is to trust that students are able to evaluate the information we provide and use it in a way that is valid, realistic and relevant to their own lives.

Working for social justice is, by its nature, “radical” because it focuses on changing the status quo, challenging existing policies and can involve breaking rules. As educators, it is important that we not only talk about social justice but provide students with the skills they need to take action and be effective. Promoting favorable attitudes and teaching interpersonal intervention and activism skills will have a positive impact on students and help them fulfill the Roosevelt mission of creating “socially conscious citizens” who change the world.

Contact Susan Torres-Harding at [email protected]

November 23, 2018 at 10:53 am

extremely nice one……..

[…] Faculty Essay: What is social justice? – Roosevelt Review – Faculty Essay; Scholarship Spotlight; Issue. Fall 2015; Spring 2015; Fall 2014; Faculty Essay: What is social justice … assessing the development of social justice … […]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Social Justice: History, Purpose and Meaning

• Social Science and Public Policy
• Published: 27 October 2017
• Volume 54 , pages 541–548, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

• Allan C. Ornstein 1  

52k Accesses

14 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Social scientists study social mobility in order to ascertain the relative openness or fluidity of a social structure. They are interested in the difficulties different persons or groups experience in acquiring the goods and services that are valued in the culture and may be acquired through unequal contributions.

In ascription societies, the stratification system is closed to individual mobility because prestige (or status) is determined at birth. The amount of education one will receive, the occupational status one will enter, one’s income and one’s whole lifestyle cannot be changed. In an open-class society, although people start with different advantages, opportunities are available for them to change their initial positions. The life chances of a welfare recipient’s son born in the slums differ considerably from those of a banker’s son born in the suburbs. Although the playing field is tilted and stacked against the slum child, in an achievement-oriented society, the former can achieve as much or more than the latter.

The emphasis on vertical social mobility in the American social structure is one of the most striking features of our class system—and the basis for what we often call the “American dream.” Kurt Mayer, in Class and Society , puts it this way: “The United States has placed greater emphasis on social mobility than any other large nation in modern times. Americans have firmly proclaimed the idea of equality and freedom of achievement and have acclaimed the large numbers of individuals who have risen from humble origins to positions of prominence and affluence.” The believe in opportunity is strongly embedded in the American culture, a view promulgated in the stories of Horatio Alger and songs like “Rags to Riches.”

Most Americans would accept the above analysis of mobility and opportunity. But that’s not how the world works: For some 5000 years of recorded history, until the late eighteenth century, the ordinary person (nearly 99% of the populace) has lived on the edge of starvation, slightly above subsistence level, with no rights and no justice.

The Ancient World

From the beginning of civilization to the American Revolution, the monarchs, priests, and warlords (later the nobility class) ruled the world. Economic growth would enhance the wealth of those who were already rich or powerful; the masses were little more than slaves, serfs, peasants, or chattel—who worked until death or disablement and whose life expectancy was 30 to 35 years—depending on the century and society. Behavior was grounded in appetite, or desire and self-interest. Those with power and wealth sought to retain their position, and there was minimal or no opposition by working and subordinate people who lacked the ability to oppose what was perceived as the natural order. Nothing could be done to change it, and that is how the world existed for centuries. The idea that humans have rights is a relatively new concept—not more than 350 years old.

Heredity privilege governed society and those fortune by birth were expected to benefit at the expense of the working masses who were limited by their unprivileged birth. Intelligence or any other human strength had to be extraordinary before it could count for much in comparison to heredity privilege. Each person, relying on traditions of birthright and background and his own resources, labored within a fixed, stratified society. The rewards went to the rich and powerful, while the ordinary person worked from dawn to dusk and lived in poverty and squalor. The superiority of civilization over barbarianism did very little to change the miserable conditions of working people. In short, life for the common person was brutal and short. The masses were controlled by those who ruled. Might made right; there was no rule of law. Human rights or social justice were nonexistent. Plunder and rape, starvation and war, characterized the flow of events.

With the exception of the Greeks and Romans, all the great civilizations of the ancient world would fall under the aristocratic rule of monarchs and emperors, supported with an entrenched and corrupt nobility or property class, where the mass were either slaves, manual laborers or peasant farmers who toiled until their death. The vast majority of people were nothing more than disposable units of production kept alive at the subsistence level. Their function was to keep the system running. Their wages or economic rewards would mainly cover the cost of their daily existence so they could produce the next generation of children who would be laborers or till the land. People lived by war and conquest and developed first from warlike families which grew into clans and tribes, cemented by blood, which then grew into small villages and settlements and then city-states and monarchies and kingdoms.

The warlords who commanded armies were paid by monarchs in gold, property and for titles in exchange for their loyalty. These warring leaders obtained heredity titles and land, and thus transformed into the “gentry” or nobility class. They gained recognition for possession of goods and people, as well as military valor. The masses—whether they were slaves or serfs, peasant farmers or laborers—surrendered their rights and freedom to those who could provide security and protect them from plunder and facilitate their survival needs. People were willing to live in a society where government had a heavy hand, even in an authoritarian order, so long as they knew they could live in relative safety; their goal was not to be raped or brutalized by stronger people and roaming armies—and to have food on the table.

What we are describing here is a gloomy and brutal world—and why people are often willing to give up their freedom, including their rights and opportunities. Civilization brought a degree of peace and security for the masses, compared to the age of barbarianism. In a nut shell, a social order accompanied by a freedom of fear, plunder and rape takes precedence over economic possessions and prizes and even human rights. In a Hobbesian world, there is no moral high ground. People of power and property seek their own self-preservation and combine by marriage and alliance to obtain more power and property. They act as a force for change at the expense of less powerful people who are just trying to live day-to-day and feed themselves.

Our Western Heritage: The Greeks and Romans

Now ancient Greece and Rome were a slightly different story. Their development was a variation of this theme, from barbarianism to civilization. But their political system was cemented by human agreement. Citizens had a political voice among ruling elites, rather than the simple bloodline and hereditary succession and the complete domination of the masses in the ancient civilizations that preceded them.

In the Greek era, a distant mirror of the politics of our own age, it was believed that the citizens had certain rights and civic duties—and could argue for or against any proposition in the marketplace of ideas—the courts, the public arena, etc.

Plato’s Republic fashioned a plan for a perfect state ruled by an intellectual elite of philosopher-kings—not a money elite or hereditary aristocracy. Society existed to cultivate truth and virtue in its inhabitants, based on assumptions that only knowledgeable men should rule and that all inhabitants who had basic rights should contribute to the general welfare according to their intellectual capacity and particular aptitude. Education, not privileged birth, was the major vehicle for defining the social and economic relations of the residents in Plato’s Republic . The educational system played a selective role as it rated intellectual aptitude and sorted children into future categories: philosopher-kings, auxiliaries and soldiers, and workers. Once assigned to a class, individuals received the appropriate education assigned to their social-economic position—and mobility was frozen. Plato believed that each class would fulfill a necessary function and contribute to the common good. Such a society, he believed, would be harmonious.

Even now, both liberal and conservative thinkers, love to make comparisons between the ancient Greeks and our Western heritage. To some extent, we are all Greeks—at least in terms of our culture and political beliefs. Americans, I believe, are more likely to agree with a dead Greek poet or philosopher than the best known lawyers or social scientists of the modern world to bolster an argument or advocate a point of view. We think the ancient scholars from the Greek islands spoke with less spin (and more virtue) than modern politicians and policymakers. This view is especially seen in the writings of traditional educators and philosophers who advocate the classics and great books approach to education.

It would be nice to envision America as the sole heir of Athens—where democracy first flourished—and to be a champion of moral virtue and humanitarianism. But we are also Romans. The same land that gave us Cierco and Virgil, and forged the foundations of our Republic, forced humans (gladiators) to square off against each other and against wild animals. It is true that Cierco had climbed from relatively humble surroundings to the highest offices of the Roman Empire. With Cierco’s death, however, more precisely his assassination, the Empire lost its most staunchest legal advocate and political conscience—and soon fell under the autocratic rule of a series of notorious and corrupt emperors who brought ruin and decay to Roman society.

In his last years of life, Cierco warned the Senate about patrician greed and class warfare, and to shame his colleagues in the Senate about growing inequality between the patrician and plebian classes. The orator’s words ring loud today: “A belief has become established—and harmful to the Republic…that these courts, with you senators as the jury, will never convict any man, however guilty if he has sufficient money.” We must also read Tacitus in terms of “diminutive rivalries.” Strong men will trample weak men in war, politics or business affairs “as long as there are prizes to contend for which move their avarice or their ambition.”

We overlook the fact that Greek and Roman society, like all the previous ancient societies, were built on the backs of slaves, and only a minority of Greeks and Romans had the rights and privileges described by the great Greek and Roman philosophers. We love to trace our philosophical thoughts to Greece and Rome, but we ignore that both civilizations believed in a government run by the well educated and property class—nothing more, if I may add, than an oligarchy—and what later would be called the European nobility.

The expectation remained in Europe, and the rest of the world (except America), that the masses were destined to live at the brink of starvation, famine and disease. This was the way it had been since the dawn of civilization. The human condition was characterized first by chaos and then misery—as the strong plundered the weak. Economic life was a struggle, pure and simple. Life was brutal and short, void of human rights or justice.

The idea of a social contract between government and the people or that people had natural rights and could live a descent life, with opportunities for improving their condition, was considered illogical and contrary to the norms of society. It violated the customs and traditions of the relations that bounded the Church and the faithful, Prince and subject people, property owner and peasant, master and servant. Equally disturbing was that in the normal course of events ordinary people did not expect anything but misfortune and privation, nor did they expect significant improvement in their social status or standard of living. From the beginning of recorded history, the workers and weaker members of society expected to be pressed down and exploited. The majority opinion was that the passions of men did not conform to the ideas of reason, fairness or justice; hence, there was the uncritical acceptance of the selfish nature of man—and that the strong would prey over the weak.

A slightly more optimistic current took hold in America, spearheaded by political leaders who were influenced by the humanitarian ideas of the Age of Enlightenment. Still, the concepts of slavery and indentured servants existed and were woven into the social order during the colonial and post-colonial era. The platitudes of moral behavior, the common good, and helping the less fortunate (Kant’s doctrines), the natural rights of men (Voltaire’s idea), a social contract between government and the people (Rousseau’s dictum), the notion of “life, liberty and property” (Locke’s statement) and the substitution of property for “pursuit of happiness” (Jefferson’s modification) were all abstract ideas that went against the tide of opinion and the dictates of reason prior to the American Revolution.

In Europe Locke, Voltaire, and Rousseau were considered extremely radical among their contemporaries, promoting ideas based on a false and untenable conception of human nature. In some ways they were the mouse that roared. Few people of power and property took them seriously, but eventually their writings began to seep into discussions at the taverns and coffee shops of Geneva, London and Paris. Despite the American and French Revolution, the upper classes in both the Old and New World did not subscribe to these doctrines, nor did they have faith and/or respect in the common people or the rights of the people. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was considered a traitor to the class interests of Southern plantation owners and northern bankers, similar to the way Franklin Roosevelt more than 150 years later was viewed by the Brahmins and business class when he implemented civilian work programs, unemployment insurance and Social Security for Americans during the Great Depression.

During the Industrial Revolution which started in merry-old England around the time of the American Revolution, special skills and special abilities of people resulted in slightly higher wages than the norm. But the fixed economic system and social traditions of prior societies directed toward the past remained intact, rather than toward a future which men themselves might shape. The amount of people who rose from pittance to what might be called middle class was miniscule in numbers compared to the masses who remained poor and destitute.

Actually, the Industrial Revolution increased inequality between the mercantile and manufacturing class with the labor and working class because the vast portion of wealth attributed to economic growth went to the economic elite, not the masses. To be sure, a rising tide does not always lift all boats in the water, not when the surrounding environment or custom is fixed and not when a person’s position in society is considered from a static position as it was viewed for centuries. We are not all in the same boat, as Jack found out the hard way in the movie Titanic . No doubt the new industries allowed a tiny number of entrepreneurial people to accumulate capital and equipment. Thus a few people endowed by nature, that is by strength and cunning, were able to take advantage of the fruits of their power and abilities.

This new concept of competition and productivity led to nineteenth century Darwinist thinking, that is “survival of the fittest” and Herbert Spencer’s dictum, the “law of the jungle.” Such ideas could be viewed as an outgrowth of the ancient world which set man against man in the pursuit of power, prestige and wealth—and left the masses to fend for themselves relative to their state of nature. This idea was modified in the New World, whereby common people could successfully compete and fit well into the American landscape, largely because of the frontier experience, the abundance of free land and natural resources, the constant flow of immigrants, and the long-favored notion of progress and change. Moreover, there was no history of warlords, family lineage or bloodlines; the land had not been carved up by centuries of war and strife, by warlords who later became known as Dukes, Earls, and Barons.

The point is that in the U.S., there was so much land and resources for the taking that it did not create a zero-sum game between the power elite and the common person; the people with new powers and property allowed the masses to accumulate their own riches because there was so much land available for anyone who was willing to risk the unknown and work hard. “Survival of the fittest” eventually blended into the folklore of the West and later the customs of the Gilded Age. The picture of the self-made man of the nineteenth century, epitomized by the robber baron, warped into Ayn Rand’s book, Atlas-Shrugged, published in 1957. In the twentieth century, Rand’s image of the self-reliant, egotistical person rejected the idea of the common good, altruism and helping less fortunate people. In both centuries, however, the capitalist system evolved from the brutal conditions of the ancient world: The strong survived and the weak barely existed or perished. Life was a struggle, a part of nature—where every group, every animal or human was always in a ceaseless struggle with its environment and its species.

Material wealth at the expense of “the herd” or ordinary people was common. Greed was and still is considered good; it’s the fuel or engine that supposedly drives the economy. There is little concern for the working person—as well as for the weak, the old, the disabled, etc.

The Promised Land

But America is the land of opportunity, where peoples’ aspirations and dreams come true, where ordinary citizens have rights guaranteed by law. Immigrants fleeing from oppressive governments or economic hardship can start a new life and have multiple chances to succeed.

Keep in mind our history: The ideas of the Enlightenment, when transported across the ocean, prevailed over authoritarianism and theocracy. Thank the heavens that a group of middle-aged rebels were willing to put their lives on the line, and thank Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence and said the right words at the right time and provided the framework that gave us the natural right to establish the rights of people and separate the church and state. Of course, the English aristocrats and conservatives did not see it the same way. Harping on the vulgarity and clumsiness of their former colonialists, one English novelist some 50 years ago summed up the American revolutionists as “malcontented” children and Americans in general as “cowards” who were “almost all the descendants of wretches who deserted their legitimate monarchs for fear of military service.”

The doctrine of natural rights of man, “the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the idea that “all men are created equal,” a belief in “a government of the people and by the people,” the rights to own land, the rights to assemble, to protest and express opinions, the devotion to education and self-improvement for plain people—all these principles that we take for granted today did not come easily and required an uphill battle of ideas and for the minds of people. Liberty and freedom are not given to a country, but it is a result of hard-won struggles, a belief in the rights of all people and the protection of minority rights. It is not easy to transcend religion in a deeply religious country as ours, and to allow secular laws to prevail. It is not easy to overcome the power of the rich and allow the people to govern, whereby the rich ultimately have to answer to the people and where the rule of law prevails.

In the U.S. capitalism would be encouraged to expand, but there would be no feudal class, no peasant class, no serfs perpetually indentured to the monarch or nobility class. There would be genuine reform in which people of different classes and occupations would come nearer in speaking the same language and have similar opportunities than anywhere else in the world. The reward system based on inherited privilege and power would be curtailed so that the nation would not have the same “winners” and “losers” from one generation to the other. The ultimate question comes down to what we should do so all Americans could thrive. The answer was to use government to bring about reform so everyone had the potential to prosper. The country would have to work for everyone! A government of the people and for the people was the only counter force powerful enough to curtail corporate power and abuse.

So we are the lucky ones. Over the course of nearly 250 years, this nation has grown from a small cluster of colonies with a ragtag collection of people and a makeshift army, to a free, mighty, and wealthy nation—the most influential one in the history of humankind and on the present world stage. How was this possible? Does it boil down to accident, luck, or design?

I cannot give you a precise answer—why we are the chosen ones, or the lucky ones. The answer, to some extent, comes from the heart, from the feelings and emotions of plain people, immigrant people, and working people who inhabit our landscape and who know they are free: Free from the yoke of oppression, free from the sword, whip and boot—and therefore strive, innovate, and invent. Despite that we are a nation of many nations, with different customs and folklore, we all speak the same language as free men and women and breathe the same free air. The answer also comes from all the people around the world who clamor to come to our shores to escape their nations’ rulers, tyrants, and oligarchies, to find that pot of gold that can only be found in the New World. Here common people can fulfill their dreams. Here justice has a chance to prevail.

James Weaver, a Populist philosopher at the turn of the twentieth century, identified with the Founding Fathers of 1776 and put it this way: “Throughout all history we have had ample evidence that the new world is the theater upon which the great struggle for the rights of man is to be made,” Or, could the answer simply be what Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian chancellor, once muttered? “God has special providence for fools, drunks, and the United States of America.”

Alex de Tocqueville, perhaps the most influential visitor and profound observer of America, put it in more realistic terms in 1835: Whereas a “permanent inequality of condition prevailed” in the Old World, where the social conditions tended “to promote the despotism of the monarchs and ruling class on the masses,” the principle of democracy prevailed in the United States. Some 175 years later, another foreign gentleman, this time an immigrant from the far-off land of India, Dinesh D’Souza (someone much more conservative but just as idealistic as Weaver and de Tocqueville) commented: “America is a new kind of society that produces a new kind of human being. The human being—confident, self-reliant, tolerant, generous, future oriented—is a vast improvement over the wretched, fatalistic, and intolerant human being that traditional societies have always produced and…produce now.”

Then there is David Reynolds, a Cambridge historian, who recently wrote a lengthy history of the U.S., entitled America: Empire of Liberty . American contradictions are described between our lofty ideals and practice. He sees the nation as an empire pieced together by war and conquest, much like other empires of the past. But he also sees America as the successful integration of different people from around the world with diverse and innovative thoughts. Faceless and unknown, lacking hereditary privilege and wealth, people come to America seeking a new beginning, a fair chance, and a future that is offered no where else on earth.

The pictures at Ellis Island tell a story: A tale of people clamoring to come to America, some weeping for joy as they passed into the New York Harbor and saw the Statue of Liberty beckoning them—the huddled masses yearning to be free. The American dream is built on the aspirations and achievements of these immigrants risking life and limb to come to our shores, some seeking political asylum, others seeking economic opportunity and/or a new life. Indeed, there is no better way to judge this country, or any country, than by the numbers of people trying to get into it, as opposed to other parts of the world where people are desperately trying to get out of their country.

The Roots of Social Justice

The notion of social justice is based on the Christian doctrine of helping less fortunate people—the weak, sickly, and oppressed. To be sure, Jesus cared deeply about people. He went out of his way to help people facing injustices. The Bible is full of passages that advocate helping and caring for people. Instead of being motivated by power, pride, or material wealth, those clergy that follow the scriptures find purpose through acts of justice.

Since the 1920s, social democratic governments in Western Europe have reinforced the view that all citizens should be treated equally. Society cannot be fair or just if it has different categories or types of citizenship, such as nobility and the rest of the population, whites as first class citizens and blacks as second class, dominant and subordinate (or oppressed) groups, etc. Inequality must be reduced or eliminated; opportunities for poor and working people need to be expanded; government is obligated to provide free health and education (including college) services; the free market system needs to be regulated by government; labor has the right to organize into unions; resources need to be allocated more equally; and the rich have to pay higher taxes. In short, income and wealth should be redistributed so there is greater opportunity and equality among the populace, and therefore more justice.

Across the Atlantic Ocean, it was and still is considered unwise to associate with Europe’s “social democracy” to avoid being labeled as socialists. The word “liberalism” was used in lieu of socialism. When liberal became a derogatory word, the same ideas were expressed as “progressive.” Nonetheless, similar ideas were being promogated as part of Theodore Roosevelt’s “Square Deal,” Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” Harry Truman’s “Fair Deal,” Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty and “Great Society” and Bill “Clintonomics.” The rational behind these policies were discussed in terms of human rights, rooted in the Age of Enlightenment and the U.S. Bill of Rights. Ideally government would be used to bring about reform so that every American could participate in the American dream; government legislation would right the wrongs of history.

Starting in the early 1960s social scientists began to touch on topics of justice without using or identifying the name. The conversation focused on equality—and issues related to class and caste. Indeed, the 1960s ushered in a period in which the social conscious of Americans burst forth—coinciding with our concern over racial discrimination, poverty, and equal opportunity. Three authors/books stand out during this period.

James Conant, the Harvard University president, was part of the Educational Establishment. In 1961 he published Slums and Suburbs. Slum schools were compared to their suburban counterparts; they lacked resources, experienced teachers, and a relevant curriculum that could meet the needs of their students. Slum schools were in grave physical condition— characterized by broken windows, broken toilets, and graffiti on the walls. Conant wrote that the students in the ghetto areas of large cities “either drop out or graduate from school [with minimal] prospects of future education or employment.” He argued that youth out of school and out of work was “a menace to the social and political health of the large cities.” He went on to coin the word “social dynamite” and warned that if the social/economic situation did not improve in these schools and cities there would be serious consequences. In short, he was predicting the social and racial upheaval that would soon grip the American landscape.

The same year (1961) John Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under the Johnson administration, wrote Excellence: Can We Be Equal Too? He discussed social issues that later gave rise to equal opportunity legislation and affirmative action policies. Gardner noted that extreme forms of egalitarianism in schools or jobs tended to eliminate both excellence and merit. On the other hand, extreme forms of competition and excellence could create a permanent underclass with the less abled. He tried to draw a middle position, including multiple chances for succeeding and identifying many different forms of talent—not just academic talent. “It takes more than an educated elite to run a complex, technical society.” Differences in rewards are accepted so long as people with special abilities serve the common good and do not use them against society, say in robbing a bank. There is also an expectation that society will establish appropriate institutions such as schools and colleges to nurture those differences in abilities and talents, but it must also provide opportunity for people who are not as smart and talented.

The following year (1962), Michael Harrington, who was a socialist writer published The Other America . The book focused on the forgotten, overlooked, and invisible American, that is the poor who he claimed comprised one third of the US population. Harrington’s main point was that poverty was no longer cyclical or temporary. The condition was permanent in the midst of general prosperity; it was a travesty in the richest nation of the world that so many Americans were struggling and living day-to-day. Although the book was small in size, it was a major factor in galvanizing nation-wide support for assisting the less fortunate in America. It was crucial in influencing both President Kennedy and Johnson, and led to the subsequent War on Poverty.

In 1971, John Rawls, a Harvard University professor, published A Theory of Justice . He criticized the gap between the highest and lowest paid workers, called for a floor and ceiling in earnings to close the gaps in income, and advocated that the rich pay more taxes. He also asserted that justice must be conceived in terms of fairness and basic moral principles. A social contract was needed to ensure basic rights for the people. Although Rawls’ writing was cumbersome and difficult to read, the book was instrumental in getting scholars and pundits to discuss and write about the principles and policies of justice. Eventually, the notion of justice was fused into the US civil rights movement, emphasizing the rights of all people and the moral principles of justice.

The Meaning of Social Justice

Social Justice means different things to different people. If you are going to speak or write about social justice you will need to have some understanding of what is a democracy, what rights do people have or should have, and how society should provide for less fortunate people. In the pages below, the author identifies 30 basic principles that should be considered as a framework for defining justice (social justice).

The history of Western society bends toward social justice. The fight for social justice is incremental and extends over centuries. The interpretation and judgment of social justice depends on who interprets it and who writes the laws of society.

Ordinary people can change the course of history by joining a movement. Social justice is a movement for improving the lives of people. You usually get one or two chances in life to join a movement and make a difference. The idea, to paraphrase Aretha Franklin, is to know when the train is coming, to get on board, and to hold your head up high. In short, the fight for social justice takes persistence, guts, and knowing and doing what’s right.

A fair and just society will encourage democratic principles of equality, opportunity, and mobility. It will also provide a legal framework for human rights (the concept is less than 350 years old), civil rights, and individual rights.

Every democratic society must try to reduce the gap in income and wealth among its citizenry. There must be a reasonable floor and ceiling in income and wealth.

The floor and ceiling is achieved through some form of monetary redistribution and taxation, as well as by political compromise. But just when you think you have reached some compromise or agreement, the political winds change and you have a new floor and ceiling.

In a just society, all lives have equal value, equal opportunity and equal chances for success.

A socially just society cannot forget or ignore people in need, nor leave the majority of its people behind. It must put people first—not property nor profits. It must be willing to examine and reexamine its beliefs and philosophy on a regular basis.

All groups, including those who define themselves as a political minority (blacks, Hispanics, women, gay lesbians, labor unions, etc.) recognize some bias and discrimination will always exist. But in a just society, the bias and discrimination are minimal and minority groups have the same rights as the majority and are able to fulfill their dreams.

In a fair or just society, the class structures are fluid in both directions—up and down, from lower class to upper class and from upper class to lower.

In a just society, there must be a political and legal framework that protects and enhances the rights of the people. Laws must not be based on partisan or tribal politics, or they will become temporary, but rooted in moral, social, and economic doctrines that provide opportunities and mobility for all people and groups in society.

In a just society, individual rights supersede group rights, corporate rights and property rights. Lawyers and judges have elevated status. The ordinary person can find legal protection as well as redress in the courts. The police must follow and obey the laws.

For social justice to flourish, the government must be prepared to intervene. A free-market system, without government restraints, leads to greater inequality whereby talented people make large sums of money and average and less than average workers (the common people or silent majority) are paid at best a living wage.

A society characterized by a wide income/wealth gap rewards special talent and entrepreneurship. A society characterized by a narrow gap pays descent wages to ordinary people and rewards the working and middle class.

Those who believe that a social contract exists between government and its people reject large gaps in income and wealth; such differences reflect the excesses of capitalism. Those who believe in limited government see large differences in income and wealth as a reflection of the success of capitalism.

Given a social contract, the government not only protects the people, but also provides revenue for building schools, roads, and bridges; it also provides safety nets and social programs for its disadvantaged populace, including the poor, sick, disabled, and elderly.

An innovative and entrepreneurial society will accept large amounts of inequality; a fair or just society will reduce these differences.

The people who believe that getting ahead is a matter of perspiration, talent, or enterprise tend to oppose government intervention and redistributive policies, as well as social programs, safety nets, or entitlements. On the other hand, those who believe that “success” is related to inherited advantages, socioeconomic advantages, or worse, being a member of a dominant group (i.e. born white and born in an upper-class family) support redistributive policies and/or reverse discrimination.

Those who believe in the Horacio Alger stories of hard work, self-denial, and honor contend that those who are “successful” have earned their money and deserve it. Those who believe that many wealthy people have acquired their money or assets by inheritance or by exploiting the system (Rockerfellers, Goulds, Kennedys, Trump) believe that ordinary people have little chance for “success.” That said, social justice has a long road ahead.

Those who control capital, property and/or equipment represent the dominant class—and how wealth is created. Mobility and opportunity must exist to the extent that the subordinate class, or more precisely the common people who work for a living, can improve their social-economic status.

In a just society, those who have the least benefit from those who have the most via charity works, philanthropy, and in fair tax code.

Although a dominant and subordinate group may exist in all societies, in a just society, the differences do not lead to institutional racism, class consciousness, or economic warfare.

If the assignment of personal responsibility is used to justify inequality of income and wealth, then there is little chance for social justice. Of course, there could be other reasons for the difference in outcomes such as personal characteristics, luck, or making the right choice at the right time. It is fair if people have more money or assets than others if there is equal opportunity for all citizens.

Power corrupts; power must be held accountable. In a just society, the people have the ability to peacefully remove their political leaders and elected officials whenever they deem it necessary.

For social justice to be part of the fabric of society, the people must be afforded the right and legal mechanism to investigate, impeach, convict and/or jail their political leaders for incompetence, corruption and/or unlawful behavior.

Government laws or executive orders that discriminate against specific groups (racial, ethnic or religious), under the guise of protecting the majority of people or preserving a way of life, are morally wrong and usually illegal. In democratic societies, such laws and orders must be challenged and rejected by the people in the courts or legislated bodies of that country.

In a fair and just society, people are paid on the basis of the goods and services they produce for the common good. In a society that stresses excellence, people are paid on the basis of supply/demand, the profit they generate or the cost occurred by hiring them. Those who generate profits are paid the most, sometimes hundreds or thousands of times more than those who are considered cost factors. Teachers are cost factors. The idea is for school boards to control the budget and limit salaries.

So long as Americans have the view that the Sam Waltons, Mark Zuckerbergs Michael Jordans and Madonnas of the world, and all their descendants are entitled to all their wealth, because they worked hard, founded highly successful companies, or could shoot a ball through a hoop or entertain large crowds, then the millions and billions they make will continue to create social injustices and economic imbalance—and doom the rest of us to a bleak future characterized by vast inequality.

Globalization affects social justice. The market is seven billion people, not just the size of our country. This means a bigger pie for millionaires and billionaires to build their wealth, thus increasing inequality and reducing social justice around the world. In a just society, the majority of people must be committed to a level playing field, and some legitimate form of equality, even if it means that income and wealth will be redistributed to less fortunate people.

When two and two is considered to be five (or up is down and down is up), by a majority populace or by those in power, social justice is at risk and/or significantly diminished.

Words count. They are the instrument for both reflection and revolution. A just society permits and defends free speech, a free press and the right to protest peacefully. It recognizes and supports poetry, plays, songs, speeches and film, as well as the publication of newspapers, magazines and books as essential for the health and vitality of society. Words can be used for waging war or for healing.

Consider that the rich and powerful have always kept the masses in a subordinate position, thus curtailing the opportunity for the majority populace. Only in recent times, with the rise of democratic governments in Western society do the common people have a chance to curtail the dominant class (the rich and powerful) by voting at the ballot box, as well as a chance to reach for the stars and fulfill their own dreams. With the twenty-first century unfolding in the U.S., there should be continuous pressure to increase equality and redistribute income and wealth.

The commitment to provide a fair chance for everyone to succeed and develop their abilities and talents remains central to the national creed for the vast majority of Americans; this is what distinguishes us from the rest of the world. Virtually no one in the U.S. favors equal distribution of income for it would discourage hard work, risk taking and innovation. Some form of inequality, based on abilities and talent, is the price we pay for a dynamic economy and the right for each person to retain the benefits of his or her labor, capital investment or property. The idea is not to focus on the outcomes of inequality, but to address the reasons for inequality—and what can be done to improve the human condition.

It is doubtful if inequality of income and wealth can be reduced simply by education, because the gap between the rich and the rest of us is so great and continues to grow wider. A moral society needs to redistribute income and wealth in order to make its nation more democratic, fair and just. Finding the right mechanism, reaching some compromise, setting limits on income and wealth (a floor and ceiling) is no easy task. Nonetheless, it is essential that we begin to make such changes if most of us in this country are to share in the American dream.

Every generation going forward is obligated to interpret and reinterpret the principles of human rights and justice. Every person in a free society must learn the government’s obligations to its people and the peoples’ obligation to their fellow citizens and humanity in general. That said, the meaning you find in the above 30 principles of justice depends on your own sense of history and life experiences. The list is not permanent, and should evolve as society changes. The handwriting is on the wall. You only have to see six inches in front of your eyeballs. As the population changes and we become more diverse, educated and tolerant as a nation, we can expect a more liberal or progressive interpretation of justice.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, Sullivan Hall, 5th Fl, St. John’s University, 8000 Utopia Parkway, Queens, NY, 11439, USA

Allan C. Ornstein

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Allan C. Ornstein .

Additional information

This article is dedicated to Sophia and Carissa who will eventually come to understand the meaning and implications of the article below.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ornstein, A.C. Social Justice: History, Purpose and Meaning. Soc 54 , 541–548 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-017-0188-8

Download citation

Published : 27 October 2017

Issue Date : December 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-017-0188-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples

⭐ top 10 social justice issues to write about, 🏆 best social justice topic ideas & essay examples, ⭐ simple & easy social justice essay titles, 📌 most interesting social justice topics to write about, 👍 good social justice research topics, ❓ research questions about social justice.

Social justice essays are an excellent tool for demonstrating your awareness of the current issues in society.

Inequality in society should be addressed, and social justice advocates are at the forefront of such initiatives. Everyone should be able to achieve their goals and dreams if they put in the effort, assuming of course that reaching that target is at all possible.

To that end, you should ask various social justice essay questions and investigate different situations, particularly those that surround marginalized communities.

While the civil rights movement has succeeded in eliminating discriminatory policies and gender segregation, people should remain vigilant so that inequality again.

There are many topics you can discuss in your essay, but is better to focus on something specific and conduct a detailed investigation. It is easy to take some examples of data that shows a situation that seems unequal and declare that the system is flawed.

However, the data may be inaccurate, and the causes may be different from what you initially perceive them to be. Many fields will be too small for statistic laws to apply, and so there will be a temporary prevalence of people with a specific trait.

Declarations of premature conclusions and calls to action based on these conjectures are not productive and will generally lead to harm.

Be sure to consider evidence from both sides when discussing the topic of injustice, especially in its sensitive applications.

The case of police officers and the racial disparity in arrests is a prominent example, as there is significant disagreement, and neither side can be considered entirely correct.

At other times, unequal treatments may be explained by racial and gender differences without the application of discriminatory practices, particularly with regards to cultural practices.

The importance of justice is above debate, but it is not always about declaring one side correct while the other is wrong and at fault. Humanity operates best when it is unified and follows the same purpose of fairness.

Lastly, try to avoid confusing equality with equity, as the two social justice essay topics are significantly different. The former involves similar starting conditions and opportunities for all people, though they will likely achieve varying successes in life.

The latter means equality of outcomes, meaning that the unsuccessful receive support, which logically has to come at the expense of those who succeed.

You may support either position, with equality being a more traditional concept that seems logical to many people and equity being considered effective at improving the conditions of marginalized communities. However, make your position clear, as the difference is critical and informs your personal concept of social justice.

Here are some additional tips for your paper:

• Separate the points you make in your essay with social justice essay titles. These titles will help the reader navigate the paper and understand your main claims.
• Try to introduce original ideas instead of contributing to ongoing debates. An essay does not allow enough space to let you add something that will change the situation to such discussions.
• The topic of social justice is inherently political, as most suggestions will involve policy-level changes. However, you should try to distance yourself from politics and work with factual information.

Visit IvyPanda to find more social justice essay examples and other useful paper samples to boost your creative process!

• Unemployment.
• Global Warming.
• School Shooting.
• Income Inequality.
• Global Pandemic.
• Social Security.
• Racial & LGBTQ Discrimination.
• Mental Health Stigma.
• Famine and Starvation.
• Discrimination in Voting.
• Social Justice in Education With a clear distinction between justice taught in class and justice allowed to thrive in the school environments, teachers can be able to observe how their students perceive and response to social injustices in the […]
• Advocating for Social Justice in Healthcare However, health care is also often related to the idea of social justice a term that describes the allocation of resources and benefits to people according to their needs and abilities.
• Social Justice: The Catholic’s Social Teachings on Justice The church also seeks to instill value in the prisoners’ lives through teachings and practices that accept prisoners as people who deserve to be treated with dignity.
• Social Justice and Mental Health However, it is difficult to imagine the U.S.taking nationwide action on mental health due to the absence of healthcare for physical health, which is widely accepted as a serious issue.
• David Miller’s Theory of Desert in Social Justice The dependence of rewards on the variety of external and conditional factors makes the public and scholars question the idea of the desert and its use for justice.
• Jay-Z’s Contribution to Hip-Hop and Fight for Social Justice One should admit that the crime rate among black people in some poor areas is really quite high, and that is another problem Jay-Z covers in his music.
• Social Justice and the Australian Indigenous People The main idea behind the formation of the social justice commission was to give the indigenous Australian people choice by empowering them to stand up for their rights.
• Black Lives Matter and Social Justice Social media is a new public platform that has proved to be extremely effective in fighting against the normalization of violence against African-Americans.
• Freedom and Social Justice Through Technology These two remarkable minds have made significant contributions to the debates on technology and how it relates to liberty and social justice.
• Factors of Strategic Management of Social Justice Starting to talk about economic and technological changes that affect the sector of social justice, it is possible to observe tendencies of the level of development of the country from social policy.
• Social Justice from a Philosophical Perspective Although their theories of justice were significant, they would not have existed without Plato’s influence and the contribution that their ideas of justice have made to political philosophy.
• Social Justice in the Modern World The main link in social relations is a measure of social justice, a derivative of the equality of people’s opportunities to realize their potential.
• Social Justice Quotes from “The Wife’s Lament” by Beck “never worse than now ever I suffer the torment of my exile”.”that man’s kinsmen began to think in secret that they would separate us” “so we would live far apart in the world” “My lord […]
• Social Justice in Counseling Psychology The other barrier which is likely to arise in the process of integrating social justice in the workplace is legal and ethical issues.
• Social Justice and Vulnerability Theories When the country’s economic analyzers assess the status of the economy, the older people are regarded as the first group of the population that is pulling the economy backward because they are entirely dependent.
• Social Justice in Social Work Practice The moral approach of social work is fundamentally based on the idea of social justice. Despite the numerous risks associated with advocating for social justice, criticizing injustice is one of the few courageous ways to […]
• Journal Editors’ Role Regarding Social Justice Issues Journal editors can involve professionals from social justice forums such as civil rights lawyers in their journals as well as reduce the complexity of the presentation of social justice article contents.
• Researching the Concept of Social Justice A special kind of justice is social justice, the subjects of which are large social groups, society as a whole, and humanity.
• The Role of Quilting in the African American Striving for Social Justice Perhaps quilting has become not only one of the symbols of African American national culture but also a way in which many black women have become visible and significant.
• Promoting Social Justice Through Serving God Therefore, serving God in action correlates with the promotion of social justice and reflects the importance of Christian teachings about kindness towards others.
• Social Justice and Importing Foreign Nurses Evaluation Given the lag between the submission of the article and its publication, it means that these sources most likely reflect the situation with the recruitment of foreign-educated nurses by the end of the 2000s.
• Promoting Social Justice With Head Start Program This essay will discuss the role of the Head Start program in the promotion of social justice in the US, focusing on the values taught to the children and the activities that constitute the program.
• Religion, Politics, and Social Justice Organized religions want to change and implement rebranding to fit the new trend, concentrating on social justice in general rather than the individual spiritual aspirations of a person or a family.
• Social Justice and Its Relevance in This Century To put the issue in perspective, he references the civil rights movement of the 1960s and juxtaposes it against the fact that the US had a black president.
• Social Justice Arts as a Remedy for People The work led to the formation of the movement called Black Lives Matter which calls for an end to oppressing black people through law enforcement.
• Social Justice, Diversity and Workplace Discrimination It also includes the fair distribution of the national wealth and resources among all citizens and the unbiased treatment of all individuals.
• Social Justice: Why Do Violations Happen? If there is social inequality in a society, it must be corrected to serve the interests of the most oppressed groups of the population.
• Social Justice From the Biblical Point of View Furthermore, all oppressed and poor people are considered to be “righteous” in the Bible because it “is a reflection of God’s faithful love in action and his desire for justice and righteousness in this world”.
• Definition of Social Justice and Social Justice in Leadership They should evaluate the situation, identify areas that need improvement and develop a plan to support the achievement of social justice.
• Community Engagement and Social Justice Promotion Furthermore, as social justice is integrated into the curriculum, I would like to participate in practice-oriented assignments and class discussions to make a meaningful change.
• Social Justice Leadership and Supervision While the concepts of leadership and supervision tend to be referenced within the clinical contend and primarily apply to the responsibilities of the professionals in mental institutions, the issues articulated in the article and chapters […]
• Uganda’s Economic Planning and Social Justice On the eastern, it borders Kenya, North is Southern Sudan, to the west is DRC and to the southwest is Rwanda, while to the South is Tanzania.
• Rise of Mental Social Justice It relates to the social justice leadership in clinical and supervisory practice in mental health settings by challenging the modern tenets of managerialism and neoliberalism.
• Social Justice in the US Healthcare System Social justice is a relatively broad concept, the interpretation of which often depends on the political and economic views of an individual.
• Conceptualizing Supervision in Search of Social Justice Based on these findings, it could be concluded that Social justice leadership is meant to become the remedy and the ideological, political, and medical opponent of the dominant positivist biomedical paradigm.
• Researching HIV, AIDS and Social Justice Disney claims that poverty and social injustice lead to the spread of HIV/AIDS among underprivileged people in all countries. The disease was a kind of stigma and infected people were subjected to discrimination and alienation.
• Equal Pay Convention Ratified by New Zealand and Ensuring Social Justice This paper seeks to identify whether the ratification of the International Labour Organisation equal pay for an equal value of work Convention by New Zealand delivered social justice to the women in the New Zealand […]
• Influence of Socioeconomic Status and Social Justice on Health in the US In the video, Richard David and James Collins have determined that racism, inappropriate social policies, and chronic stress are major social factors that lead to the delivery of low-weight babies among African American women.
• Social Justice Perspective Thus public health deals not only with the guarantee of a long healthy life but also regulate and control the death rate, try to expand the life interval, and other things that the policy of […]
• Deaf Youth: Social Justice Through Media and Activism The Deaf Youth USA for instance strives to educate, inspire, and empower the deaf youth to make difference in the communities.
• Re-Examining Criminal and Social Justice Systems: Reducing Incarceration Rates in the US The changes in criminal justice policy over the past decades and the alteration of the same from one of rehabilitative and social justice to one of retributive justice and increasing reliance on imprisonment as a […]
• Social Justice and Ethics: Beneficiaries of U.S. Welfare Programs In United States the beneficiaries include the poor, the old, the disabled, survivors, farmers, corporations and any other individual who may be eligible.
• Social Justice and Feminism in America So as to make a change in this situation, the feminists in America took efforts to improve the condition of women.
• Equality of Opportunity and Social Justice: Affirmative Action If this is the situation in advanced nations of the world, the plight in the newly emerging states in Africa, Asia, and Latin America can easily be imagined as to how difficult would it be […]
• Christianity Religion and Asian World: Social Justice It was also said that the greatest botched opportunity in all church history was in the 1260s the court of the great Kublai Khan asked the Polos when they returned to Italy in 1269 to […]
• Social Justice for Indigenous Women in Canada However, the problem of social justice or, to be more accurate, the lack thereof becomes especially poignant when considering criminal issues and their management, as well as the factors that contribute to reducing the rates […]
• Social Justice and Educational Reform in the US People are free to develop their individual attitudes to the importance of social justice in education and leadership. Social justice may be used in the creation of job announcements, proposals, and statements to attract attention […]
• Social Justice in Quality Health Care The provision of accessible health services is necessary to minimize the health risks of the low-income households and improve their quality of life.
• What Is Social Justice? To my mind, the two most important principles of justice that should be used to govern within a just society are the selection of highly virtuous state leaders and government representatives to put in charge […]
• Social Justice: Philosophy of Employment The philosophy of empowerment supports dignity and self-worth; as such, value to all people, regardless of their status or race is an important rule of empowerment.
• American Women’s Movements for Social Justice Like Alice Walker, Deborah Gray, and Collins, Tyra Banks continues the legacy of black women since she is ready to campaign against racism, sexism, and discrimination.
• Social Justice Group Work for Homeless Young Mothers The group discussed in the article was started for the purpose of assisting residents address the problem of homelessness especially in aspects of parenting and during pregnancy periods.
• Readings for Diversity and Social Justice: An Anthology In that way, the authors noted that racial and ethnic differences tend to produce impact on lives of communities in the entirety of their aspects, and thus can aggravate other social justice issues.
• Health Care Services: Social Justice Analysis For instance, the level of poverty in the USA is on the rise, and many people simply have no funds to purchase their health insurance. In conclusion, it is possible to note that social justice […]
• Social Justice Issues: Elderly Minority Groups Students should know the peculiarities of the populations in question and should be aware of practices and services available to those patients.
• Ethics and Social Justice in Education Policies The real-life problem that contributes to those controversies is the multicultural genuineness of the community that was exposed to the federal and state standard reforms that transpired throughout the last ten years.
• Administrative Constitutionalism and Social Justice The current point of view at the crimes and violence is predestined by the commercial pressure applied to the mass media sources. In the majority of the cases, popular media becomes the viral source of […]
• Counselors as Social Justice Advocates The compelling vision of social justice is to achieve “free, full, and equal participation” of all groups in society to realize their aspirations and mutual needs.
• U.S. Postal Service’s Ethics and Social Justice In spite of the fact that the current agency was organized in 1971, the background of the organization is related to the development of the first postal service in the country based on the U.S.
• Ethics Issues: Social Justice In other words, it is observed that an individual has a duty of ensuring that the law is followed while the government is expected to provide the basic rights and freedoms.
• Education and Social Justice The society should also reduce the gap between the poor and the rich. The current level of inequality explains why “every school should reinvent itself in order to deal with social injustice”.
• Social justice and the black – white achievement gap From a national perspective, the achievement gap between the Black and White is reported to have narrowed down in 2007 as compared to the same gap in 1990.
• Setting an Agenda for Social Justice According to Wilkinson, Brundrett is a professor of Educational Research in the Faculty of Education, Community, and Leisure and the head of the Centre for Research and Evaluation, in the Liverpool John Moores University.
• Prosperity and Social Justice The short story was also the subject of debate when it was first written because it failed to fit in any particular genre at the time.”The Yellow Wallpaper” was mostly considered a horror story when […]
• Social Justice: Wray’s Essential Aspects of Biblical Law and Justice Wray has conducted an extensive study on the subject of social justice and suggests that students taking any course on law or social justice must go back to the origins of these laws and justice, […]
• Social and Criminal Justice Responses to Sex Work The negative attitude of the community and the criminalization of sex works made workers of his industry vulnerable and susceptible for the physical assaults of men in the street, their customers and even policemen.
• Is Social Justice the Same Thing as Political Egalitarianism? An Analysis from a Theory of Justice Perspective This is the question that is likely to arise when one is analyzing social justice in the context of political developments in the society.
• Social Justice and Gay Rights This perception of gays was radically reformed thanks to the efforts of gay rights movements which trace their roots to the 1960s and the Stonewall Riots of 1969 which marked the birth of the gay […]
• The People Demand Social Justice: The Social Protest in Israel as an Agoral Gathering
• The Woman Who Spoke of Love and Social Justice
• Peace and Eco-Social Justice: Failed Distributive Justice, Violence and Militancy in India
• Spirituality, Women ‘s Issues, Sustainability, and Social Justice
• Multicultural Counseling Social Justice and Advocacy Reaction
• The Paradox of Dominate Ideologies in The Fight of Social Justice
• Letter from Birmingham Jail’ by Martin Luther King Jr. and Social Justice
• Richard Spencer and the Issues of Social Justice and White Nationalism
• The Moving Beyond Pity and Inspiration: Disability as a social Justice Issue by Eli Clare
• The Importance of Human Rights and Social Justice
• Social Justice: The Role of Higher Education, Criminality and Race
• Turning Points in the Lives of Chinese and Indian Women Leaders Working Toward Social Justice
• Paulo Freire’s Social Justice Idea
• Producing and Practicing Social Justice in Education
• Urban Social Justice: The Gentrification Debate
• The Role of Education in Society as Explained in Conell’s Social Justice in Education
• The Issues of the Canadian Social Services and Social Justice Domain
• Wellbeing, Freedom, and Social Justice: The Capability Approach
• The Principle of Social Justice and Advocacy Support
• The Biblical Prophets’ Teachings on the Love of God in Social Justice
• The Relationship Between Free Market and Social Justice
• Uneasy Bedfellows: Social Justice and Neo-Liberal Practice in the Housing Market
• The Ethics of Pricing and Access to Health Care: A Social Justice Issue
• Measuring Attitudes Toward Distributive Justice: The Basic Social Justice Orientations Scale
• The Importance of the Covenant House as a Symbol of Christian Social Justice
• Social Justice Orientation and Multicultural Environment
• The New Political Economy of J. S. Mill: The Means to Social Justice
• The ‘s Coat of Arms Are Trust, Empathy, and Social Justice
• The Vietnam War and Its Impact on The Creation of Social Justice
• Race Relations and Social Justice Problems
• Poverty, Inequality and Social Justice in Nonmetropolitan America
• Rape Culture, Rapth, and the Cycles of Social Justice
• The Three Social Justice Issues That Fires Me Up as a Citizen in the United States
• Reading Baldwin After Harvey: Why Climate Change Is a Social Justice Issue
• The Importance of Social Justice Is Universal Across
• Effective Practice During The Social Justice System
• The Issue of Social Justice Activism in Various Social Media Networks
• Sustainable Development and Social Justice: Expanding the Rawlsian Framework of Global Justice
• Once Upon Today: Teaching for Social Justice with Postmodern Picturebook
• The Congressional Black Caucus Use of Social Media for Social Justice Issues
• The Effective Teaching Techniques of Lisa Espinosa in Providing Information on the Topic of Cultural Relevance and Social Justice
• Reading Baldwin After Harvey: Why Climate Change Is a Social Justice Issue?
• How Does Social Justice Highlight the Relationship Between Social Welfare and Crime Control?
• Social Justice and Academic Success: Is Individual Effort Enough?
• Rawls’s Theory of Social Justice: How Decisions Are Made?
• Are Consultation and Social Justice Advocacy Similar Exploring the Perceptions?
• How Arc Advances Social Justice?
• What Are the Different Factors Affect Social Justice?
• What Does the Information Society Mean for Social Justice and Civil Society?
• What Is the Connection Between Curricular Practices, Social Justice and Democratic Purpose in the United States Education System?
• How the United States Has Both Market and Social Justice?
• What Is the Impact of Social Justice on The United States?
• What Is the Impact of Social Justice on Human Development?
• How Does Social Justice Actions Project?
• When High Pressure, System Constraints, and a Social Justice Mission Collide?
• What Is the Concept of Social Justice Social Work?
• What Is the Connection Between Free Market and Social Justice?
• What Is the Goal of Social Justice Education?
• What Social Justice Issues Are You Most Passionate About?
• What Is Consist Social Justice Western Perspectives?
• How Social Justice Course Changed My Outlook?
• What Are the Three Social Justice Issues That Fires Up as a Citizen in the United States?
• What Has Limited the Impact of UK Disability Equality Law on Social Justice?
• What Is Rawls’ Expanding Framework for Global Justice?
• How Does the Film “Lord of Flies” Relate to Social Justice?
• Does the Legal System Promote Social Justice?
• Are the People Demand Social Justice?
• Social Justice and the University Community: Does Campus?
• What Does “Social Justice” Mean?
• What Does Teaching for Social Justice Mean for Teachers?
• Why Is Education a Social Justice and Right for Each Child?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 29). 150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/social-justice-essay-examples/

"150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 29 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/social-justice-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples'. 29 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/social-justice-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/social-justice-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/social-justice-essay-examples/.

• Social Democracy Essay Titles
• Equality Topics
• Social Development Essay Topics
• Tolerance Essay Ideas
• Social Responsibility Topics
• Gender Equality Questions
• Social Security Paper Topics
• Children’s Rights Research Ideas
• Women’s Rights Titles
• Socioeconomic Status Paper Topics
• Human Rights Essay Ideas
• Sociological Perspectives Titles
• Idealism Paper Topics
• Respect Essay Topics
• Libertarianism Research Topics

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Social Justice and Sociological Theory

Bradley campbell.

Department of Sociology, California State University, Los Angeles, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032 USA

Sociology is the science of social life, and as such, it is different from the pursuit of social justice and other efforts to evaluate or to reform the social world. Still, the idea of social justice is intimately connected with the idea of sociology. It arises along with scientific understandings of the social world and draws from these understandings to reshape society. The problem is that in practice, social justice activists often draw from only one type of sociological theory, conflict theory, and from a particular form of conflict theory known as critical theory. In doing so, they may ignore potential problems with the theories they are drawing from, and they may overlook many possibilities for effective reform. Conflict theory orients activists toward fighting oppression, but other theoretical approaches could help societies to achieve other possible moral goals, such as promoting understanding, increasing virtue, incentivizing virtue, making virtue easier, and strengthening solidarity.

What does sociology have to do with social justice? If sociology is the science of social life, its aim is to describe and explain the social world. This is very different from social justice activism and other efforts to evaluate and reform the social world. Sociology and social justice are different enterprises, but the idea of social justice is intimately connected with the idea of sociology. It arises along with scientific understandings of the social world and draws from these understandings to reshape society. The moral goals of social justice activists cannot be derived from sociology, but to the extent, sociology is successful in describing and explaining the world; it provides an understanding of society that can enable activists and reformers to achieve their goals. They can draw from sociological theory to better understand the social world they are seeking to change.

One complication, though, is that sociology is a divided field with multiple competing perspectives, so even the most successful theories are hotly contested. Sociology can help us better understand the social world, but the lack of agreement among sociologists should lead us toward caution. If we draw too narrowly from the range of sociological theory, we may ignore potential problems with the theories we are drawing from, and if we are trying to understand the social world better so that we can change it, too narrow a view may lead us to overlook many possibilities for effective reform.

Currently much social justice-oriented scholarship and activism draws from an approach called critical theory in viewing society as a system of oppression and in embracing a morality focused on liberation. Sometimes the connection is explicit. Occidental College, for example, has a Department of Critical Theory and Social Justice, and “at the heart of the program,” according to the department’s website, “is an interrogation of inequality and systems of power” (Occidental College 2021 ). Özlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo (2017), in their book Is Everyone Really Equal?: An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education , are also explicit about the connection. They argue that most people fail to understand “what social justice is and what might be required to achieve it” and they see themselves as combatting a form of “society-wide social justice illiteracy” that “prevents us from moving forward to create a more equitable society” (Sensoy and DiAngelo 2017 : xix). Their objective, they say, is to “provide a foundation for developing social justice literacy” (Sensoy and DiAngelo 2017 : xix), and as they make clear, they believe they are providing this foundation with an analysis of social justice based on critical theory (Sensoy and DiAngelo 2017 : Chapter 2).

I agree with Sensoy and DiAngelo that there is a great deal of confusion about what social justice is and how to pursue it, but I think that by relying so heavily on critical theory, they exemplify the confusion more than they correct for it. While critical theory can certainly provide insights into the workings of society, it has not achieved the kind of consensus that would justify elevating it above other sociological approaches. And to the extent that critical theory gives us incorrect or just incomplete ideas about reality, it may lead to efforts at reform that are ineffective or even harmful. Sensoy and DiAngelo are right to think that knowledge about society can provide a foundation for social justice literacy, but our knowledge needs to be as accurate and complete as possible. Rather than focus so much on one approach, if social justice activists take seriously the full range of sociological theory, they might be able to develop more rounded conceptions of social justice that would perhaps provide a way to more accurately diagnose social problems and to more effectively deal with them.

The Idea of Social Justice

Any discussion of social justice quickly runs into the problem of how to define it. Friedrich Hayek said he had tried for 10 years to find out what social justice meant and failed. He concluded that the idea was an “empty formula, conventionally used to assert that a particular claim is justified without giving any reason” (Hayek 1979 :3). Similarly, Michael Novak said social justice is most often “an instrument of ideological intimidation,” that it is “a term of art whose operational meaning is, ‘We need a law against that’” (Novak 2000 ).

It is easy to see why this state of affairs would lead Hayek and others to reject the idea of social justice altogether. It is not readily apparent to me, though, that social justice is unusual in this respect. Fairness , tolerance , wisdom , love , and other moral concepts might also go undefined, and they might also be used more often as weapons in political conflicts than as tools for serious moral analysis. This does not lead most of us to reject these concepts or to stop advocating for them and pursuing them, though it might require us to think and talk about them more carefully to avoid misunderstanding. Likewise we need to be clear about what we mean by social justice.

One thing we need to be clear about is what the idea of social justice adds to our moral vocabulary. How does social justice differ from justice more broadly? One way of understanding the difference is by thinking about what was missing from older views of morality. According to David Johnston, “In the vast bulk of ancient writings that touch on questions of justice, the idea that the primary contours — the terrain — of the social world might be reshaped to conform to human design never arises” (Johnston 2011 : 107). In the Iliad , he says, the status hierarchies are taken for granted, and in the Hebrew scriptures, a detailed legal code comes directly from God. What neither the archaic and preclassical Greeks nor the ancient Hebrews imagined was “that the terrain of the social world might be re-graded to accord with a design of strictly human origins” (Johnston 2011 : 108). Along with philosophical thought, the idea gradually began to emerge among the Greeks and Romans, but the older idea, that “the basic contours of the social world are determined by nature,” was still a strong competitor, and with the collapse of the Roman Empire, it remained the dominant idea for many centuries (Johnson 2011 : 111). As people began again to have more confidence in their ability to understand the world, though, they began to think again that the social world might be understood and even altered. Accordingly in the eighteenth century, reflections on justice began to deal with this question: “How can human beings redesign and rebuild the terrain of the social world so as to make that terrain itself just?” (Johnston 2011 : 115).

Those who ask this question reject the idea that social arrangements are simply natural and inevitable. And those who ask the question are pursuing social justice. In Johnston’s words, the idea of social justice is that we can develop “a set of principles from which we may work out an ideally just distribution of rights and privileges, burdens and pains, which can be deployed to assess a society’s institutions as a whole and to argue for a transformation of those institutions if they are found wanting” (2011: 174). More simply, Jason Manning and I have suggested that we think of social justice as the idea “that laws, policies, and social institutions — not just individual behaviors — are part of the moral sphere” (Campbell and Manning 2018 : 188). If we are concerned with social justice, we evaluate institutional arrangements in terms of whether they contribute to human flourishing, fairness, equality, or whatever else we see as morally desirable.

Understood this way, social justice is not a particular idea about how institutions should be organized; it is just the idea that the way institutions are organized is of moral concern. Understood this way, it does not make much sense to reject social justice. Few people now think of the social world as wholly natural and fixed. Political disagreements abound, but they usually involve different visions of how best to organize society rather than a disagreement about whether social arrangements can be altered at all. Social justice seems useful as a moral term, and it seems inevitable that anyone who thinks at all about the world sociologically—anyone seeking descriptions and explanations of social arrangements—would also, when thinking about the world morally, reflect on the desirability of those arrangements.

Social Justice and Sociology

There is a sense in which social justice and sociology are not connected at all. To describe and explain reality is different from evaluating it or changing it. What is is different from what ought to be . One way of putting this is to say that as a science, sociology is value-free. This does not mean that sociologists do not themselves have values that affect what subjects they study or that people’s moral commitments do not affect their observations or interpretations. It simply means that science is not the same as morality—that science does not and cannot by itself determine what is right or wrong, good or evil, desirable or undesirable (Black 2013 ; Campbell 2014 ; Weber 1958 ). Science describes and explains observable reality, and descriptions and explanations are not evaluations.

That sociology is value-free is often misunderstood. To say that value judgments are not statements of fact does not mean value judgments are not important, for sociologists and for others, or that sociology is not relevant to moral debates. Sociology cannot decide between clashing values, but it can sometimes clear up matters of fact. And it can point us to what is possible—to whether and how we can act on our value commitments.

Sociology prepares the way for social justice, and in that sense, the two are intimately connected. Sociology is the science of social life, so the idea of sociology was that the old ways of thinking about the social world were inadequate. Humans had already begun to gaze upon parts of the physical world in a new way, using observation and logic to identify patterns such as the rotations of planets and the speed of falling objects. Sociologists claimed that the social world was another part of observable reality and that we could study it similarly. And if the social world could be understood like the natural world, it could be manipulated. The natural sciences provided new insights about reality, and in doing so, they enabled new technologies. Technologies manipulate the world toward human ends—faster travel, faster communication, deadlier weapons, etc.—and if the natural sciences could make new wonders possible, surely the social sciences could as well. Sociology offers the promise of social technology to enable us to live happier lives, to have more peaceful relationships, and to distribute resources more fairly. It raises the hope of social justice.

Another way social justice and sociology are intimately connected is that those who pursue social justice need sociology to help them pursue their goals. If you are going to reorganize society to reduce violence, say, or inequality, you need to know the conditions that lead to peace and violence, or equality and inequality. Just as you would not try building and flying an airplane without first knowing something about physics, it makes sense, as Axel Van den Berg puts it, “to try to understand the world a little better before rushing off to change it” (2014: 69). Social justice activists need sociology to guide them toward policies that will have the effects they intend, to ensure their attempts to reorganize society do not make things worse.

Social justice advocates generally know this, of course. As we saw with Sensoy and DiAngelo, they believe they do understand the social world and that their policy goals draw from this knowledge, but often their knowledge comes almost exclusively from a single theoretical perspective—a type of conflict theory that is increasingly prominent but has never been dominant in sociology.

Social Justice and Conflict Theory

Thomas Kuhn said that scientific revolutions were rare events in the history of science, where the dominant paradigm of a discipline—that is, the “entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by the members of a given [scientific] community” (Kuhn 1962 :175)—is replaced by a new paradigm.

More relevant to understanding the situation of contemporary sociology, however, is Kuhn’s discussion of what he calls pre-paradigmatic science (Kuhn 1962 :17). If we alter Kuhn’s definition of a paradigm slightly to include any general framework in which theories are forumulated (rather than one shared by the entire community), this period before the emergence of a dominant paradigm can more accurately be called a multi-paradigmatic period (compare Black 1995 ; Ritzer 1975 ). That is, there are usually several paradigms—several different, competing strategies of explanation. That is the current state of sociology. In sociology there is no dominant paradigm; there are a number of competing strategies of explanation. One of these is conflict theory, and it is critical theory, one form of conflict theory, that informs so much present-day social justice activism.

Conflict theory “explains human behavior as a struggle for domination” (Black 2001 ). Additionally, conflict theory usually assumes four things: (1) that social life involves clashes of interest, (2) that clashes of interest involve zero-sum outcomes where one side’s gain is the other’s loss, (3) that dominant groups gain at the expense of others, and (4) that radical change is the only way to reduce the power of dominant groups (Black 2001 ).

Karl Marx was the first to use this approach. For Marx the clashes of interest were between social classes, and class struggle drives historical change. In every society there has been a system of class relations, and social institutions benefit the dominant class and enable the exploitation of others. The clash between classes normally results in a new class system with a new dominant class, but Marx believed the overthrow of the current capitalist system, in which the bourgeoisie (the capitalists), who own the means of production, exploit the proletariat (the workers), who must work for wages, would put an end to class once and for all, and lead to a new kind of society. Marxists advocate revolution, and they analyze social relationships and institutions in capitalist societies in terms of how they benefit the bourgeoisie and exploit the proletariat.

For a Marxist studying capitalist societies, the task is not to determine whether or how much capitalists exploit workers. The approach treats exploitation as a constant to be assumed rather than as a variable to be explained. The task instead is to show how social arrangements lead to exploitation—even if those social arrangements might at first appear liberating. Thus, Marxists have argued that the idea of equality before the law actually furthers inequality. Agreements between capitalists and workers appear legitimate because they are treated as agreements between equals, even though the power dynamics mean workers are in no position to bargain. The idea of equality disguises inequality and exploitation.

Marx offered a new way of understanding societies and of understanding historical change, but his predictions have failed. The clash between capitalists and workers did not lead to the failure of capitalism and to revolution. And in societies where communist parties gained power and abolished class, doing so did not lead to a new kind of society. Government did not wither away, as Marx predicted. Instead communist reformers established totalitarian governments that were among the most intrusive and violent governments in history (Rummel 1994 ). Abolishing class also did not put an end to conflict and exploitation. Political elites ruled over the masses in the new societies, and they often turned on one another as they pursued power. The economic systems established also failed, leading to famine and shortages of basic goods, and eventually governments led by communist parties collapsed or made reforms.

The orthodox Marxist may be unfazed by any of this. The idea may be that capitalism will still collapse; revolution is still coming. The revolutions in Russia, China, and elsewhere were not real communist revolutions and their governments were not real Marxist governments. Marxism has not failed; real Marxism has not been tried. But another tack for those sympathetic to Marxist analysis is to accept much of Marx’s framework while rejecting many of the specifics. This could mean accepting Marx’s class analysis while rejecting his hope for change, but more commonly, it means accepting the conflict framework while rejecting Marx’s emphasis on class alone as the source of oppression and the driver of historical change. For most of today’s conflict theorists, it is not just class, but also race, gender, sexuality, religion, disability status, immigration status, and much else that give some people power over others. Otherwise the analysis is similar. The idea again is that the oppression of disadvantaged groups is a constant to be assumed rather than a variable to be explained. Just as social institutions benefit capitalists at the expense of workers, they benefit whites at the expense of persons of color, men at the expense of women, heterosexuals at the expense of gays and lesbians, the cisgendered at the expense of the transgendered, Christians at the expense of Muslims, the able-bodied at the expense of the disabled, the native-born at the expense of immigrants, etc., in an interlocking system of domination. Sometimes called critical theory or intersectional theory , this type of conflict theory follows Marxism in calling for a radical reorganization of social institutions to put an end to oppression, but it is not enough just to deal with class, as Marxists would do. And it is not enough to deal with any other single source of oppression, whether gender, race, or something else. The goal is to put an end to the entire system of oppression.

The new conflict theorists also follow Marxists in analyzing interactions and institutions—including those that might at first appear innocuous or even liberating—as sources of oppression. Laws, prisons, and wars contribute to oppression, but so do cultural practices and even ordinary conversations. One idea is that members of oppressed groups frequently experience microaggressions , small slights that make their lives unpleasant and block them from success (Sue 2010 ). When a person of color goes to college and sees portraits honoring mostly white men who contributed to the university or achieved success in the past, this might be a microaggression. Or it might be a microaggression when whites in conversation ask Asians where they are from. These things contribute to people feeling marginalized, and they add up.

Those who do not accept this framework may reject the idea of microaggression, particularly the idea that the intentions of the microaggressor do not matter. But what makes something a microaggression is that it furthers the oppression of those who are already disadvantaged, and it does not matter how well-intentioned someone is (Sue et al. 2007 : 277–278).

Microaggression is just one of the concepts derived from critical theories that outsiders might unfamiliar and objectionable. Other new kinds of offenses include cultural appropriation (such as when members of dominant cultures the clothing styles or eat the foods associated with marginalized cultures), heteronormativity (when someone makes a statement that implies heterosexuality is normal), and white fragility (when whites are defensive over being confronted with their racism and privilege) (Ziff and Rao 1997 ; Warner 1991 ; DiAngelo 2018 ). Another concept that can be jarring to outsiders is the idea of white supremacy (Newkirk 2017 ). In more mainstream contexts white supremacy refers to things like Jim Crow laws that segregated whites and blacks and banned blacks from certain places, and white supremacists are Ku Klux Klansmen and others who favor such laws. But the new conflict theorists talk about mainstream institutions today as “white supremacist institutions,” and they speak of those who oppose revolutionary change as “white supremacists.” It is not that they believe these people are Klansmen or that the Klan or similar groups run mainstream institutions. It is that they see society’s institutions as protecting the advantages whites have over persons of color, and this is the sense in which those institutions and those who defend them contribute to white supremacy.

By now most people are familiar with at least some of these concepts. Increasingly they are not just the argot of critical theorists in academia; concepts like microaggression , cultural appropriation , and white supremacy have made their way into workshops at universities and corporations and into the mainstream media and in public debate. Usually they are presented in the context of efforts to pursue social justice, and both the advocates and opponents of these ideas tend to see them that way, with the advocates using the term positively and the opponents using it pejoratively (such as by referring to social justice activists as social justice warriors ) (Ohlheiser 2015 ).

The result is that social justice often becomes synonymous with a particular theoretical approach and with particular remedies. Social justice activists draw heavily from critical theory, a type of conflict theory. But it is not just conflict theorists and those who adopt the conflict framework who are concerned with social justice, and there is no reason that theoretical perspectives other than conflict theory could not form the basis for other kinds of social justice activism.

Social Justice and Sociological Paradigms

Conflict theory is not the only sociological paradigm, but what are the others? Sociologists have developed various typologies of sociological explanation. Daniel Rigney identifies eight metaphors of society that undergird different sociological perspectives: society as a living system, society as a machine, society as war, society as a legal order, society as a marketplace, society as a game, society as theater, and society as discourse (Rigney 2001 ). Randall Collins discusses four sociological traditions: the conflict tradition, the rational/utilitarian tradition, the Durkheimian tradition, and the microinteractionist tradition (Collins 1994 ). Jonathan Turner says there are ten broad approaches to sociological theorizing: evolutionary theorizing, systems theorizing, ecological theorizing, conflict theorizing, interactionist theorizing, exchange theorizing, structuralist theorizing, cultural theorizing, and critical theorizing (Turner 2013 : Chapter 9). Donald Black ( 2001 ) identifies eight sociological paradigms or strategies of explanation: conflict theory, phenomenological theory, motivational theory, neo-Darwinian theory, rational choice theory, opportunity theory, functionalist theory, and pure sociology. There are a number of other ways of classifying sociological theories, too, and they overlap substantially, but here I draw most explicitly from Black’s typology, and I discuss how six of the sociological perspectives he identifies can inform ideas of social justice. 1 These are some of the most commonly used perspectives in sociology, and each goes about explaining human behavior using different assumptions and employing different concepts: Conflict theory , as noted above, explains human behavior as a struggle for domination, phenomenological theory explains human behavior with the subjective experience of a person, motivational theory explains human behavior with the psychological impact of social forces, rational choice theory explains human behavior as the least costly means to a goal, opportunity theory explains human behavior with what is possible, and functionalist theory explains human behavior with its contribution to the needs of the group (Black 2001 ).

None of these are explanations of human behavior themselves; they are frameworks in which theorists might generate explanations. And because they offer different ways of viewing the social world, would-be reformers will understand social justice differently depending on which framework they draw from. No framework can provide answers to fundamental moral questions, but different assumptions and concepts, and different findings and explanations, will lead people toward different ways of formulating social problems and to different ways of addressing them. Just as conflict theory has inspired activists to call attention to oppression and to fight for liberation, other approaches could inspire them to pursue a variety of other possible social justice projects: to promote understanding, to increase virtue, to incentivize virtue, to make virtue easier, or to strengthen social solidarity.

Promoting Understanding

Phenomenological theory explains human behavior with the subjective experience of a person. The framework focuses on subjectivity, and phenomenologists tend to see people as creators of their own social worlds (Berger and Luckmann 1967 ). They may see the free will of human beings as undermining deterministic explanations, and they may be more interested in describing what it is like to experience a behavior than in explaining it (Black 2000 : 357, n. 36).

The determinism of other approaches is usually what leads us to think about how we might go about altering the social world, so the anti-determinism of phenomenology means that its possible contribution to social justice is more limited or at least less apparent. Some phenomenologists do try to explain behaviors, but those explanations are less deterministic than most social science. Jack Katz ( 1988 ), for example, sees typical cases of homicide, where one person gets angry at another and kills the person on the spot, as “righteous slaughters” from the standpoint of the killers. The killers, responding to insults, adultery, and other behavior that both offends and humiliates them, see themselves as meting out justice to wrongdoers. It is the experience of moralism, anger, and humiliation that leads to the killing. Phenomenological theorists do not see these experiences as the result of socialization or some other social force; they result from internal forces—from subjective experience. How someone suddenly becomes motivated to commit crime is not explained. Katz says it is a kind of magic.

Perhaps as phenomenological theories help us to better understand how violence, discrimination, and other behaviors that we might wish to reduce are experienced by their perpetrators, we could develop ways to help would-be perpetrators develop new understandings of their situations. But if phenomenologists are correct about the mysterious and non-deterministic properties of subjectivity, we would have limited success.

Phenomenological theory is not likely to help us much in trying to change people or their behaviors, but the idea is that it still helps us understand people better. Phenomenologists may see their work as advancing social justice in that it gives dignity to the subjects. Their work treats people as having agency, and it interprets the meaning of their behaviors. Clifford Geertz, for example, provided thick descriptions of human behaviors within particular cultures. In his description of cockfighting in Bali, he argued that betting around the cockfights was a symbolic reenactment of Balinese status conflicts (Geertz 1973 ). The reader comes to see something that might have at first looked irrational and barbaric as purposeful and meaningful within the context it occurs. Phenomenologists may see this kind of cultural translation as promoting tolerance.

Phenomenological theory might also aid us in better understanding our political opponents. In works such as Culture Wars and Before the Shooting Begins, James Davison Hunter ( 1994 ) carefully describes the worldviews of orthodox and progressive opponents in contemporary cultural conflicts and shows that their failure to understand one another inhibits conversation and compromise. That people fail to understand one another is a concern beyond just the culture war issues. Chris Martin ( 2016 ) says that epistemic egocentrism commonly prevents understanding across political ideologies, as we evaluate others as if they shared our information and our concerns. Martin refers to a study that showed that while liberals tend to value authority less than conservatives, liberals and conservatives both thought these differences were much greater than they actually were: “liberals believed that conservatives were obsessed with authority, while conservatives believed that liberals disdained authority” (Martin 2016 : 223). Their egocentrism and lack of empathy led them astray. As Martin points out, “If a liberal uses himself or herself as a reference point, thus framing morality egocentrically, he or she will assume a conservative holds moral positions that are diametrically opposite his or her own, thus rating conservatives as far more different than they actually are” (Martin 2016 : 223). 2

If epistemic egocentrism helps fuel the political polarization of recent years, along with the tendency of people to imagine the worst of their political adversaries and to treat them as enemies, phenomenological theory, to the extent that it accurately portrays the perspectives of its subjects, holds the promise of increased understanding and empathy.

Increasing Virtue

Motivational theory explains human behavior with the psychological impact of social forces. The idea is that institutions and interactions affect the minds of individuals and motivate them to engage in certain behaviors, whether that is altruism, violence, religion, or any other behavior. Motivational theory is as individualistic as phenomenological theory, in that behavior stems from motivations, but motivational theory is more deterministic: The motivations that affect behavior are social products; society shapes the individual (Black 2000 : 357, n. 36). Motivational theory is thus compatible with one kind of reformist project: that of shaping moral character so that people engage in more virtue and in less vice.

Black ( 2001 ) points out that motivational theories come in four forms. Learning theories explain motivations as the result of socialization, bonding theories explain them with the presence or absence of attachments, compliance theories explain them with social pressure, and strain theories explain them with psychological discomfort. Whatever the nature of the explanatory mechanisms, the idea is that individuals are shaped by their social environments. The task for reformers drawing from this approach, then, would be to discover how they might alter social environments to reduce motivations toward behavior they see as undesirable and increase motivations toward behaviors they see as desirable. This could mean educational reform, changes in foster care, and other efforts to better socialize children. It could mean communitarian policies that seek to promote the kinds of social ties that encourage prosocial behavior. It could even mean more fundamental institutional change, as advocated by Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld ( 2012 ) in Crime and the American Dream. Messner and Rosenfeld argue that the USA has high rates of violent crime compared to other advanced industrial democracies in part because of an institutional imbalance where the economy is valued more than institutions such as the polity, the family, and education. This leads to a highly competitive society in which crime flourishes, but altering the institutional imbalance, such as by strengthening social welfare programs, would reduce crime.

Those who draw from motivational theory in pursuit of social justice might focus on institutions, then, but it is in terms of how those institutions impact individuals. Accordingly, this tends to be the approach of liberal reformers rather than revolutionaries. Usually such reformers are optimistic about the ability of the insights of social science to help reduce suffering and injustice and optimistic that this is possible by modifying current social arrangements rather than destroying them.

Incentivizing Virtue

Rational choice theory explains human behavior as the least costly means to a goal. It focuses on the interests of individuals, but it is unlike motivational theory in that the characteristics of individuals are usually treated as a constant rather than a variable. Rational choice theorists may assume that individuals are pursuing their own happiness, for example, and what explains variation in their behavior is not variation in their goals; it is variation in their interests. A variable that might help them achieve their goals on one occasion might not on another.

Rational choice theory is the dominant paradigm in economics, and it is associated with free market perspectives. Economists and rational choice sociologists, though, have applied this type of thinking outside the marketplace—to religion, to romantic relationships, and to many other areas where people might at first seem to be behaving irrationally. Rational choice theorists might recommend a variety of policies across the political spectrum, but whatever their recommendations, the central task for those drawing from rational choice theory to pursue social justice is to determine how social arrangements might best incentivize what they see as good behavior and make costly what they see as bad behavior. The goals are more modest—change behavior, not character—since there is no assumption that virtue and vice stem from character.

Enlightenment reformers of the eighteenth century used this approach to argue for changes in the legal systems of the time. The deterrence theory of crime and punishment proposes that people are less likely to commit crimes, the more certain, swift, and severe the punishment is. The idea is that punishment makes crime costly—not in the interests of the would-be criminal. To do this, punishment just needs to outweigh the benefits of the crime, so the reformers argued for reducing the harsh penalties in effect at the time. The certainty of punishment is much more important, and this often puts contemporary deterrence theorists at odds with both liberals and conservatives, since they favor frequent use of the justice system, which liberals might be concerned about, but they oppose the harsh penalties conservatives might favor.

Other applications of rational choice theory have similarly led to policy proposals that challenge conventional thinking. Olson ( 1990 ) addressed the different individual interests related to private goods and public goods. With private goods, it is clearly in people’s interest to protect and take care of whatever they own. But public goods are owned collectively—they are available to everyone. It is therefore not in anyone’s individual interest to contribute to protecting public goods, even though they derive a benefit from them. This is known as the free-rider problem: Everyone would be better off cooperating, but it is in everyone’s individual interest not to do so. One thing this means is that larger groups will not naturally pursue their group interests, and this is one reason Marx was wrong to think the working class would perceive its interests and then revolt.

There is always the danger that public goods simply will not be provided or protected, but just as incentives or punishments might alter the likelihood of someone committing crime, inducements and coercion can ensure that public goods get provided. Rational choice theory is often used to defend free markets, then, but Olson’s analysis helps us understand why the free market will fail when public goods are involved. His analysis shows why labor unions are likely to fail if they are completely voluntary, for example, and why government involvement might be needed to protect the environment.

Another rational choice theorist, James Buchanan ( 2000 ), showed why politics often fail. Individuals involved in politics—voters, politicians, and others—act according to their own interests. Politics is a competitive marketplace. Politicians compete for votes, for example, and they do so by spending money on things voters like. It is not in the self-interest of voters to pay taxes, though, so politicians end up borrowing and spending, rather than reducing spending or raising taxes. This is rational for everyone involved but only in the short run.

For those pursuing policy changes, these kinds of theories could serve as essential starting points or at least as correctives enabling them to better pursue their goals. Social institutions are not changed in a vacuum; individuals are involved, and one runs the risk of not anticipating the effect one’s policies will have, or how they will be dealt with in the political realm, without taking into account the immediate and individual interests of all those involved.

Making Virtue Easier

Opportunity theory explains human behavior with what is possible. Opportunity theorists assume certain motivations and goals, and the idea is that certain social conditions prevent or enable people from achieving those goals. In criminology this might mean assuming the motivation to commit various crimes, but explaining variation in crime with factors make the crimes easier (e.g., Cohen and Felson 1979 ). The layout of a store could encourage shoplifting by placing valuable and small objects where they are easy to get, or the layout of a neighborhood could encourage burglary by providing routes where burglars could travel on foot without a high likelihood of being seen.

Just as people may have the motivation to commit crime but not the opportunity, they might desire friendships across cultural boundaries without the ability to form any. Peter Blau ( 1980 ) pointed out that when the numbers of different population groups differ, the numbers of friendships possible across those groups is limited. In areas where whites greatly outnumber racial minorities, for instance, most whites—regardless of their preferences—would not have the opportunity for an interracial friendship.

Whether one is seeking to reduce crime or increase racial integration, opportunity theory points to the need to consider what is possible under certain conditions. The task for those using the approach to pursue social justice is to find ways to alter the opportunity structure. The idea would not be to change hearts and minds, or even to incentivize virtue, but simply to make virtue possible more often, and vice impossible more often. And while the use of opportunity theory in this manner might be limited, it is likely to be effective. It is also an area where it is easy to see the distinction between ordinary justice and social justice. If two neighborhoods have different rates of crime not because of the motivations of potential criminals but because the design of one prevents many opportunities for crime, people might seek to alter the design of the high-crime neighborhood or at the very least to design new neighborhoods differently. The design of neighborhoods might become a moral issue—a social justice issue. But it may not have been bad intentions or bad behavior that led to the different designs in the first place. No one would have behaved unjustly when they built the neighborhoods, and individual criminals would still be blamed for their crimes. It is simply that better information now makes it possible to make social changes that reduce harm, and with that knowledge, doing so might become a moral imperative.

Strengthening Solidarity

Functionalist theory explains human behavior with its contribution to the needs of the group. 3 Functionalist theorists see society as akin to an organism, with distinct and necessary parts that contribute to the functioning of the whole society, just like the heart, lungs, skin, and central nervous system of the human organism contribute to the needs of the whole body. Talcott Parsons used this strategy when he identified four basic problems all societies needed to solve—adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latent pattern management—and pointed to the way social institutions such as the economy, the political order, law, religion, education, and the family solve them (Turner 2013 : 352–354).

If motivational theory tends to be associated with liberal politics, and conflict theory with radical politics, functionalist theory is most associated with conservative politics. It is true that many functionalists have been liberals and that many functionalist analyses—such as Émile Durkheim’s argument that crime strengthens social solidarity or Kingsley Davis’s ( 1937 ) argument that prostitution strengthens the family—are contrarian takes that would offend many conservatives. Still, since the gist is that social institutions provide stability and meet social needs, functionalists tend to point to what most people would see as the positive and prosocial aspects of social institutions rather than their negative and oppressive aspects. Conservatives also tend to be concerned with social order and suspicious of radical change and the chaos they fear it will produce, and functionalist analyses often point to the conditions leading to social solidarity, social stability, and harmonious relationships.

Liberals and radicals may question whether conservatives concerned with preserving or strengthening social institutions for the common good are pursuing social justice at all, but many conservatives accept that society is to some extent malleable and that the design of social institutions should be of moral concern. To the extent that they resist change, they may simply be more cautious than others because of the harm and injustice they believe the weakening of social institutions will cause. In their efforts to protect institutions, they are trying to strengthen what psychologist Jonathan Haidt calls moral capital —“the resources that sustain a moral community.” These include “interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, and technologies that mesh well with evolved psychological mechanisms and thereby enable the community to suppress or regulate selfishness and make cooperation possible” (Haidt 2012 : 292). Conservatives tend to value moral capital over diversity, equality, and other things valued more by liberals and radicals. Perhaps they are wrong about the tradeoffs, and perhaps the functionalist view of society is limited or distorted. But functionalist analysis might even be able to help those on the left more effectively change society toward the ends they value. However, you alter social institutions, when you are finished you still face the problem of preserving the new social order you have created. As Haidt says, “if you are trying to change an organization or a society and you do not consider the effects of your changes on moral capital, you’re asking for trouble” (2012: 294).

Whether or not the multi-paradigmatic nature of sociology is healthy is a matter of debate. If we follow Kuhn in seeing the dominance of a paradigm as a sign of a mature science, then it is not. But whether it is healthy or not, and whatever the reasons for it, it is the current state of sociology, and it does little good to pretend otherwise. We cannot just declare a dominant paradigm—that has to be established through evidence and consensus and currently that does not exist. It is thus odd that current social justice activism, even in its institutional forms at universities and corporations, so often draws from only one of the many theoretical approaches in sociology, as if conflict theory, and this particular version of it, a marginal approach in the field and only one of many, had become dominant and its claims uncontested.

Activists and their allies who take this approach run the risk of making unwarranted assumptions and even treating claims as fact that have little empirical support. The idea of microaggression, for example, first developed by critical race theorists and later taken up by critical theorists more broadly, has become institutionalized now, with microaggression reporting systems at many universities and microaggression awareness workshops at many universities and corporations. When Scott Lilienfeld ( 2017 ) investigated the claims of microaggression theorists, though, he found little support for them. This means that a great deal of political and institutional energy has been spent promoting ideas that might be incorrect and which might even harm those they are intended to help (al-Gharbi 2020 ; Lukianoff and Haidt 2015 , 2018 ). And this is likely true of many other ideas formulated using the conflict perspective. Of the various sociological paradigms, conflict theory, and particularly the version often known as critical theory, is the most overtly political, and its adherents are often hostile to science or at least to the idea that sociology can or should be scientific. Sometimes conflict theory acts more as a political ideology than a sociological paradigm, and while it provides a distinctive model of society and many new concepts for thinking about social relations, those working within this perspective have mostly failed to produce general and testable propositions about social life. 4 When they do make testable claims, as with Marx’s predictions about the fall of capitalism and the end of class and with the microaggression claims that Lilienfeld tested, they often turn out to have little support. That the claims of conflict theorists are often untestable or unsupported has led even many sociologists who support the political aims of conflict theory to reject it at as a sociological approach or at least to deal with it cautiously.

Meanwhile the field of sociology is saturated, possibly oversaturated, with perspectives and explanations of social reality. These various paradigms can each provide ways of thinking about and pursuing social justice that differ from those of most social justice activists. Fighting systematic oppression is but one possible aim of social justice, and those with broader moral concerns and a broader awareness of strategies of effecting change might also wish to change the world by promoting understanding, increasing virtue, incentivizing virtue, making virtue easier, or strengthening solidarity, and they might draw from a variety of perspectives other than conflict theory to aid them in doing so. Currently, social justice activists who draw mainly from a tiny sliver of sociology run the risk that their efforts will be based on a distorted understanding of reality. While it would be irresponsible to try to reshape society while ignoring sociology entirely, it is also irresponsible to do so while ignoring most of the field. Dealing with a fragmented, multi-paradigmatic field may be hard, and it may be unsatisfying to find that with much of our knowledge about ourselves and our societies contested, there are few easy answers to our problems. But if we are serious about improving the world, we need to be willing to face social reality as we find it. This is the true foundation for developing social justice literacy.

is professor of sociology at California State University, Los Angeles. He is the author of The Geometry of Genocide: A Study in Pure Sociology and coauthor of The Rise of Victimhood Culture: Microaggressions, Safe Spaces, and the New Culture Wars.

1 My use of Black’s typology rather than one of the others frames the discussion, but since there is a great deal of overlap between the typologies, my argument does not depend on the typology used. However, exactly one divides up the main sociological perspectives; the different perspectives will give us different ways of thinking about social justice and different possibilities for reform.

2 Consider also how last year’s debates over closures due to COVID-19 led to mutual recrimination and misrepresentations of each side’s position, with lockdown supporters accusing lockdown opponents of “human sacrifice,” and the opponents accusing the supporters of “fascism” (Paresky and Campbell 2020 ).

3 Black ( 2001 ) actually calls this strategy “systems theory,” and he refers to systems theory and the approach he calls neo-Darwinian theory together as “functionalism,” but I follow many others here in using functionalism to refer to systems theory alone.

4 There are important exceptions, though. Theorists such as Ralf Dahrendorf ( 1956 ) and Randall Collins ( 1975 ) have developed more scientific conflict theories that could also be used to develop strategies for social justice that would differ from those of critical theorists.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Al-Gharbi M. “Who Gets to Define What’s Racist?” Contexts . 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berger PL, Luckmann T. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge . Garden City: Anchor Books; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Black D. The Epistemology of Pure Sociology. Law & Social Inquiry. 1995; 20 :829–870. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.1995.tb00693.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Black D. Dreams of Pure Sociology. Sociological Theory. 2000; 18 (3):343–367. doi: 10.1111/0735-2751.00105. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Black D. Lectures in Contemporary Sociological Theory (SOC 506) University of Virginia; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Black D. On the Almost Inconceivable Misunderstandings Concerning the Subject of Value-Free Sociology. British Journal of Sociology. 2013; 64 (4):763–780. doi: 10.1111/1468-4446.12034. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blau P. A Fable about Social Structure. Social Forces. 1980; 58 :777–788. doi: 10.2307/2577184. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buchanan JM. Politics as Public Choice . 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell, Bradley, 2014. “Anti-Minotaur: The Myth of a Sociological Morality.” Society 51(5): 443-451.
• Campbell, Bradley and Jason Manning. 2018. The Rise of Victimhood Culture: Microaggressions, Safe Spaces, and the New Culture Wars. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Cohen LE, Felson M. Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach. American Sociological Review. 1979; 44 :588–608. doi: 10.2307/2094589. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins R. Conflict Sociology: Toward an Explanatory Sociology . New York: Academic Press; 1975. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins R. Four Sociological Traditions . New York: Oxford University Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dahrendorf R. Toward a Theory of Social Conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 1956; 2 :170–183. doi: 10.1177/002200275800200204. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis K. The Sociology of Prostitution. American Sociological Review. 1937; 2 (5):744–755. doi: 10.2307/2083827. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• den Berg V, Axel . Public Sociology, Professional Society, and Democracy. In: Hannemaayer A, Schneider CJ, editors. The Public Sociology Debate: Ethics and Engagement . Vancouver: UBC Press; 2014. pp. 53–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• DiAngelo, Robin. 2018. White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk about Racism.” Boston: Beacon Press.
• Geertz C. The Interpretation of Cultures . New York: Basic Books; 1973. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haidt J. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion . New York: Pantheon Books; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayek F. Social Justice, Socialism, and Democracy: Three Austrian Lectures . 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunter JD. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America . New York: Basic Books; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunter JD. Before the Shooting Begins: Searching for Democracy in America’s Culture Wars . New York: The Free Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnston D. A Brief History of Justice . Malden, Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Katz J. Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions of Doing Evil . New York: Basic Books; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1962. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lilienfeld S. Microaggressions: Strong Claims, Inadequate Evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2017; 12 (1):138–169. doi: 10.1177/1745691616659391. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lukianoff G, Haidt J. The Coddling of the American Mind. September: The Atlantic; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lukianoff G, Haidt J. The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure . New York: Penguin Press; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin CC. How Ideology Has Hindered Sociological Insight. The American Sociologist. 2016; 47 :115–130. doi: 10.1007/s12108-015-9263-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Messner S, Rosenfeld R. Crime and the American Dream . Fifth Edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Newkirk, Vann R. II. 2017. “The Language of White Supremacy.” Atlantic , October 6. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/the-language-of-white-supremacy/542148/
• Novak M. Defining Social Justice. December: First Things; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Occidental College. 2021. “Critical Theory and Social Justice.” https://www.oxy.edu/academics/areas-study/critical-theory-social-justice
• Ohlheiser, Abby. 2015. “Why ‘Social Justice Warrior,’ a Gamergate Insult, Is Now a Dictionary Entry.” Washington Post , October 7. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10/07/why-social-justice-warrior-a-gamergate-insult-is-now-a-dictionary-entry/
• Olson, Mancur Jr (1990) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Paresky, Pamela and Bradley Campbell. 2020. “Safetyism Isn’t the Problem.” New York Times, June 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/opinion/safetyism-coronavirus-reopening.html .
• Rigney D. The Metaphorical Society: An Invitation to Social Theory . Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritzer G. Sociology: A Multi-Paradigm Science. The American Sociologist. 1975; 10 :156–167. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rummel RJ. Death by Government . New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Said E. Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient . London: Penguin Press; 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sensoy Ö, DiAngelo R. Everyone Equal: An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education . Second Edition. New York: Teachers College Press; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sue DW. Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation . Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley and Sons; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sue, Derald Wing, Christina M. Capodilupo, Gina C. Torino, Jennifer M. Bucceri, Aisha M. B. Holder, Kevin L. Nadal, and Marta Esquilin. 2007. “Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Implications for Clinical Practice.” American Psychologist 62(4): 271-286. [ PubMed ]
• Turner J. Theoretical Sociology: 1830 to the Present . Los Angeles: Sage; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Warner M. Introduction: Fear of a Queer Planet. Social Text. 1991; 29 :3–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weber, Max. 1958. “Science as a Vocation.” Pp. 129-156 in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology , edited by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ziff B, Rao PV. Borrowed Power: Essays on Cultural Appropriation . New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]

Home — Blog — Topic Ideas — 200 Social Justice Essay Topics for Students

200 Social Justice Essay Topics for Students

Crafting essays on social justice empowers students to articulate their perspectives on the vast spectrum of challenges that confront our societies. It encourages a deep dive into the complexities of societal structures and the mechanisms of oppression and privilege that define our lived realities. By engaging with social justice topics for students, young scholars are prompted to critically analyze the status quo, envision alternatives, and contribute to the ongoing dialogues that shape our aspirations for a more equitable world.

Before we dive into the diverse array of social justice topics, let's establish a shared understanding of what social justice entails. It's a concept deeply rooted in the idea that everyone deserves equal rights, opportunities, and access to resources, regardless of their background, identity, or socioeconomic status. This section will unravel the complexities of social justice, setting a solid foundation for the topics that follow.

Essays on social justice emerge as a powerful medium of expression and advocacy. They serve not just as academic exercises, but as profound declarations of our awareness and engagement with the pressing issues that sculpt the contours of contemporary society. Delving into social justice topics for students provides a unique opportunity to explore the intricate web of equity, rights, and fairness that underpins our shared human experience. These essays invite us on a journey to understand and confront the myriad forms of social injustice topics that mar our world, from systemic racism and gender inequality to economic disparity and environmental degradation.

Moreover, these essays play a crucial role in illuminating the path towards understanding and action, serving as catalysts for change by fostering empathy, raising awareness, and galvanizing community engagement. They provide a platform for the voices of the marginalized and the advocates alike, weaving together narratives that underscore the urgency of our collective pursuit of justice.

In sum, essays on social justice are not merely assignments; they are reflections of a deeper commitment to grappling with the complexities of human rights and dignity. They challenge us to think critically, act compassionately, and engage constructively in the quest for a society where justice is not merely an ideal, but a lived reality for all. As we delve into social justice topics for students and explore the realms of social injustice topics, we embark on an intellectual and moral voyage that holds the promise of transformation—both personal and societal.

Moving from theory to practice, we transition into the heart of our discussion—social justice topics to write about, tailored for various educational levels. This segment is meticulously crafted, ensuring that the topics resonate with students from elementary to college levels, fostering an environment of learning and growth that transcends academic boundaries.

For those seeking to enrich their exploration of social justice , resources such as GradesFixer offer a reservoir of essays and studies, serving as a wellspring of inspiration and knowledge to augment your scholarly journey.

🥇 The Best 10 Social Justice Topics to Write About in 2024

In an ever-evolving world, the pursuit of equity and justice remains a cornerstone of societal progress. The following social justice topics list for 2024 reflects the current pulse of discussions aiming to address and rectify the inequalities that permeate our global community. From environmental concerns to the nuances of digital accessibility: these top 10 essay topics are curated to inspire thoughtful exploration and insightful discourse among those passionate about forging a fairer world.

• Climate Change and Environmental Justice : Exploring the Impact on Vulnerable Communities
• Digital Divide and Access to Technology : Bridging the Gap in Education
• Racial Equality and Police Reform : Strategies for Building Trust in Communities
• Gender Identity and Inclusivity in Schools : Supporting LGBTQ+ Rights and Awareness
• Income Inequality and Economic Mobility : Examining the Barriers to Financial Stability
• Immigration and Refugee Rights : Understanding the Humanitarian Perspective
• Mental Health Awareness and Stigma Reduction : Promoting Wellness in All Sectors of Society
• Educational Equity for Marginalized Groups : Addressing Systemic Barriers in Schools
• Voting Rights and Electoral Reform : Ensuring Fair Representation for All Citizens
• Food Security and Nutrition : Tackling Hunger and Access to Healthy Food

✊ Successful Social Justice Topics for College Students

• The Intersectionality of Race, Gender, and Sexuality in Modern Society
• Climate Change Activism: A Social Justice Perspective
• The Role of Social Media in Advocating for Human Rights
• Police Brutality and Criminal Justice Reform in the United States
• The Impact of Gender Wage Gaps on Economic Inequality
• Mental Health Stigma and Accessibility to Care
• Immigration Policy Reform and the Rights of Refugees
• Indigenous Rights and Land Reclamation Movements
• The Educational Divide: Addressing Inequity in Public Schools
• LGBTQ+ Rights and Legal Recognition Worldwide
• Food Insecurity and Urban Poverty Solutions
• Racial Profiling and its Effects on Communities of Color
• The Fight for Disability Rights and Inclusion in the Workplace
• Women's Reproductive Rights and Healthcare Access
• The Influence of Art and Culture in Social Justice Movements
• Environmental Racism and Health Disparities in Minority Communities
• Affordable Housing and the Fight Against Homelessness
• Child Labor and Exploitation in the Global Economy
• Corporate Social Responsibility and Ethical Business Practices
• The Digital Divide: Internet Access as a Human Right
• Voter Suppression and Democracy in the 21st Century
• The Role of Education in Social Mobility
• Fast Fashion and the Ethics of Consumption
• Gun Control and Violence Prevention Strategies
• Prison Reform and the Abolition Movement
• The Stigmatization of Substance Abuse and Recovery
• Body Positivity and Media Representation
• Animal Rights and the Ethical Treatment of Livestock
• Age Discrimination in Employment and Media
• Social Justice in Sports: Taking a Knee
• Gender Fluidity and the Spectrum of Identity
• The Economics of Healthcare and Universal Coverage
• The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age
• Free Speech and Hate Speech: Drawing the Line
• Student Loan Debt and the Crisis of Higher Education
• The Global Impact of Western Consumerism
• Black Lives Matter: Past, Present, and Future
• The War on Drugs and Racial Disparities in Incarceration
• Climate Refugees and International Law
• The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations in Social Change
• Toxic Masculinity and Gender Norms
• Cultural Appropriation vs. Cultural Exchange
• Renewable Energy and Sustainable Development
• The Rise of Populism and its Impact on Minority Rights
• Accessibility in Technology: Bridging the Gap for the Disabled
• The Ethical Implications of AI and Automation on Labor
• The Fight for Net Neutrality and Open Internet
• Youth Activism and the Role of Young People in Social Justice
• Globalization and its Effects on Indigenous Cultures
• The Opioid Crisis and Public Health Policy

🍎 Easy Social Justice Topics for High School Students

• Understanding Racism and Its Impact on Society
• Gender Equality: Breaking Down Stereotypes
• The Importance of Cultural Diversity in Schools
• Climate Change: Simple Steps to Make a Difference
• Bullying: Recognizing and Preventing It
• Mental Health Awareness Among Teens
• LGBTQ+ Rights and Acceptance
• The Effects of Social Media on Body Image
• Homelessness: Causes and Community Solutions
• Animal Rights and Ethical Treatment
• Food Insecurity: Addressing Hunger in Our Communities
• Disability Rights and Inclusion
• Education Equity for All Students
• Child Labor and Ethical Consumerism
• Digital Literacy and Online Safety
• Water Conservation and Access to Clean Water
• Youth Activism and Social Change
• The Role of Art in Social Justice Movements
• Reducing Waste and Sustainable Living
• Fair Trade Products and Practices
• Immigrant Rights and Integration Challenges
• Public Transportation and Accessibility
• The Importance of Voting and Civic Participation
• Cyberbullying and How to Combat It
• Supporting Local Businesses and Economies
• Gun Control and School Safety
• The History and Impact of Civil Rights Movements
• Peer Pressure and Making Positive Choices
• Sports and Gender Equality
• The Role of Technology in Education
• Understanding and Preventing Hate Crimes
• The Stigma Surrounding Mental Health
• The Impact of Fast Fashion on the Environment
• Affordable Healthcare Access
• Raising Awareness about Global Poverty
• Censorship and Freedom of Speech
• Recycling and Environmental Responsibility
• The Power of Nonviolent Protest
• Media Literacy and Identifying Fake News
• Cultural Appropriation vs. Appreciation
• The Benefits of Bilingual Education
• Supporting Veterans and Military Families
• The Dangers of Texting and Driving
• Privacy Rights in the Digital Age
• Dealing with Loneliness and Isolation
• The Importance of Community Service
• Tackling Ageism and Respecting Elders
• The Ethics of Genetic Engineering
• Renewable Energy and Its Benefits
• Understanding Economic Inequality

🎒 Simple Social Justice Topics for Elementary Students

• Celebrating Differences: Understanding Diversity
• Friendship Across Cultures: Making Friends from Different Backgrounds
• Why Kindness Matters: Being Kind to Everyone
• The Planet Earth: Why We Should Take Care of It
• Sharing is Caring: The Importance of Sharing with Others
• All Families Are Special: Understanding Different Family Structures
• Everyone is Unique: Celebrating Individual Talents
• Bullying is Wrong: How to Stand Up and Speak Out
• Helping Others: The Joy of Giving
• Respect for All: Learning to Respect Differences
• Animals are Friends: Treating Animals with Kindness
• Recycling: How We Can Help the Earth
• Healthy Eating: Understanding Nutrition and Food Justice
• Water is Precious: Conserving Water for Everyone
• Clean Up Our World: Participating in Community Clean-Ups
• Playing Fair: The Importance of Fairness in Games and Life
• Listening to Each Other: The Value of Communication
• Everyone Belongs: Creating Inclusive Spaces
• Saying Sorry: The Power of Apologies
• Gratitude: Being Thankful for What We Have
• Helping at Home: Understanding Responsibilities
• Teamwork: Working Together to Achieve Goals
• The Golden Rule: Treating Others How You Want to Be Treated
• Our Community Helpers: Appreciating Those Who Help Us
• Protecting Our Planet: Simple Acts to Save the Environment
• Being Brave: Standing Up for What is Right
• The Beauty of Languages: Exploring Different Languages and Cultures
• History Heroes: Learning About Leaders Who Fought for Justice
• Planting Trees: How Trees Benefit Our World
• Saving Energy: Ways to Conserve Energy at Home
• Understanding Disabilities: Embracing All Abilities
• Cyber Safety: Being Safe and Kind Online
• The Importance of Exercise: Staying Active for Health
• The World of Books: Exploring Stories from Around the Globe
• Sharing Cultures: Celebrating Cultural Festivals
• Being a Good Listener: The Importance of Listening to Others
• Acts of Kindness: Small Acts That Make a Big Difference
• Equal Play: Everyone Has the Right to Play
• The Joy of Music: Exploring Music from Different Cultures
• Respecting Elders: Learning from the Wisdom of Older Generations
• Friendship without Borders: Making Friends Without Judging
• Caring for Plants: Understanding the Role of Plants in Our Ecosystem
• The Importance of Patience: Learning to Wait
• Smiling: The Universal Language of Kindness
• The Story of Food: From Farm to Table
• Walking in Someone Else's Shoes: Understanding Empathy
• The Magic of Art: Expressing Yourself Through Art
• Water Worlds: Learning About the Importance of Oceans and Rivers
• Dream Big: Everyone Has the Right to Dream
• Stars and Beyond: Understanding Our Place in the Universe

👍 More Good Social Justice Topics for Elementary Students

• Friendship Benches: Creating Spaces for Inclusion
• The Power of Words: Using Kind Language
• Celebrating All Abilities: Understanding Special Needs
• Why We Recycle: The Journey of a Recyclable Item
• Acts of Courage: Standing Up for Friends
• The World's Water: Why Some People Don't Have Clean Water
• Learning About Homelessness: How We Can Help
• Understanding Feelings: Talking About Emotions
• Everyone's a Scientist: Girls and Boys in Science
• Our Green Earth: Why Plants Are Important
• Sharing Stories: Listening to Each Other's Experiences
• The Art of Sharing: Why Sharing is Important in Cultures
• Respect for Nature: Learning to Love the Outdoors
• The Rainbow of People: Understanding Skin Color
• Food for Everyone: Why Some People Are Hungry
• My Body, My Rights: Understanding Personal Boundaries
• The World of Insects: Their Role in Our World
• Kindness to Animals: Why All Animals Deserve Respect
• The Clothes We Wear: Talking About Fashion and Ethics
• Our Actions Matter: How Small Actions Affect Others
• Celebrate Differences: Learning About Different Holidays
• The Gift of Giving: How Donating Makes a Difference
• Walking Together: Unity in Diversity
• Our Planet, Our Home: Actions to Protect Earth
• Everyone Can Lead: Leadership for Boys and Girls
• Music Makes Us One: Exploring Music from Around the World
• Our Ancestors' Stories: Learning From History
• The Magic of Movies: Understanding Representation in Film
• Playing Without Winning: The Joy of Play
• The Library: A World of Knowledge for Everyone
• The Right to Rest: Understanding the Importance of Leisure
• The Joy of Discovery: Encouraging Curiosity
• Growing Together: The Importance of Community Gardens
• The History of Toys: Toys From Around the World
• The Colors of the World: Exploring Art from Different Cultures
• We All Need Help: Understanding Dependency and Support
• Learning from Animals: Lessons in Compassion and Care
• The Value of Work: Appreciating All Jobs
• Everyone's Voice Counts: Encouraging Participation
• Anti-Semitism Today: Identifying and Combating
• Saving Our Friends: Endangered Animals and Conservation
• Sun, Moon, and Stars: Learning About Astronomy and Cultures
• The World of Comics: Exploring Stories and Messages
• Our Digital World: The Importance of Being Kind Online
• Let's Move: The Benefits of Different Sports
• Understanding Weather: The Science and Its Impact
• Crafting for a Cause: Making Things to Help Others
• The Power of Patience: Waiting Can Be Rewarding
• Our Earthly Treasures: Conserving Natural Resources
• The Stories We Tell: The Importance of Narratives in Culture

🌍 The World Through Social Justice Topics

Exploring the vast landscape of social justice topics for students offers a unique opportunity to engage with the pressing issues shaping our world today. Each social justice topic serves as a window into the experiences and challenges faced by diverse communities, fostering empathy, understanding, and a deepened sense of global citizenship among students. From the elementary classrooms where the seeds of awareness are planted to the rigorous debates of college seminars, topics of social justice play a pivotal role in shaping the minds and hearts of the next generation. By delving into these topics, students embark on a journey of growth, equipped with the knowledge and compassion necessary to navigate the complexities of social justice with grace and determination. Let us continue to curate and engage with social justice topics that not only inform but inspire action and change, ensuring that every student can find their voice in the chorus calling for equity and justice in our shared world.

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is Social Justice?

Understanding social justice.

• Main Principles

Areas of Focus

Equity vs. equality, social justice in law.

• Social Justice FAQs

The Bottom Line

Social justice meaning and main principles explained.

Erika Rasure is globally-recognized as a leading consumer economics subject matter expert, researcher, and educator. She is a financial therapist and transformational coach, with a special interest in helping women learn how to invest.

Investopedia / Dennis Madamba

Social justice refers to a fair and equitable division of resources, opportunities, and privileges in society. Originally a religious concept, it has come to be conceptualized more loosely as the just organization of social institutions that deliver access to economic benefits. It is sometimes referred to as "distributive justice."  

Social justice is a broad term, and there are many variations in how advocates apply the perspective. However, social determinants like the racial wealth gap or inequitable access to health care feature heavily in social justice analysis. Some applications related to social justice, such as critical race theory, have become a battleground for American politics.

Key Takeaways

• Social justice refers to the fair division of resources, opportunities, and privileges in society.
• It emphasizes fairness in how society divides its social resources.
• One of the most famous examinations of social justice is John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice (1971) .
• Gender inequality, racism, and LGBTQ+ discrimination are frequent subjects of social justice advocacy.
• Some applications of social justice, like critical race theory, have become embattled in the American culture wars.

The phrase "social justice" draws its roots from Christian theology, with the first noted use occurring in the early 1840s in Theoretical Treatise on Natural Law by Luigi Taparelli. Taparelli was an Italian Jesuit priest writing during the rise of Risorgimento , a 19th-century Italian nationalist movement, and debates around the unification of Italy.

Taparelli’s version of social justice was simply an application of justice to social affairs and held that people should do what’s right based on a conceptualization of morality based on natural theology and religion, and for much of its history social justice has been a religious concept.

Not all notions of social justice emphasized religion, though. With the social impact of the Industrial Revolution , the term grew. Later theorists would focus on social justice as a moral obligation for people within a society to work for the common good; the most famous example is discussed below. 

The term, which has been historically contentious, has become more popular since the end of the 20th century. Some scholars point toward the neoliberal policies of the Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan administrations as a possible reason for this change.

An Old Concept

Though the phrase is attributed to Luigi Taparelli, social justice builds on older concepts. Taparelli relied heavily on the work of Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (who was relying on the work of the Macedonian philosopher Aristotle).

One of the most influential explorations of social justice comes from the 20th-century American philosopher John Rawls. In A Theory of Justice (1971) , which he labeled as a theory of social justice, Rawls outlined his vision of “justice as fairness.”

For Rawls, this meant that people ought to consider the rules for a fair allotment of social goods within a society as well as the levels of inequality that can be allowed within a society. Rawls famously used the concept of a "veil of ignorance," a pretense of ignorance about where one will end up in any given society that Rawls thought ought to be used to arrange society, as well as the "principle of difference," which holds that social and economic inequalities can be acceptable if they benefit the whole of society.

The basic element of fairness is crucial, especially in the access to social resources, sometimes called “social goods.” While it may sound abstract, how social goods are distributed is immensely impactful. Importantly, the “social determinants” of outcomes are considered central to whether or not a system is just.

In public health, for example, the place of birth can alter what health care options a person has and, therefore, also how long that person lives. To account for this, social justice advocates in healthcare might focus on extending the probability that people will be healthy despite resource inadequacies they may face for historical or economic reasons.

Main Principles of Social Justice

While there is no single definition of social justice, most approaches share the broad goals of inclusion and fairness. In order to achieve those goals, they establish a set of ethical principles for a just society.

These principles may include:

Equal access to social goods is one of the most fundamental principles of social justice. This holds that society's resources should be equally available to all. For example, many social justice theorists believe that people should have equal access to education, health care, and employment opportunities. Public servants can uphold this principle by ensuring that everyone has access to these resources.

Equity is the principle that people should have the same opportunities to succeed, despite any past injustices or systemic discrimination. This may mean that resources are distributed in a way that addresses the specific needs of underprivileged communities or people.

Diversity is the principle that government and business leaders should be broadly representative of the communities they serve. This means that not only should there be women and people of color in positions of power, but also that minority communities should be equally represented in public institutions. On a policy level, this principle may entail prohibitions on discrimination or providing resources in multiple languages.

Participation

Participation is the principle that everyone in a community should have a voice in making important decisions. In many societies, public policies are set by a small group of powerful people, without consulting the communities they represent. This may have the unintended effect of excluding a large part of the community.

Public policymakers can address this shortcoming by consulting the advocates of minority communities and considering their needs.

Human Rights

The final principle of social justice, and arguably the most fundamental, is human rights. In addition to political rights, such as freedom of conscience, it also requires freedom from police abuse and respect for one's reproductive rights and bodily autonomy.

Careers in Social Justice

The most common jobs relating to social justice are related to public administration and social work since these occupations deal directly with providing access to social and government resources. People who work in these professions should be conscious of the explicit and implicit biases that may reduce access to these resources for some members of society.

But it is also possible to advocate for social justice in other fields. For example, lawyers can help ensure equitable access to the justice system by representing clients who are traditionally underserved by existing institutions, and lobbyists can push for legislation that addresses community injustices. Other social justice-oriented occupations include mental health workers, victim advocates, and community developers.

While social justice seeks to ensure equality and fairness for all, it may focus on those groups that have been the victims of historical oppression. The following are some areas of focus for social justice workers:

Racial Equality

Racial equality is one of the most common issues in social justice, and many countries have a history of discrimination or oppression of minority ethnic or racial groups. Members of these groups may be at an economic disadvantage or suffer from unequal access to education, health services, or other essential institutions.

Gender Equality

Almost every country suffers from some sort of gender inequality, whether in the form of wage gaps , glass ceilings , or other forms of gender-based discrimination. In addition, women are also more likely to suffer from violence or sexual assault. or face threats to reproductive rights. Gender equality also affects other rights, such as racial equality. Many social justice advocates consider this a key aspect of social reform.

LGBTQ+ Equality

Starting in the 20th century, LGBTQ+ rights emerged as another issue for social justice advocates. Members of the LGBTQ+ community face high levels of violence and discrimination and may be denied access to healthcare or employment.

Although they are both related to the distribution of social goods and privileges within a society, equality and equity have taken on slightly different meanings in conversations around social justice. Equality, in this context, means that people are given the same access to opportunities, regardless of historical or other forms of injustice that may alter how much someone can access those opportunities. Equity, in contrast, tries to account for an imbalanced social system by providing the resources to create an equal outcome.

It is social justice’s adoption of equity that most of its critics focus on, but those in favor of the concept suggest that equity is a vital part of ensuring a just society. Paula Braveman, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, for instance, has commented that “health equity” and social justice in health are interchangeable. The goal of social justice in health care, she implies, “[is that] no one is denied the possibility to be healthy for belonging to a group that has historically been economically/socially disadvantaged.”

In law, social justice perspectives have become a touchpoint for the American culture wars. Critical race theory (CRT), an approach to law that actively seeks to account for how racial prejudices affect legal outcomes, has drawn particular outcry.

The term was developed by American legal theorists such as Kimberlé Crenshaw to analyze how racism is advanced by American legal structures, even in some cases in the absence of racist individuals. Central to CRT is the notion that race is not validated by science, and that the law has maintained an unjust order.

The Critics

Detractors of critical race theory have claimed that it is merely a way of permitting discrimination. According to the Brookings Institute, a public policy think tank, opponents of critical race theory tend to view the claim that American institutions are racist as a way of accusing White people of being individually racist, rather than as an attempt at broad analysis about the effect of institutions on social outcomes.

Campaigns against CRT have become increasingly vocal in state legislatures across the U.S., with many banning its teaching in primary and secondary schools. To date, 36 states have moved to install legislation to ban teaching about racial bias in the U.S., and 17 have moved to expand that teaching, according to a state legislative tracker created by Chalkbeat, a nonprofit newsroom focused on the American education system.

In 2020, President Donald Trump had also forbidden diversity and equity training from federal contracts, which has been described as an "equity gag order." That executive order conflated diversity training and CRT, calling both "divisive." The ban was reversed in 2021.

What Does Social Justice Mean?

Social justice is the belief that the social benefits and privileges of a society ought to be divided fairly.

Why Is Social Justice Important?

Advocates say that social justice is worth pursuing because it defends people from suffering deprivations due to unfair prejudices and because it tries to provide everyone with the essentials for a good life.

How Is Social Justice Related to Equity?

The concept of equity focuses on outcomes. It’s related to the belief that social determinants massively affect how people’s lives turn out and that, therefore, a truly fair arrangement of society will account for the tangible ways that this harms socially and economically disadvantaged groups.

Social justice is a political and philosophical movement aiming for a more division of resources and opportunities. By addressing historical injustices and directing resources to underserved communities, social justice advocates hope to establish a more fair and equal society.

United Nations. " Social Justice in an Open World ." Pages 13-14.

Center for Economic and Social Justice. " Defining Economic Justice and Social Justice ."

Intercollegiate Studies Institute. " The Origins of Social Justice: Taparelli D'Azeglio ."

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. " Thomas Aquinas ."

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. " Original Position ."

Kent State Online. " The Five Principles of Social Justice ."

Our Lady of the Lake University. " Discover 8 Careers in Social Justice ."

Human Rights Careers. " What Does Social Justice Mean? "

Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University. " Equity vs. Equality: What’s the Difference? "

Braveman, Paula. " What are Health Disparities and Health Equity? We Need To Be Clear ." Public Health Reports , vol. 129, no. 2, January-February 2014, pp. 5-8.

American Bar Association. " A Lesson on Critical Race Theory ."

The Brookings Institution. " Why Are States Banning Critical Race Theory? "

Chalkbeat. " CRT Map: Efforts to Restrict Teaching Racism and Bias Have Multiplied Across the U.S ."

UCLA Law. " Biden Reverses Trump Executive Order Banning Diversity Training ."

Human Rights Careers. " 10 Reasons Why Social Justice Is Important ."

• A History of Income Inequality in the United States 1 of 30
• How Education and Training Affect the Economy 2 of 30
• Education vs. Experience: Which One Gets the Job? 3 of 30
• Unemployment Rate by State 4 of 30
• Can a Family Survive on the U.S. Minimum Wage? 5 of 30
• The Economics of Labor Mobility 6 of 30
• Forced Retirement: What it is, How it Works, FAQ 7 of 30
• Predatory Lending: How to Avoid, Examples and Protections 8 of 30
• Unbanked: What It Means, Statistics, Solutions 9 of 30
• Underbanked: What It Is and Who They Are 10 of 30
• Underinsurance: What it is, How it Works, FAQ 11 of 30
• The History of Unions in the United States 12 of 30
• What Is Middle Class Income? Thresholds, Is It Shrinking 13 of 30
• What Is Poverty? Meaning, Causes, and How To Measure 14 of 30
• Gini Index Explained and Gini Coefficients Around the World 15 of 30
• Measuring Inequality: Forget Gini, Go with the Palma Ratio Instead 16 of 30
• Lorenz Curve 17 of 30
• What Is the Human Development Index (HDI)? 18 of 30
• What Are the Criticisms of the Human Development Index (HDI)? 19 of 30
• Poverty Trap: Definition, Causes, and Proposed Solutions 20 of 30
• Conflict Theory Definition, Founder, and Examples 21 of 30
• America's Middle Class Is Losing Ground Financially 22 of 30
• Hollowing Out: What It Means, How It Works 23 of 30
• Social Justice Meaning and Main Principles Explained 24 of 30
• Economic Justice: Meaning, Examples of How to Achieve It 25 of 30
• Welfare Economics Explained: Theory, Assumptions, and Criticism 26 of 30
• Egalitarianism: Definition, Ideas, and Types 27 of 30
• The Nordic Model: Pros and Cons 28 of 30
• Equity-Efficiency Tradeoff: Definition, Causes, and Examples 29 of 30
• The Economic Message Behind Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'Dream' Speech 30 of 30

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

• Community Impact , Racial & Social Justice

What is Social Justice?

While definitions vary in wording, they have commonalities: Equal rights, equal opportunity and equal treatment.

In the world of philanthropy, we often hear the phrase social justice . But what exactly does it mean? While you probably have a general idea, would you be able to define it in a short soundbite if you were put on the spot?

Several organizations and institutions provide their own definitions. Here are a few:

• “Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth.” United Nations
• “Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities. Social workers aim to open the doors of access and opportunity for everyone, particularly those in greatest need.” National Association of Social Workers
• “Social justice encompasses economic justice. Social justice is the virtue which guides us in creating those organized human interactions we call institutions. In turn, social institutions, when justly organized, provide us with access to what is good for the person, both individually and in our associations with others. Social justice also imposes on each of us a personal responsibility to work with others to design and continually perfect our institutions as tools for personal and social development.” Center for Economic and Social Justice

Defining Social Justice

While formal definitions vary in wording, they have commonalities.

• Equal rights
• Equal opportunity
• Equal treatment

With these core values in mind, we can define the phrase: Social justice means equal rights and equitable opportunities for all.

Social Justice Issues

Social justice encompasses a wide range of issues and advocates for the fair treatment of all people, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or socioeconomic status.

Some of the most pressing social justice issues include:

• Economic inequality: The gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider in many countries. This is a major social justice issue, leading to a lack of opportunity for the poor and marginalized.
• Racial injustice: People of color are disproportionately affected by poverty, crime and violence and face discrimination in employment, housing and education.
• Gender injustice: Women and girls have historically been denied the same rights and opportunities as men and face discrimination in the workplace, in education and in politics.
• Disability injustice: People with disabilities are often denied the same rights and opportunities as people without disabilities and face discrimination at work and in their communities.
• Environmental injustice: People of color and low-income communities are often disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and the impacts of climate change.

Social Justice Examples in the U.S.

There are many examples of social justice in action. Some of the most notable examples include:

• The Civil Rights Movement: This movement fought for the rights of Black Americans, including the right to vote, the right to equal education and the right to equal employment opportunities.
• The Women’s Suffrage Movement: This movement fought for the right of women to vote.
• The Disability Rights Movement: This movement fought for the rights of people with disabilities, including the right to education, the right to employment and the right to live independently.
• The Environmental Justice Movement: This movement fights for the fair treatment of all people concerning environmental hazards and the protection of the environment.

Social Justice Activism in San Diego

San Diego has a rich history of social justice activism. As San Diego’s largest regional community foundation, we focus our efforts on identifying and addressing our county’s greatest needs, many of which overlap with racial and social justice issues.

According to the San Diego Economic Equity Report, an alarming number of San Diegans are struggling to pay for their housing and other basic needs and substantial inequalities impact our neighbors, especially those who are Black or Latino/a.

In recent years, there have been many efforts to promote social justice in San Diego, including:

• The fight for affordable housing: San Diego has a severe housing affordability crisis , and many people are struggling to afford a place to live. There have been many efforts to build more affordable housing in San Diego, and to make it easier for people to afford housing. A visionary initiative of San Diego Foundation (SDF), the San Diego Housing Fund partners with investors, developers and property owners to create housing for all San Diegans. The goal is to support the creation of 1,000 units of new housing in each of the next 10 years to support a mix of incomes, with the majority of homes being affordable and middle-income units.

• The fight against racial injustice: There have been many efforts to address racial injustice in San Diego, including efforts to improve education, employment, and housing opportunities for Black San Diegans. Co-founded with the Central San Diego Black Chamber of Commerce, the Black Community Investment Fund , prioritizes and invests in community-led, innovative efforts that increase racial equity and generational wealth for Black San Diegans. We focus grantmaking on four key pillars, including Education, Employment, Entrepreneurship and Housing .

• The fight for environmental justice: People of color and low-income communities in San Diego are disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and climate change. There have been many efforts to promote environmental justice in San Diego, including efforts to clean up polluted neighborhoods and to make it easier for people to access clean air and water. Through SDF’s Environment and Outdoor Access initiatives , we work with nonprofit partners to preserve our outdoor spaces, increase equitable access to San Diego’s beautiful oceans, mountains and parks, and support the next generation of environmental stewards in our region.
• The fight for gender justice: Women and girls in San Diego face discrimination in many areas, including the workplace, education and healthcare. There have been many efforts to promote gender justice in San Diego over the years. Through SDF’s Children and Families initiatives and Workforce Development programs , we work to close gender inequality gaps and address challenges working parents face.

These are just a few social justice issues being addressed in San Diego.

Together, we’re working to accelerate access to economic opportunity and remove barriers that have historically stood in the path of inclusion, making San Diego County a better, stronger and more equitable region.

Learn more about our programs and initiatives , and consider donating to support our efforts .

Explore our Work

Related Content

Children & Families

Food for Thought: Scaling Up Food Waste Prevention & Recycling Initiatives

Community Impact

Celebrating Earth Month: Planting Trees with Forever Balboa Park

San Diego Unified, San Diego Foundation Award $8M to Support Fourth Summer of Extended Learning for Local Students Through Level Up SD

Vital Signs: Unveiling Health Disparities Across San Diego County

Grant Announcement

$838K in Grants to Local Nonprofits to Create More Inclusive, Equitable and Accessible Outdoor Experiences

On August 9, 2022, we awarded $838,704 in Opening the Outdoors grants to 24 nonprofit organizations that offer equitable access to outdoor spaces in San Diego County.

“San Diego Foundation is proud to once again support its partners committed to increasing community-driven efforts to enhance accessible outdoor space, encourage youth to learn more through hands-on education and create the next generation of environmental stewards in the San Diego region,” said Christiana DeBenedict, SDF Director of Environment Initiatives.

This year’s grantees will help address these inequities and enhance access to the outdoors throughout San Diego County.

See Grantees

About Kim Klein

Kim Klein is internationally known as a consultant, trainer and facilitator. She has been in fundraising for over four decades and has presented workshops in all 50 states and 25 foreign countries. She has a certificate in Spiritual Direction and believes the role of nonprofits is to, in the words of Peter Maurin, “create a world in which it is easy to be good.”

She has just completed the 8th edition of her classic book, Fundraising for Social Change. This edition is co-authored with Stan Yogi and amplifies examples of organizations and social movements which have demonstrated how raising money from individuals gives organizations maximum power and autonomy.

She recently retired from teaching at the School of Social Welfare at UC Berkeley and lives in Berkeley with her wife and two cats.

About Karen E. Osborne

Karen believes in the power of philanthropy, generosity, and service. She built her career around these passions not only as a major and principal gifts officer, vice president, speaker, teacher, consultant, and coach, but also as a donor, volunteer, and board member.

For eighteen of Karen’s forty-five professional years, she held leadership positions–Director of Major Gifts, Director of Development, and VP for College Advancement–at colleges and universities. For the past 27 years, Karen served first as President and now Senior Strategist at The Osborne Group, an international management, consulting, and training firm.

Karen enjoys a rich volunteer life. The Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) awarded her the Crystal Apple for Outstanding Teaching and Public Speaking, and the Ashmore Award for Outstanding Service to the Profession. In addition to volunteering for professional organizations, she serves as chair of the governing board of Easterseals Florida and volunteers in her community and church.

Karen is also a suspense, historical, and mystery writer. Getting It Right, June 2017. Award-winning and best-selling Tangled Lies, July 2021. Award-winning Reckonings, June 2022. Award-winning, historical, suspense, True Grace released September 2023. Her weekly Vlog, three-years old, What Are You Reading? What Are You Writing? showcases authors and other creatives.

About Mark A. Stuart, CFRE

A fundraising and community-building professional for nearly 30 years, Mark Stuart has devoted his career to helping donors realize their hopes, dreams and aspirations.

Since joining San Diego Foundation as President and CEO in May 2019, SDF has grown its assets to $1.5 billion. Under Mark’s leadership, SDF raised and deployed $67 million for COVID-19 relief efforts and in its most recent fiscal year granted a record $150 million.

During Mark’s tenure, SDF has launched a new strategic plan and vision for just, equitable and resilient communities, and has been named a Top Work Place by The San Diego Union-Tribune four years running.

Before joining SDF, Mark managed a staff of 64 and a budget of $14 million at San Diego Zoo Global (SDZG). He led SDZG’s first-ever comprehensive fundraising campaign, raising $530 million.

Mark serves on the Board of Directors for Certified Fundraising Executives International, the League of California Community Foundations, San Diego Regional Policy and Innovation Center and San Diego Symphony Foundation.

Opening Session

Speaker: Mark A. Stuart, CFRE, President & CEO, San Diego Foundation

San Diego Foundation President & CEO Mark A. Stuart will welcome attendees to the first-ever San Diego Fundraising Conference and share what’s in store for the day ahead.

Moving Your Fundraising Forward in 2023 and ’24

Speaker: Gail Perry, Founder & President, Gail Perry Group

Let’s look at trends and predictions for fundraising in 2023 and ’24. The giving environment continues to change – and donors are changing as well.

We’ll review the strategies you need to focus on this year, what’s working – and what’s not working in fundraising today. Where are the opportunities? How do we appeal to today’s donors? What are they looking for, and what will make them respond?

Join us to take a ride through the events and issues on the philanthropic landscape both now and in the near future.

The Conversational Ask: An Easier Way to Raise Money from Happy Donors

You have major gift prospects, but do you know how to bring up the idea of a potential gift? Don’t get stuck in endless cultivation – here’s how to move right into a Gift Conversation.

Gail will show you the path that will lead a donor from Discovery directly to an Ask Conversation. You’ll learn how to read your donor’s signals, and how to politely put an Ask on the table.

We’ll have some fun learning Power Discovery Questions that can light up your donor’s heart. You’ll have a chance to actually practice them, and you’ll see for yourself how they can unlock a donor’s enthusiasm and generosity.

Even more, You’ll discover how asking permission keeps your donor engaged and comfortable. These conversation-based asking and closing techniques will help you close more mega gifts!

Fundraising Wisdom Project

Speaker Panel

Wisdom is more than the accumulation of wins and losses. It is found at the intersection of knowledge, good judgment, and experience.

The goal of the Fundraising Wisdom Project is simple: we asked talented fundraising leaders to consider what wisdom they might share with their much younger selves. What guidance would they want to provide to those who might be newer to our profession to put those careers on a brighter and better trajectory?

Come to the conference’s closing session to hear five-minute (or less) stories from our presenters and other wise leaders, who have more than 200 years of collected wisdom, to inspire and enhance your impact on the San Diego region.

About Karen Boyd, Ph.D.

Karen Boyd, Ph.D. is an economist and the Director of Research at the San Diego Regional Policy and Innovation Center. In this role, she is responsible for developing, executing, and sharing actionable, equity-focused research on the region’s most pressing economic, social, and environmental problems.

She has published and presented research on artificial intelligence and the future of work in a variety of top-tier academic venues and was an editor for JASIST’s Special Issue on “Artificial Intelligence and Work.”

Karen earned her Ph.D. from the University of Maryland, College Park (2020), where she studied ethics in the curation of training data for machine learning models. She completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Michigan School of Information, studying the ethical implications of automated emotion recognition algorithms designed for use in the workplace. She also has an MBA from the Rady School of Management at the University of California, San Diego (2011) and a bachelor’s degree from San Diego State University.

About Cassie Carter, Ph.D.

Cassie Carter, Ph.D. is Vice President and West Region Director at Campbell & Company. She brings 30 years of passion for nonprofits, focusing on strategic and fundraising planning that builds a shared understanding of mission, leveraging strengths of organizations to achieve long-term success.

Prior coming to Campbell eight years ago, Cassie was Associate Vice President for Development and Director of Campaigns at Hawaii Pacific University, Associate Vice President for Development Operations Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, and Executive Director of the Montana Outdoor Science School.

Currently she serves at the Co-President for the Association of Fundraising Professionals – Greater Los Angeles Chapter, as board chair for the Foundation for Pierce College, and is a member of the faculty for the Center for Nonprofit Leadership at Cal Lutheran.

Cassie has a doctoral degree in Teaching and Learning with an emphasis in public administration from the University of Southern California, and a bachelor’s in biology from California State University, Northridge.

About Kirsten Farrell

Kirsten Farrell is the Director of The Goodman Center, which teaches communications and marketing professionals how to reach more people with more impact. She is publishes the monthly newsletter free-range thinking and The Do Good Better Blog both of which are Goodman Center resources that share tools and guidance for public interest professionals to connect to and communicate with their audience.

The Goodman Center is internationally known for speeches and workshops on storytelling. Kirsten has facilitated innumerable workshops and webinars for clients including The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, UCLA, The National Museum of African American History and Culture, Bank of America, NOAA, Pew Charitable Trusts and many others.

She served on the advisory team for The Corporation for Supportive Housing’s Speak Up! Program LA, where leaders with lived experience of homelessness train to tell their stories and advocate for permanent supportive housing. In her spare time, she performs as a company member of the nationally recognized Impro Theatre doing long-form narrative improv.

For more information about our work, please visit www.thegoodmancenter.com.

About Danny Kim, Ph.D.

Dr. Danny Kim catalyzes individuals and organizations to perform at their best. Danny is a skilled facilitator who creates psychologically safe environments for individual thinking and group collaboration. Using the power of inquiry, he asks insightful questions at pivotal moments to help leaders gain clarity and take courageous action. As a coach, he supports leaders when the stakes are high and decisions are complex. As a storyteller and keynote speaker, Danny inspires movement and momentum.

Danny’s career in organizational development began in the non-profit sector providing leadership in the areas of recruitment, retention, and employee development for organization effectiveness. As a career coach he conducted over 400 coaching conversations in career exploration and strengths-based leadership. During his time at the university, he began a doctoral program in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Danny gained experience as an external consultant at an organizational consulting firm serving clients ranging from start-ups to Fortune 500 companies.

Danny is currently the Sr. Director of People, Culture and Diversity at San Diego Foundation. He holds a B.S. in Biological Sciences and a Master of Divinity in Transformational Leadership. Additionally, he holds a doctorate in Industrial/Organizational Psychology is a Gallup-Certified CliftonStrengths coach and on-call faculty at the Center for Creative Leadership.

About Stephen Mally

Stephen Mally brings over three decades of fundraising and non-profit consulting experience.

Having served as a fundraiser in the United States, Stephen transitioned to consulting in Asia-Pacific, Europe, and North America in 2008. He is the CEO and Director of FundraisingForce, a boutique consulting firm based in Sydney, Australia and Rancho Mirage, CA. As a consultant, he has worked with thousands of schools, universities, and charities gaining a vast amount of exposure to diverse organizations and fundraising programs. Stephen acquired his Certified Fundraising Executive (CFRE) credential in 2011.

Stephen was named a Fellow of the Fundraising Institute Australia (FIA) in 2017. 
He served on the FIA Board for six years and currently serves on the CFRE International Examination Committee and CFRE International Board as its Vice Chair. He is also on the board of Pink Elephants Support Network in Australia.

About Adrienne D. Vargas

Adrienne Vargas has more than 30 years of development experience. She started her career as a student at Fordham University where she called alumni asking for donations. She then worked in annual giving for Harvard University before becoming a development officer for Grossmont Hospital Foundation. After six years at Grossmont Hospital Foundation, Adrienne was recruited to join The San Diego Foundation, where she worked for 20 years in a variety of roles, including overseeing human resources, the volunteer program, the San Diego Women’s Foundation, and donor relations.

In 2017 Adrienne joined San Diego State University as the Associate Vice President of Development before taking on the roles Vice President for University Relations and Development and President and CEO of The Campanile Foundation in 2018. Since joining SDSU, philanthropic support for the university has increased from over $83 million in 2018 to $136 million in fiscal year 2022.

How to Build a Highly Successful Monthly Giving Program

Speaker: Harvey McKinnon, President, Harvey McKinnon Associates

Fact: The average monthly donor will give 5 – 20 times more money than a single gift donor. Your organization needs more of them.

In this seminar, Harvey McKinnon will teach you how to start and grow a lucrative monthly giving program, or improve your existing one. You’ll learn how to avoid common mistakes and maximize your income. You’ll come away with techniques to promote donor loyalty, raise more money, and increase your organization’s financial stability. Harvey will illustrate these lessons with real-life examples and case studies that you can apply to your own organization.

Harvey has been called the “Master of Monthly Giving”. He has helped thousands of organizations raise billions of dollars in monthly gifts. He is the author of three of the only four books ever written on monthly giving. The first one, Hidden Gold, launched monthly giving programs globally. And his latest is: How to Create Lifelong Donors through Monthly Giving (2022).

Securing Donor-Advised Fund (DAF) Gifts and Donors

Speaker: Bill Stanczykiewicz, Ed.D., Senior Assistant Dean for External Relations, Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy

Donor advised funds (DAFs) are one of the fastest growing vehicles for charitable giving.

Why are donors using DAFs instead of giving directly to other nonprofit organizations, and how are DAFs helping donors maximize their philanthropy? Learn from the latest data on how you can incorporate DAF donors into your fundraising strategies.

The 11 Questions Every Donor Asks

Your prospects and donors have needs. When you satisfy these desires, they will give you money, much more money.

For over four decades Harvey McKinnon has been looking at fundraising from a donor’s perspective. In this session he looks at the 11 questions every donor asks, and he shows you how to answer them effectively. His strategy is being used by universities, international development agencies, hospitals and other nonprofits, all over the world

In this session you’ll learn:

• The 11 questions every donor asks – and the answers all donors crave
• 7 secrets to turn annual donors into major gift donors
• How to maximize a donor’s lifetime value

Creating Events with Impact

Speaker: Ingrid de Llamas, CFRE, IAP, Director of Philanthropy & External Relations, Epilepsy Foundation of San Diego County

We’ve all been part of the “rubber chicken event circuit” – those sometimes dreaded, often dull events that run together in our minds. Do you even remember why the last rubber chicken dinner you attended was held? How did it benefit the cause?

Donors today want to make an impact and they expect to see how their investments are being used to make a difference. Many nonprofits fall into the trap of holding the same event over and over each year. They spend countless dollars at hotels, have the same speakers, same video program and often forget WHY people are there.

Ingrid de Llamas will share ideas, lessons learned and the importance of re-evaluating your event program to include goals, consistent messaging and an understanding of the purpose and true cost of holding events. In this session you will learn how to create events with impact to further the mission of your organization.

Engaging Your Board in Fund Development

Fewer than half of nonprofits have boards of directors fully engaged with fundraising. Using data from BoardSource and interviews with successful nonprofits, this session reveals six research-based findings pointing toward practical steps you can take toward 100 percent board giving and fundraising.

How to Maximize Donor Potential

Speakers: Krista Lamp, Sr. Director of Brand, Events, Communication, Classy & Elizabeth Ruikka, Sr. Director of Demand Generation, Classy

Don’t miss this opportunity to gain strategic insights and tools to increase the lifetime impact of your supporters.

Discover how to maximize the lifetime value of your supporters through various campaign types. Learn about the essential elements of an effective stewardship strategy and how an all-in-one fundraising solution can unlock valuable donor insights. Gain practical knowledge on engagement strategies such as nurturing first-time supporters into repeat donors and engaging your recurring supporters at your next fundraising event. The Classy expert team will also discuss how to identify and cultivate your next generation of peer-to-peer fundraising leaders.

About Krista Lamp

Krista Lamp is the Senior Director of Brand, Events, Communication for Classy, a GoFundMe affiliate and Public Benefit Corporation that enables nonprofits to connect supporters with the causes they care about. Classy’s giving platform provides powerful fundraising tools so nonprofits can convert and retain donors. Since 2011, Classy has helped nonprofits raise over $5 billion. Previously, Krista spent 10+ years at some of the nation’s top public relations agencies.

About Elizabeth Ruikka

Elizabeth Ruikka is the Sr. Director of Demand Generation and at Classy. She is a strategic marketing leader with a decade of expertise across digital and owned marketing channels. Passionate about staying up to date with the ever-changing digital landscape, Elizabeth enjoys advising nonprofits on how to maximize the impact of their online fundraising strategy. During her tenure at Classy, she has developed a strong understanding of the unique challenges nonprofits face and is invested in their success.

About Alyssa Celones Senturk

Alyssa Celones Senturk (or Ally) is a Filipino-American creative storyteller with a multimedia marketing and science communication background. She specializes in building communities around causes for the common good – like clean water, science, and climate resilience. She is the Communications and Outreach Director for San Diego Coastkeeper, an environmental nonprofit working to protect and restore fishable, swimmable, and drinkable waters in San Diego County.

Stewardship & Engagement: Increasing Donor Loyalty

Speaker: muhi khwaja, mpa, cfre, cfrm, trainer, fundraising academy and co-founder, american muslim community foundation.

Fostering donor loyalty is an ongoing activity. The way you engage with donors after they make a gift is as important, or perhaps even more important, than the gift itself. Keeping all levels of donors involved and inspired can be the difference between a good fundraising practice and a great one. During this session, you will learn how to make your supporters feel every bit as important as they are, as you learn effective communication strategies to showcase impact and inspire major donors to continue to provide financial support. Join our presenter, Muhi Khwaja, MPA, CFRM, to learn how you can increase donor loyalty through creative stewardship and meaningful engagement strategies.

• Understand the value of donor loyalty and what it means to your organization.
• Learn the keys for retaining a higher number of donors.
• Build systems to showcase donor impact to foster their continued commitment to your cause.
• Develop a stewardship plan with meaningful follow-up activities that will inspire your donors and keep them involved in an ongoing way.

Download the Essential Guide to Donor-Advised Funds

This helpful resource provides you the information you need to better understand the impact and benefits of donor-advised funds.

Download the Nonprofit Giving Guide

Download the charitable legacy guide, subscribe to our newsletter, download the private foundation brochure, download the open a charitable fund brochure, download the custom corporate giving guide.

" * " indicates required fields

Subscribe to The Advisor Newsletter

The Advisor monthly e-newsletter provides philanthropy news and trends and financial planning strategies for advisors and their clients.

Contact our Scholarships Team

Subscribe to the give for good: children and families newsletter.

Receive quarterly email updates about our Children and Families programs and initiatives and opportunities for you to support stronger families in our region.

Subscribe to the Give for Good: Education Newsletter

Receive quarterly email updates about our Education programs and initiatives and opportunities for you to support enhanced learning experiences and increased access to college for San Diego students.

Subscribe to the Give for Good: Environment Newsletter

Receive quarterly email updates about our Environment and Climate programs and initiatives and opportunities for you to support equitable outdoor access and climate change resiliency.

Subscribe to the Give for Good: Racial and Social Justice Newsletter

Receive quarterly email updates about our Racial and Social Justice programs and initiatives and opportunities for you to learn about creating equitable opportunities for all and how to support our multicultural region and its diverse population.

This helpful resource provides you with information about corporate philanthropy and custom corporate giving solutions for your business.

Download the Private Foundation Solution Brochure

This helpful resource provides you the information about how donor-advised funds provide the benefits of a private foundation without the complexity, administrative burden or added expenses.

Download the Planned Giving Guide

This helpful resource will show you how you can leave a legacy to your family, your charity or your community that complements your will and trust(s).

In Memory of Simon Silva

San diego fundraising conference.

Are you interested in staying up to date on the San Diego Fundraising Conference? Subscribe today and receive email updates for current and future conferences.

This valuable resource will help you understand how to set up a legacy fund and the lasting impact planned gifts can have for you, your family and your community.

Download the 10 Steps to Accept Real Estate Gifts Checklist

This 10-Step Checklist guides nonprofits through partnering with SDF to accept and realize gifts of real estate. Submit the form below to download the checklist.

Essay on Social Justice

Students are often asked to write an essay on Social Justice in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Social Justice

Understanding social justice.

Social justice is the fair treatment of all people in society. It’s about making sure everyone has equal opportunities, irrespective of their background or status.

Importance of Social Justice

Social justice is important because it promotes equality. It helps to reduce disparities in wealth, access to resources, and social privileges.

Role of Individuals

Every person can contribute to social justice. By treating others fairly, respecting diversity, and standing against discrimination, we can promote social justice.

In conclusion, social justice is vital for a balanced society. It ensures everyone has a fair chance to succeed in life.

Also check:

• Paragraph on Social Justice

250 Words Essay on Social Justice

Social justice, a multifaceted concept, is the fair distribution of opportunities, privileges, and resources within a society. It encompasses dimensions like economic parity, gender equality, environmental justice, and human rights. The core of social justice is the belief that everyone deserves equal economic, political, and social opportunities irrespective of race, gender, or religion.

The Importance of Social Justice

Social justice is pivotal in fostering a harmonious society. It ensures that everyone has access to the basic necessities of life and can exercise their rights without discrimination. It is the cornerstone of peace and stability in any society. Without social justice, the divide between different socio-economic classes widens, leading to social unrest.

Challenges to Social Justice

Despite its importance, achieving social justice is fraught with challenges. Systemic issues like discrimination, poverty, and lack of access to quality education and healthcare are significant roadblocks. These challenges are deeply ingrained in societal structures and require collective efforts to overcome.

The Role of Individuals in Promoting Social Justice

Every individual plays a crucial role in promoting social justice. Through conscious efforts like advocating for equal rights, supporting policies that promote equality, and standing against discrimination, individuals can contribute to building a just society.

In conclusion, social justice is a fundamental principle for peaceful coexistence within societies. Despite the challenges, each individual’s conscious effort can contribute significantly to achieving this noble goal. The journey towards social justice is long and arduous, but it is a path worth treading for the betterment of humanity.

500 Words Essay on Social Justice

Introduction to social justice.

Social justice, a multifaceted concept, is often described as the fair and equitable distribution of resources and opportunities, where outside factors that categorize people into social strata are irrelevant. It encompasses the idea that all individuals should have equal access to wealth, health, well-being, justice, privileges, and opportunity irrespective of their legal, political, economic, or other circumstances.

Origins and Evolution of Social Justice

The concept of social justice emerged during the Industrial Revolution and subsequent civil revolutions as a counter to the vast disparities in wealth and social capital. It was a call for societal and structural changes, aiming to minimize socio-economic differences. The term was first used by Jesuit priest Luigi Taparelli in the mid-19th century, influenced by the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. Since then, the concept has evolved and expanded, encompassing issues like environmental justice, health equity, and human rights.

The Pillars of Social Justice

Social justice rests on four essential pillars: human rights, access, participation, and equity. Human rights are the fundamental rights and freedoms to which all individuals are entitled. Access involves equal opportunities in terms of resources, rights, goods, and services. Participation emphasizes the importance of all individuals contributing to and benefiting from economic, social, political, and cultural life. Equity ensures the fair distribution of resources and opportunities.

Social Justice in Today’s World

In the 21st century, social justice takes many forms and intersects with various areas such as race, gender, sexuality, and class. It is increasingly associated with the fight against systemic issues like racism, sexism, and classism. The Black Lives Matter movement, for instance, is a social justice movement fighting against systemic racism and violence towards black people. Similarly, the #MeToo movement is a fight for gender justice, aiming to end sexual harassment and assault.

Despite the progress, numerous challenges to social justice persist. Systemic and structural discrimination, political disenfranchisement, economic inequality, and social stratification are just a few. Moreover, the rise of populism and nationalism worldwide has further complicated the fight for social justice, as these ideologies often thrive on division and inequality.

Promoting social justice requires collective action. Individuals can contribute by becoming more aware of the injustices around them, advocating for policies that promote equity, and standing up against discrimination. Education plays a crucial role in this process, as it can foster a deeper understanding of social justice issues and equip individuals with the tools to effect change.

In conclusion, social justice is a powerful concept that advocates for a fairer, more equitable society. While significant strides have been made, numerous challenges remain, necessitating a continued commitment to promoting social justice. Through education and advocacy, individuals can play a crucial role in this ongoing effort. The pursuit of social justice, therefore, is not just a societal or institutional responsibility, but an individual one as well.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Justice
• Essay on Journalism
• Essay on Job Experience

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

What Does Social Justice Mean?

Justice is the concept of fairness. Social justice is fairness as it manifests in society. That includes fairness in healthcare, employment, housing, and more. In a socially-just society, human rights are respected and discrimination is not allowed to flourish. What’s the origin of the phrase “social justice?” It was most likely first used in the 1780s and appears in Paper #7 of The Federalist Papers . As the Industrial Revolution wound down, American legal scholars applied the term to economics. Today, its use has expanded significantly and applies to all parts of society. It’s seen through the lens of traits like race, class, sexuality, and gender. What does social justice look like?

Take a free course on Social Justice by top universities and NGOs

The principles of social justice

For social justice to become a reality, four pillars must be built: human rights, access, participation, and equity. Social justice can’t be achieved without these four principles.

Human rights

The connection between social justice and human rights has strengthened over the years to the point where many use “social justice” and “human rights” interchangeably. While they are technically different, it’s clear to activists that one can’t thrive without the other. When a society is just, it protects and respects everyone’s human rights. When a society respects and promotes human rights, social justice flourishes. This connection is essential because human rights are recognized globally. When activists fight for social justice, they can lean on the connection with human rights to hold governments, corporations, and individuals accountable.

A just society depends on access to essentials like shelter, food, medical care, and education. It isn’t enough for a society to invest in innovations or create new opportunities; society must also prioritize access. If access is restricted based on factors like gender, race, or class, it leads to suffering for individuals, communities, and society as a whole. Social justice activists spend a lot of time working to restore and increase access for everyone and not just a few select groups.

Participation

Who gets to have a say in society? Social justice isn’t possible if only a few voices are respected. Unfortunately, the voices of the marginalized and vulnerable are often silenced in favor of those with more wealth, cultural influence, and political power. This is even the case when people have good intentions and want to address major societal problems. If the voices of those most affected aren’t heard, solutions are likely to fail or possibly make things worse. Participation must be promoted, encouraged, and rewarded so everyone – especially those who haven’t had a chance to participate before – can speak.

Many people believe “equality” is one of the principles of social justice, but it’s actually “equity.” What’s the difference? Equity takes into account the effects of discrimination and aims for an equal outcome. There’s an often-cited and adapted graphic (originally created by business professor Craig Froehle) which demonstrates this clearly and simply: three people are trying to watch a baseball game over a fence. All of them stand on a box. One can easily see the field, while the other can just barely see, while the last person is still unable to watch. “Equality” has given everyone just one box to stand on, even though the tallest person doesn’t need a box and one box doesn’t allow the shortest person to see. “Equity” gives the tallest person’s box to the shortest person, allowing them to see. Now, everyone can watch the game.

Examples of social justice issues

When the four principles we discussed above are prioritized, a socially-just society is possible. Where do these principles need to be applied? Depending on the place, some social justice issues are more pressing than others. That said, most societies struggle with similar issues. Here are three examples:

Racial inequality

Racial inequality is one of the most common social justice issues in the world. Most nations have a history of racial discrimination and prejudice of some kind. As an example, the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow persists in the United States. Racial inequality affects a racial group’s ability to find work, get access to healthcare, and receive an equal education. Because race is not a biological reality, but rather a social and political construct with real consequences, progress takes social and political solutions.

Gender inequality

The way things stand, it will take 135 years for global gender equality to become a reality. Obstacles like the gender pay gap, weakening reproductive rights, and unequal education opportunities hold women back. The Covid-19 pandemic also erased a lot of progress as its impact on work and household responsibilities hit women harder. Social justice activists consider gender equality, which intersects with other issues like racial and sexual equality, one of the most important social justice issues of our time.

LGBTQ+ rights

People in the LGBTQ+ community face high levels of violence and discrimination. Prejudice at home, in the workplace, and at school could be a big reason why. Among other challenges, prejudice affects a person’s ability to find employment, shelter, healthcare, and safety. In recent years, the trans and non-binary community has experienced a surge of discrimination, which is already leading to violence and a rollback of rights. The state of LGBTQ+ rights is more in peril in some places than others, but even in the most progressive countries, social justice for the LGBTQ+ community is not well-established. As an example, by March 2022, almost 240 anti-LGBTQ rights – most targeting trans people – were filed in the United States .

Explore our collection of free LGBTQ+ online courses if you would like to learn more.

Courses to increase your understanding of social justice

Social justice is a broad field with many branches. Within the field, you can explore topics like feminism, racism, climate change, poverty, and more. To learn more, here are five courses to consider:

#1. Feminism and Social Justice (University of California Santa Cruz)

This online MOOC, which is adapted from Distinguished Professor Bettina Aptheker’s iconic course, offers students a fascinating journey through feminist history using three events: the Empire Zinc strike, the trial of Angelia Davis, and the #MeToo Movement. Students examine a working definition of “feminism,” explore the causes and effects of the three major events, and engage in discussions. The course takes about 8 hours to complete over four weeks.

#2. Causes of Racial Inequity in Healthcare (The University of Michigan)

This course is part of the “Addressing Racial Health Inequity in Healthcare” specialization. Students explore what causes racial inequity in healthcare, which is one of the most urgent and significant social justice issues. Topics covered include the United States healthcare system, the history of racial discrimination in healthcare, and how the system still perpetuates racial disparities. With 3-5 hours of study per week, most students can complete the course in about 5 weeks.

#3. Human Health Risks, Health Equity, and Environmental Justice (The University of Michigan)

The final course of the “Environment on Global Public Health” specialization, this course can be taken on its own if you’re interested in environmental justice, risk management, and more. In this course, students are introduced to environmental justice and EJ issues around the world. You’ll also learn what groups are most vulnerable to environmental health hazards, how to employ a 4-step risk assessment, and how to mitigate environmental injustices. The course takes about 17 hours to complete and can be audited for free with limited access.

#4. How To Change The World (Wesleyan University)

“How to Change the World” covers topics such as gender, education, poverty, activism, the environment, technology, and healthcare. If you’re looking for a broad overview of the most important social justice issues facing the world today, this course is a great choice. Students engage with videos, readings, quizzes, and discussions. Taught over six weeks, the course takes about 26 hours to complete.

#5. Love as a Force For Social Justice (Stanford)

Can love make the world a better place? What is the role of love in social justice movements? In this course, students are introduced to different types of love, non-violent communication, and how to apply love as a force for social justice. By the end of the course, students will have a better understanding of love’s role in community, connection, and change. Topics include biological, social, psychological, and religious perspectives on love. The course takes six weeks to complete or 28 hours.

What social justice means

Social justice means everyone’s human rights are respected, protected, and promoted. Everyone has access to equal opportunities and the resources necessary to thrive. This doesn’t guarantee a perfectg society where everyone is always happy; however, everyone will have a fighting chance at the life they want. They aren’t held back by things they can’t control like systemic barriers, prejudice, and discrimination . There isn’t one clear framework for what successful social justice looks like in practice, but that’s why principles like participation and equity are so important. As long as a nation values social justice and remains committed to its principles, true progress is possible.

You may also like

15 Examples of Gender Inequality in Everyday Life

11 Approaches to Alleviate World Hunger 

15 Facts About Malala Yousafzai

12 Ways Poverty Affects Society

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

Top 20 Issues Women Are Facing Today

Top 20 Issues Children Are Facing Today

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

Social Justice

Last updated on September 29, 2023 by ClearIAS Team

Justice in terms of wealth distribution, opportunities, and privileges in society is termed social justice. At its sixty-second session, in November 2007, the General Assembly of the United Nations proclaimed 20 February as World Day of Social Justice. Read here to understand social justice.

The World Day of Social Justice Day was observed for the first time on 20 February 2009.

On June 10, 2008, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) endorsed the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for Equitable Globalization. This is the International Labour Conference’s third major declaration of principles and policy since the ILO’s Constitution of 1919.

The observance of the day is intended to contribute to the further consolidation of the efforts of the international community in poverty eradication, promotion of full employment and decent work, gender equity, and access to social well-being and justice for all.

Table of Contents

What is Social Justice?

A fair and equal distribution of resources, opportunities, and privileges in society is referred to as social justice.

Once a theological idea, it is now more loosely understood to refer to the just arrangement of social structures that provide access to financial advantages. It is also known as distributive justice.

Add IAS, IPS, or IFS to Your Name!

Your Effort. Our Expertise.

Join ClearIAS

It emphasizes fairness in how society divides its social resources.

Gender inequality, racism, and LGBTQ+ discrimination are frequent subjects of social justice advocacy.

Social justice establishes rights and obligations within societal institutions, allowing everyone to share in the advantages and costs of collaboration.

Taxation, social insurance, public health, public education, public services, labor legislation, and market regulation are common examples of pertinent institutions that help assure equitable opportunity and wealth distribution.

The concept of Social Justice has been in place since the ancient ages when Plato and related philosophers wrote about it.

• Plato wrote in The Republic that it would be an ideal state that “every member of the community must be assigned to the class for which he finds himself best fitted.”
• Plato believed rights existed only between free people, and the law should take “account in the first instance of relations of inequality in which individuals are treated in proportion to their worth and only secondarily of relations of equality.”
• Socrates (through Plato’s dialogue Crito) is credited with developing the idea of a social contract, whereby people ought to follow the rules of society, and accept its burdens because they have accepted its benefits.

Significance of Social Justice

Poverty and inequalities within and among countries are on the rise in many parts of the world.

UPSC Prelims Test Series 2024

Take All-India Mock Exams: Analyse Your Progress!

The economic and social crises of recent years have been exacerbated by the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic , natural disasters due to accelerating climate change , geopolitical tensions, and armed conflicts.

Beyond the human tragedies associated with them and their impact on the world of work, these crises have highlighted the interlinkages and dependencies of economies and societies around the world and shown the crucial need for concerted action to respond to them, at global, regional, and national levels.

Important global changes have led to growing disruptions in economies linked to globalization and technology, significant demographic transformations, increasing migration flows, and prolonged situations of fragility.

The need of the hour is to curb the growing divide between problems and solutions and call for more inclusive and networked multilateralism, re-embracing global solidarity and renewing the social contract between governments and their people and within societies with a comprehensive approach to human rights.

Social justice makes societies and economies function better and reduces poverty, inequalities, and social tensions.

It plays an important role in attaining more inclusive and sustainable socio-economic development paths and is key for reaching the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2030 Agenda), especially at a time when the achievement of those goals remains far away.

Hence, social justice must become one of the pillars of the revitalized multilateralism that is needed; it must serve as a unifying ideal as well as a key tool for a more effective multilateral system, maintaining coherence across a variety of policy areas.

World Day of Social Justice

2023 Theme: Overcoming Barriers and Unleashing Opportunities for Social Justice

The 2023 World Day of Social Justice provides an opportunity to foster dialogue with UN Member States, youth, social partners, civil society, UN organizations, and other stakeholders on actions needed to strengthen the social contract that has been fractured by rising inequalities, conflicts, and weakened institutions that are meant to protect the rights of workers.

Despite these multiple crises, there are many opportunities to build a coalition for social justice and to unleash greater investments in decent jobs, with a particular focus on the green, digital, and care economy, and young people.

Social justice in India

The problem of social justice is associated with social equality and the constitution makers were strongly affected by the feeling of social equality and social justice at the time of the independence.

The terms, like Socialist, Secular, Democratic, and Republic, were inserted in the Preamble for the same cause.

Social justice denotes that all people are treated fairly without any social distinction. This ensures that the absence of privilege is limited to every specific segment of society and the conditions of poor classes (SCs, STs, and OBCs) and women are strengthened.

It involves eliminating glaring disparities in wealth, pay, and property. What is referred to as “distributive justice” is a combination of social and economic fairness. All Indians are guaranteed equality of opportunity and status under the Preamble.

Social injustice is a critical problem in Indian society. The analysis of a society’s social stratification based on either caste or class is primarily concerned with the definition of inequality.

The constitution guarantees social justice to the people of the country through articles:

• Article 15(1) forbids discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth
• Article 16 (1) ensures equal opportunity for all
• Article 17 states that untouchability has been abolished and prohibits its existence
• Article 19 enshrines the fundamental rights of the country’s people
• Articles 23 and 24 provide for fundamental rights against exploitation.
• Article 38 directs the State to secure a social order for the promotion of the welfare of the people
• Article 41 entails the Right to work, to education, and public assistance in certain cases

Government initiatives

NGOs Schemes

• Scheme of Grant in Aid to Voluntary Organisations working for Scheduled Castes
• National Action Plan for Drug Demand Reduction
• Atal Vayo Abhyuday Yojana (AVYAY)
• Scheme of National Awards for Outstanding Services in the field of Prevention of Alcoholism and Substance (Drug) Abuse
• Implementation Framework of National Action Plan for Drug Demand Reduction

Educational Schemes

• National Fellowship for OBC Students (NF-OBC)
• Ambedkar Scheme of Interest Subsidy on Educational Loan for Overseas Studies for OBCs & EBCs
• National Overseas Scholarship
• National Fellowship for Scheduled Caste Students
• Free Coaching Scheme for SC and OBC Students
• Babu Jagjivan Ram Chhatrawas Yojana (BJRCY)
• Pre-Matric Scholarship for OBC Students
• Scholarships for Higher Education for Young Achievers Scheme (SHREYAS) (OBC &Others) – 2021-22 to 2025-26.
• PM young achievers’ scholarship award scheme for vibrant India for OBCs and others (PM -YASASVI)
• Scholarship for PM CARES children

Schemes for Economic Development

• Entrepreneurial Schemes of NBCFDC
• Credit Enhancement Guarantee Scheme for the Scheduled Castes (SCs)
• National Safai Karamcharis Finance and Development Corporation (NSKFDC)
• National Scheduled Castes Finance and Development Corporation (NSFDC)
• Scheme of Assistance to Scheduled Castes Development Corporations (SCDCs)
• Self-Employment Scheme for Rehabilitation of Manual Scavengers (SRMS)
• Pradhan Mantri Dakshta Aur Kushalta Sampann Hitgrahi (PM-DAKSH) Yojana

Schemes for Social Empowerment

• Centrally Sponsored Scheme for implementation of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
• Pradhan Mantri Adarsh Gram Yojana (PMAGY)
• Support for Marginalized Individuals for Livelihood and Enterprise (SMILE)
• Pradhan Mantri Anusuchit Jaati Abhyuday Yojna (PM-AJAY)

Also read: Children and Armed Conflict

Way forward

To make social justice an effective tool for social advancement, it is vital to guarantee that policies are implemented correctly and fairly.

Liberalism prioritizes freedom, but it is aware that this freedom is meaningless unless it is supported by a sense of security and equality.

A liberal social policy should work to increase opportunity for the most disadvantaged while also building a social safety net that makes it easier for them to handle emergencies.

-Article written by Swathi Satish

Aim IAS, IPS, or IFS?

Prelims cum Mains (PCM) GS Course: Target UPSC CSE 2025 (Online)

₹95000 ₹59000

Prelims cum Mains (PCM) GS Course: Target UPSC CSE 2026 (Online)

₹115000 ₹69000

Prelims cum Mains (PCM) GS Course: Target UPSC CSE 2027 (Online)

₹125000 ₹79000

About ClearIAS Team

ClearIAS is one of the most trusted learning platforms in India for UPSC preparation. Around 1 million aspirants learn from the ClearIAS every month.

Our courses and training methods are different from traditional coaching. We give special emphasis on smart work and personal mentorship. Many UPSC toppers thank ClearIAS for our role in their success.

Download the ClearIAS mobile apps now to supplement your self-study efforts with ClearIAS smart-study training.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

Take ClearIAS Mock Exams: Analyse Your Progress

UPSC Prelims Test Series for GS and CSAT: With Performance Analysis and All-India Ranking (Online)

₹9999 ₹4999

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

John McWhorter

I’m a columbia professor. the protests on my campus are not justice..

By John McWhorter

Opinion Writer

Last Thursday, in the music humanities class I teach at Columbia University, two students were giving an in-class presentation on the composer John Cage. His most famous piece is “4'33",” which directs us to listen in silence to surrounding noise for exactly that amount of time.

I had to tell the students we could not listen to that piece that afternoon because the surrounding noise would have been not birds or people walking by in the hallway but infuriated chanting from protesters outside the building. Lately that noise has been almost continuous during the day and into the evening, including lusty chanting of “From the river to the sea.” Two students in my class are Israeli; three others, to my knowledge, are American Jews. I couldn’t see making them sit and listen to this as if it were background music.

I thought about what would have happened if protesters were instead chanting anti-Black slogans or even something like “D.E.I. has got to die,” to the same “Sound Off” tune that “From the river to the sea” has been adapted to. They would have lasted roughly five minutes before masses of students shouted them down and drove them off the campus. Chants like that would have been condemned as a grave rupture of civilized exchange, heralded as threatening resegregation and branded as a form of violence. I’d wager that most of the student protesters against the Gaza war would view them that way. Why do so many people think that weekslong campus protests against not just the war in Gaza but Israel’s very existence are nevertheless permissible?

Although I know many Jewish people will disagree with me, I don’t think that Jew hatred is as much the reason for this sentiment as opposition to Zionism and the war on Gaza. I know some of the protesters, including a couple who were taken to jail last week, and I find it very hard to imagine that they are antisemitic. Yes, there can be a fine line between questioning Israel’s right to exist and questioning Jewish people’s right to exist. And yes, some of the rhetoric amid the protests crosses it.

Conversations I have had with people heatedly opposed to the war in Gaza, signage and writings on social media and elsewhere and anti-Israel and generally hard-leftist comments that I have heard for decades on campuses place these confrontations within a larger battle against power structures — here in the form of what they call colonialism and genocide — and against whiteness. The idea is that Jewish students and faculty should be able to tolerate all of this because they are white.

I understand this to a point. Pro-Palestinian rallies and events, of which there have been many here over the years, are not in and of themselves hostile to Jewish students, faculty and staff members. Disagreement will not always be a juice and cookies affair. However, the relentless assault of this current protest — daily, loud, louder, into the night and using ever-angrier rhetoric — is beyond what any people should be expected to bear up under, regardless of their whiteness, privilege or power.

Social media discussion has been claiming that the protests are peaceful. They are, some of the time . It varies by location and day; generally what goes on within the campus gates is somewhat less strident than what happens just outside them. But relatively constant are the drumbeats. People will differ on how peaceful that sound can ever be, just as they will differ on the nature of antisemitism. What I do know is that even the most peaceful of protests would be treated as outrages if they were interpreted as, say, anti-Black, even if the message were coded, as in a bunch of people quietly holding up MAGA signs or wearing T-shirts saying “All lives matter.”

And besides, calling all this peaceful stretches the use of the word rather implausibly. It’s an odd kind of peace when a local rabbi urges Jewish students to go home as soon as possible, when an Israeli Arab activist is roughed up on Broadway, when the angry chanting becomes so constant that you almost start not to hear it and it starts to feel normal to see posters and clothing portraying members of Hamas as heroes. The other night I watched a dad coming from the protest with his little girl, giving a good hard few final snaps on the drum he was carrying, nodding at her in crisp salute, percussing his perspective into her little mind. This is not peaceful.

I understand that the protesters and their fellow travelers feel that all of this is the proper response, social justice on the march. They have been told that righteousness means placing the battle against whiteness and its power front and center, contesting the abuse of power by any means necessary. And I think the war on Gaza is no longer constructive or even coherent.

However, the issues are complex, in ways that this uncompromising brand of power battling is ill suited to address. Legitimate questions remain about the definition of genocide, about the extent of a nation’s right to defend itself and about the justice of partition (which has not historically been limited to Palestine). There is a reason many consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the most morally challenging in the modern world.

When I was at Rutgers in the mid-1980s, the protests were against investment in South Africa’s apartheid regime. There were similarities with the Columbia protests now: A large group of students established an encampment site right in front of the Rutgers student center on College Avenue, where dozens slept every night for several weeks. Among the largely white crowd, participation was a badge of civic commitment. There was chanting, along with the street theater inevitable, and perhaps even necessary, to effective protest; one guy even lay down in the middle of College Avenue to block traffic, taking a page from the Vietnam protests.

I don’t recall South Africans on campus feeling personally targeted, but the bigger difference was that though the protesters sought to make their point at high volume, over a long period and sometimes even rudely, they did not seek to all but shut down campus life.

On Monday night, Columbia announced that classes would be hybrid until the end of the semester, in the interest of student safety. I presume that the protesters will continue throughout the two main days of graduation, besmirching one of the most special days of thousands of graduates’ lives in the name of calling down the “imperialist” war abroad.

Today’s protesters don’t hate Israel’s government any more than yesterday’s hated South Africa’s. But they have pursued their goals with a markedly different tenor — in part because of the single-mindedness of antiracist academic culture and in part because of the influence of iPhones and social media, which inherently encourage a more heightened degree of performance. It is part of the warp and woof of today’s protests that they are being recorded from many angles for the world to see. One speaks up.

But these changes in moral history and technology can hardly be expected to comfort Jewish students in the here and now. What began as intelligent protest has become, in its uncompromising fury and its ceaselessness, a form of abuse.

John McWhorter ( @JohnHMcWhorter ) is an associate professor of linguistics at Columbia University. He is the author of “ Nine Nasty Words : English in the Gutter: Then, Now and Forever” and, most recently, “ Woke Racism : How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America.” @ JohnHMcWhorter

Opinion We have a radical democracy. Will Trump voters destroy it?

For some time, it was possible to believe that many voters could not see the threat Donald Trump poses to America’s liberal democracy, and many still profess not to see it. But now, a little more than six months from Election Day, it’s hard to believe they don’t. The warning signs are clear enough. Trump himself offers a new reason for concern almost every day. People may choose to ignore the warnings or persuade themselves not to worry, but they can see what we all see, and that should be enough.

Adapted from “Rebellion: How Antiliberalism is Tearing America Apart — Again” by Robert Kagan. Copyright © 2024 by Robert Kagan. Reprinted by permission of Penguin Random House. All Rights Reserved.

How to explain their willingness to support Trump despite the risk he poses to our system of government? The answer is not rapidly changing technology, widening inequality, unsuccessful foreign policies or unrest on university campuses but something much deeper and more fundamental. It is what the Founders worried about and Abraham Lincoln warned about: a decline in what they called public virtue. They feared it would be hard to sustain popular support for the revolutionary liberal principles of the Declaration of Independence, and they worried that the virtuous love of liberty and equality would in time give way to narrow, selfish interest. Although James Madison and his colleagues hoped to establish a government on the solid foundation of self-interest, even Madison acknowledged that no government by the people could be sustained if the people themselves did not have sufficient dedication to the liberal ideals of the Declaration. The people had to love liberty, not just for themselves but as an abstract ideal for all humans.

Americans are going down this route today because too many no longer care enough whether the system the Founders created survives and are ceding the ground to those, led by Trump, who actively seek to overthrow what so many of them call “the regime.” This “regime” they are referring to is the unique political system established by the Founders based on the principles of universal equality and natural rights. That, plain and simple, is what this election is about. “A republic if you can keep it,” Benjamin Franklin allegedly said of the government created by the Constitutional Convention in 1787. This is the year we may choose not to keep it.

A healthy republic would not be debating whether Trump and his followers seek the overthrow of the Founders’ system of liberal democracy. What more do people need to see than his well-documented attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power with the storming of the U.S. Capitol, the elaborate scheme to create false electoral slates in key states, the clear evidence that he bullied officials in some states to “find” more votes, and to persuade Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the legitimate results? What more do they need to know than that Trump continues to insist he won that election and celebrates as heroes and “patriots” the people who invaded the U.S. Capitol and smashed policemen’s faces with the stated aim of forcing Congress to negate the election results? As one 56-year-old Michigan woman present at the Capitol on Jan. 6 , 2021, explained: “We weren’t there to steal things. We weren’t there to do damage. We were just there to overthrow the government .”

Trump not only acknowledges his goals, past and present; he promises to do it again if he loses this year. For the third straight election, he is claiming that if he loses, then the vote will have been fraudulent. He has warned of uprisings, of “bedlam” and a “bloodbath,” and he has made clear that he will again be the promoter of this violence, just as he was on Jan. 6. Trump explicitly warned in 2020 that he would not accept the election results if he lost, and he didn’t. This year he is saying it again. Were there no other charges against him, no other reason to be concerned about his return to the presidency, this alone would be sufficient to oppose him. He does not respect and has never pledged to abide by the democratic processes established by the Constitution. On the contrary, he has explicitly promised to violate the Constitution when he deems it necessary. That by itself makes him a unique candidate in American history and should be disqualifying.

This kind of open challenge to our democracy was never meant to be addressed by the courts. As the Founders well understood, you don’t serve a subpoena to a would-be tyrant and tell him to lawyer up. Nor was it meant to be addressed by the normal processes of democratic elections. They knew, and feared, that a demagogue could capture the allegiance of enough voters to overthrow the system. That was why they gave Congress, and particularly the Senate, supposedly more immune from popular pressures, the power to impeach and remove presidents and to deny them the opportunity to run again — and not simply because they violated some law but because they posed a clear and present danger to the republic. After Trump’s attempt to overthrow the government in 2020, Congress had a chance to use the method prescribed by the Founders in precisely the circumstances they envisioned. But Senate Republicans, out of a combination of ambition and cowardice, refused to play the vital role the Founders envisioned for them. The result is that the nightmare feared by the Founders is one election away from becoming reality.

The problem with Trump is not that he has some carefully thought-out plan for seizing power, much less an elaborate ideological justification for doing so. (Others do have such plans and such justifications, including many of those who will populate his administration — more on that in a moment.) With Trump, everything is about him and his immediate needs. He will run roughshod over the laws and Constitution simply to get what he wants for himself, his family and his business interests. Americans know that if he is elected, he would abuse the justice system to go after his opponents. They know this because he says so. “I am your retribution!” he declares, and by “your” he means “my.” Americans know he would use his power as president to try to solve his financial problems. He did it as president and is doing it now as a presidential candidate . They know he would not respect the results of fair elections if he loses, which is the very definition of a tyrant.

So, why will so many vote for him anyway? For a significant segment of the Republican electorate, the white-hot core of the Trump movement, it is because they want to see the system overthrown. This should not come as a shock, for it is not a new phenomenon. On the contrary, it is as old as the republic. Historians have written about the “liberal tradition” in America, but there has from the beginning also been an anti-liberal tradition: large numbers of Americans determined to preserve preliberal traditions, hierarchies and beliefs against the secular liberal principles of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. The Founders based the republic on a radical set of principles and assertions about government: that all human beings were created equal in their possession of certain “natural rights” that government was bound to respect and to safeguard. These rights did not derive from religious belief but were “self-evident.” They were not granted by the Christian God, by the crown or even by the Constitution. They were inherent in what it meant to be human.

This is the central tenet of liberalism. Before the American Revolution no government had ever been founded on liberal principles, and the vast majority of human beings had never believed in these natural rights — certainly not the Christian church in either its Protestant or Roman Catholic versions nor Islam nor Judaism nor Hinduism nor Buddhism. People might be equal in the eyes of their god, but no government or religious institution had ever been based on the principle of equal rights. Not even the English system was based on this principle but rather on monarchy, a ruling aristocracy, and a contract between crown and subjects that was modified over the centuries but was not based on the principle of universal “natural” rights.

The Founders knew these ideas were radical, that they were inaugurating, in their own words, a novus ordo seclorum — a new order of the ages — that required a new way of thinking and acting. They knew, as well, that their own practices and those of 18th-century American society did not conform to their new revolutionary doctrines. They knew that slavery was contrary to the Declaration’s principles, though they permitted slavery to continue, hoping it would die a natural death. They knew that established churches were contrary to those principles because they impinged on that most important of rights, “freedom of conscience,” which was vital to the preservation of liberty, yet a number of states in the 18th and 19th centuries retained all kinds of religious tests for office. In short, they knew that a great many Americans did not in fact believe in the liberal principles of the Revolution. As Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, put it, “We have changed our forms of government, but it remains yet to effect a revolution in our principles, opinions and manners so as to accommodate them to the forms of government we have adopted.” They did not insist that citizens believe in those principles. One could be an American citizen whether one believed in the Declaration or not.

And a great many did not. Leaders of the slaveholding South called the Declaration “a most pernicious falsehood.” South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun called the very idea of equal rights a “false doctrine.” They believed in democracy, but only if it was an exclusively White democracy. When democracy turned against them in 1860, they rebelled and sought an exit from the system. That rebellion never ended. It has been weakened, suppressed — sometimes by force — and driven underground, but it has never gone away. Although the South was militarily defeated and deprived of its special advantages in the Constitution, its hostility to the Founders’ liberalism did not abate. As Southern writer W.J. Cash observed in 1941, if the war had “smashed the southern world,” it had nevertheless “left the essential southern mind and will … entirely unshaken” and Southerners themselves determined “to hold fast to their own, to maintain their divergences, to remain what they had been and were.” In 1956, almost a century after the Civil War, a fifth of Congress, almost all Democrats — signed the “Southern Manifesto” calling on states to refuse to obey the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision to end segregation in public schools. Nothing had changed. Are we so surprised that for many Americans, nothing has changed even today?

Nor has anti-liberalism only been about race. For more than a century after the Revolution, many if not most White Anglo-Saxon Protestants insisted that America was a Protestant nation. They did not believe Catholics possessed equal rights or should be treated as equals. The influential “second” Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s was anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish as well as anti-Black, which was why, unlike the original Klan, it flourished outside the South. Many regard today’s Christian nationalism as a fringe movement, but it has been a powerful and often dominant force throughout America’s history.

For two centuries, many White Americans have felt under siege by the Founders’ liberalism. They have been defeated in war and suppressed by threats of force, but more than that, they have been continually oppressed by a system designed by the Founders to preserve and strengthen liberalism against competing beliefs and hierarchies. Since World War II, the courts and the political system have pursued the Founders’ liberal goals with greater and greater fidelity, ending official segregation, driving religion from public schools, recognizing and defending the rights of women and minorities hitherto deprived of their “natural rights” because of religious, racial and ethnic discrimination. The hegemony of liberalism has expanded, just as Lincoln hoped it would, “constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of colors everywhere.” Anti-liberal political scientist Patrick Deneen calls it “liberal totalitarianism,” and, apart from the hyperbole, he is right that liberalism has been steadily deepening and expanding under presidents of both parties since the 1940s.

The fury on the anti-liberal right against what is today called “wokeness” is nothing new. Anti-liberal movements in America, whether in defense of the White race or Christianity, and more often both together, have always claimed to be suffering under the expanding hegemony of liberalism. They have always claimed that a liberal government and society were depriving them of their “freedom” to live a life according to Christian teachings and were favoring various minority groups, especially Black people, at their expense. In the 1970s, influential theologian R.J. Rushdoony complained that the Christian in America had “no right to his identity” but was forced to recognize “all others and their ‘rights.’” And he was correct if a Christian’s “rights” included the right not only to lead a Christian life oneself but to impose that life on the entire society, or if a White person’s “freedom” included the freedom to preserve white primacy in society. In the 19th century, enslavers insisted they were deprived of their “freedom” to hold human beings as property; Southerners in the post-Reconstruction era insisted on their “freedom” to oppress Black citizens in their states.

Today, anti-liberals in American society are indeed deprived of their “freedom” to impose their religious and racial views on society, on public schools, on the public square and on the laws of the nation. What Christian nationalists call “liberal totalitarianism,” the Founders called “freedom of conscience.”

Six decades ago, people like Rushdoony were responding not to “woke” corporations or Black Lives Matter but to civil rights legislation. Today, anti-liberal conservatives complain about school curriculums that acknowledge the racism that has shaped America’s history, but even five decades ago, before the invention of “critical race theory,” anti-liberal White people such as Rushdoony insisted that the “white man” was being “systematically indoctrinated into believing he is guilty of enslaving and abusing the Negro.” Nor is it new that many White people feel that the demands of minority groups for both rights and respect have “gone too far” and it is they, the White people of America, who are suffering the worst discrimination. In the 1960s, surveys taken by the New York Times showed that majorities of White people believed even then that the civil rights movement had “gone too far,” that Blacks were receiving “everything on a silver platter” and the government was practicing “reverse discrimination” against White people. Liberalism is always going too far for many Americans — and certainly for anti-liberals. Anti-liberals these days complain about wokeness, therefore, but it is the liberal system of government bequeathed by the Founders, and the accompanying egalitarian spirit, that they are really objecting to, just as anti-liberals have since the founding of the nation. Many of Trump’s core supporters insist they are patriots, but whether they realize it or not, their allegiance is not to the Founders’ America but to an ethnoreligious definition of the nation that the Founders explicitly rejected.

Some do realize it. The smartest and most honest of them know that if people truly want a “Christian America,” it can only come through “regime change,” by which they mean the “regime” created by the Founders. The Founders’ legacy is a “dead end,” writes Glenn Ellmers, a scholar at the Claremont Institute. The Constitution is a “Potemkin village.” According to Deneen and Harvard Law School’s Adrian Vermeule, the system established by the Founders to protect individual rights needs to be replaced with an alternative form of government. What they have in mind is a Christian commonwealth: a “culture that preserves and encourages order and continuity, and support for religious belief and institutions,” with legislation to “promote public morality, and forbid its intentional corruption,” a “forthright acknowledgment and renewal of the Christian roots of our civilization,” “public opportunities for prayers,” and a “revitalization of our public spaces to reflect a deeper belief that we are called to erect imitations of the beauty that awaits us in another Kingdom.”

These anti-liberal conservatives know that bringing such a commonwealth into being means jettisoning the Founders’ obsession with individual rights. The influential advocate of “conservative nationalism,” Yoram Hazony, wants Americans to abandon the Declaration in favor of a nationhood built on Protestantism and the Bible. America is a “ revolutionary nation ,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) insists, not because of the principles of the Declaration and not even because of the American Revolution itself, but “because we are the heirs of the revolution of the Bible” that began with “the founding of the nation of Israel.” There could hardly be a statement more at odds with the American Founders’ liberal, ecumenical vision.

Expressing a belief in God is no threat to the Founders’ system, but reshaping society in accord with Christian teachings is. To build the nation Hawley and Hazony imagine would require jettisoning not only the Declaration but also the Constitution, which was designed to protect the Declaration’s principles. The Christian commonwealth would not and could not be a democracy because the majority of people can’t be trusted to choose correctly. According to the Claremont Institute’s Ellmers, “most people living in the United States today — certainly more than half — are not Americans in any meaningful sense of the term.” They are a “zombie” or “human rodent” who lives “a shadow-life of timid conformity.” Only “the 75 million people who voted in the last election” for Trump are true Americans. Instead of trying to compete with Democrats in elections that don’t reflect the will of the people, Ellmers writes, “Why not just cut to the chase and skip the empty, meaningless process?” The “only road forward” is “overturning the existing post-American order.”

For these intellectuals, Trump is an imperfect if essential vehicle for the counterrevolution. A “deeply flawed narcissist” suffering from a “bombastic vanity,” as Deneen and Ellmers note, he has “lacked the discipline to target his creative/destructive tendencies effectively.” But this can be remedied. If Trump failed to accomplish the desired overthrow in his first term, Deneen argues, it was because he lacked “a capable leadership class.” Things will be different in his next term. What is needed, according to Deneen, is a “self-conscious aristoi,” a class of thinkers who understand “both the disease afflicting the nation, and the revolutionary medicine required for the cure,” who know how to turn populist “resentments into sustained policy.” Members of Deneen’s would-be new elite will, like Vladimir Lenin, place themselves at the vanguard of a populist revolution, acting “on behalf of the broad working class” while raising the consciousness of the “untutored” masses. Indeed, according to Harvard’s Vermeule, it will be necessary to impose the common good even against the people’s “own perceptions of what is best for them” — a most Leninist concept indeed.

The Christian commonwealth, then, would require a powerful executive freed from the Constitution’s liberal and democratic constraints. The new state, Vermeule wrote, with its “robust executive,” would “sear the liberal faith with hot irons,” wielding the “authority to curb the social and economic pretensions of the urban-gentry liberals.” The whiff of violence and oppression in such statements is intentional. The anti-liberal intellectuals understand that changing the liberal system will require far more than an election and a few legislative reforms.

Deneen and Vermeule are often dismissed as mere intellectual provocateurs, but their writings stand out because they have the courage to acknowledge that what they seek is incompatible with the Founders’ liberal system. While others conceal their views under a phony fidelity to American liberal principles or claim that what they want accords with the Founders’ true intent, Deneen, Vermeule and other anti-liberals acknowledge that the country they want, a country subservient to the Christian God, a country whose laws are based on the Bible, cannot be created absent the overthrow of the Founders’ liberal and defiantly secular system. Even a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Neil M. Gorsuch, speaks of the “so-called separation of church and state.” Anti-liberalism at the Supreme Court is nothing new, either.

And the anti-liberals know as well that this year may be their last chance to effect their counterrevolution. The percentage of the population made up of White people (let alone White Protestants) is steadily shrinking. Just as the anti-liberal conservatives of the pre-World War II years closed the immigration gates too late and were overwhelmed by a tide of non-Nordic peoples from Southern and Eastern Europe, so the immigration wave of largely non-White people since 1965 has brought the nation to the cusp of a non-White majority. The anti-liberals thus face the task of engineering the revolution with only a minority of the electorate committed to “regime change.”

Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party makes this possible. Trump is not a unique figure in American history. In each generation, anti-liberal forces have turned to the same breed of demagogue, the flouter of norms, the boorish trampler of liberal nostrums. William Buckley noted that the very “uncouthness” of George Wallace seemed to “account for his general popularity.” James Burnham marveled at how Joseph McCarthy’s “inept acts and ignorant words” had a “charismatic” quality that well expressed the fears and angers of his devoted followers.

What their critics saw as boorishness and malevolence, however, their followers saw as strength and defiance against a liberal system stacked against them. They were rebellious opponents of the system, “wreckers,” unabashedly anti-liberal in both thought and manner, and that is precisely what made them popular among a broad swath of White Americans who felt themselves losing ground in the culture and society — to Black people, Catholics, Jews and immigrants from non-Nordic countries. Today, exactly a century after the most overtly racist immigration restriction in American history, Trump once again calls for more immigrants from “nice” European countries, such as Denmark, Switzerland and Norway.

Trump did not just stumble into leadership of this movement of White rebellion. He summoned it. He made his debut as presidential aspirant on an unabashed white supremacist platform, championing the birther conspiracy that America’s first Black president was not in fact an American. Riding that issue alone, he catapulted to the front of the Republican pack, according to polls in 2011, before bowing out to continue his hit show, “The Apprentice.” Whether his debut as a white supremacist was opportunism or sprang from conviction hardly matters — it certainly has not mattered to his followers. The fact is, white supremacy has been his calling card, and millions have responded to it to the point where white nationalists have become the core of his movement. Many Christian nationalists already see him as a suffering Christ, and in this bizarre sense it is true that the prosecutions have “helped” him: The more adversity he faces, the more court battles he must wage, the more allegations that are slung at him, the more devoted they are to him.

No other group can be counted on for such absolute loyalty. While some Republicans wobble when asked if they would support Trump if convicted of a crime, White Christian Evangelicals overwhelmingly say they will support him no matter what. Trump needs that unshakable loyalty because he is fighting for his life. The thought that he might end up in jail has given him every reason to hew as closely as possible to the people who will stick with him even if he is convicted. These are also the people he will need to back him unconditionally in challenging the results of the election should he lose. If he wins, he will need them in what are sure to be titanic fights with Democrats and the legal system and to keep the Republican Party in line.

This is one reason Trump has so far shown no inclination to reach out beyond his base, to Nikki Haley voters, to more moderate suburban Republicans, to those who are made uncomfortable by his statements and actions. He may show flexibility on the important issue of abortion to secure his own election, but since clinching the nomination, he has only hardened his Christian nationalist message. His “poisoning the blood” campaign, his “dictator-for-a-day” comments, his release of the Trump Bible, his claim that, upon taking office, he will create “a new federal task force” to fight “anti-Christian bias to be led by a fully reformed Department of Justice,” are all aimed directly at his white Christian nationalist base without much concern for how millions of other Republican voters feel about it. Christians are “under siege,” he claims in hawking his Bible. “We must make America pray again.”

Besides, his hard tack toward white supremacy and Christian nationalism has cost him little among the broader Republican electorate.

Why not? Why is there so little resistance to Trump even as he commits ever more deeply to a Christian nationalist program for undoing the Founders’ liberal project?

For many, the answer is simply narrow self-interest, either a positive interest in supporting him or a negative interest in not opposing him or being seen to oppose him. This seems to be the answer for corporate America. Having first followed marketing data to appeal to the broadest cross-section of Americans by embracing communities only recently enjoying more of the full panoply of rights, businesses learned the hard way that Trump and his movement will not tolerate this and have mostly retreated to silence and neutrality. But they have also gone further, making clear as much as possible that they will not be a problem for him — either before he is elected or after.

This was the message JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon sent, from Davos, Switzerland, of all places, early this year when he declared that Trump was “kind of right about NATO, kind of right about immigration,” that he “grew the economy quite well.” There is no reason to doubt that he spoke for many of the richest Americans and for other corporate leaders. There was no outcry among them that anyone could hear. The truth is, they have no financial reason to oppose Trump. They know that Trump’s White working-class followers don’t have to be paid off economically because most care chiefly about the culture wars. Trump can still cut taxes and reduce federal regulations and other obstacles to corporate profit. The rich and powerful will always have some purchase in a Trump administration if only because he needs and respects money and will want to make deals for himself and his family, as he did in a first term. Whatever moral or political qualms business leaders may have about Trump, the bottom line dictates that they get along with him, and if that means turning a blind eye to his unconstitutional actions — Dimon’s favorable recounting of Trump’s first term notably ignored his attempt to overthrow the government — then so be it.

We already know that little or no opposition will come from the Republican Party ecosystem. Among elected officials, the few willing to stand up to Trump have either been driven out of the party or are retiring so fast that they cannot even bear to finish out their terms. Those who remain have accepted Trump’s iron rule and therefore now have an interest in his success.

But what about the average Republican voter, the “normal” Republicans who happily voted for George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney? Do they not see the difference between those Republicans and Trump — or do they not care? They, too, may feel their narrow interests are served by a Trump victory, and although they may not be Christian nationalists themselves, their views as White Americans make them sympathetic to the complaints of the anti-liberals. They, too, may feel they — or their children — are at a disadvantage in a system dedicated to diversity and wokeness. Their annoyance with a liberalism that has “gone too far” makes them susceptible to Trump’s appeal, and, more importantly, unconcerned about the threat he poses. Left to their own devices, they would not be interested in overthrowing the regime. But neither are they inclined to stand in the way of those who are.

Are these voters and GOP power players right to believe that they, like Dimon, will be just fine in a system no longer faithful to the Founders’ liberal ideals? Perhaps so. They will not be the first to suffer from a shift back toward a 1920s America. White Americans tolerated the systematic oppression of Black people for a century after the Civil War. They tolerated violence in the South, injustice in the courtrooms, a Supreme Court that refused to recognize the equal rights of Black people, women and various minorities. Will they rise up against a second Trump term infused by Christian and white nationalism, or will they acquiesce in the gradual dismantling of the liberal gains of the past eight decades?

The shame is that many White people today seem to have conveniently forgotten how much they and their forebears have depended on the Founders’ liberalism to gain their present status as fully equal members of American society and to enjoy the freedoms that they take for granted.

Most White Republicans, after all, do not have the “legacy European” lineage that Tucker Carlson praises. They do not have ancestors who stepped off the Mayflower or fought in the Revolution. The ancestors of the great majority of “White” Americans today were not considered “White” when they first set foot on American shores. Irish Americans may no longer remember that the Thomas Nast cartoons of the late 19th century depicted the Irish as apelike creatures. Many Italian Americans may not recall that a riot made up of “New Orleans’ finest” lynched and murdered 11 Sicilian immigrants and were never charged.

Many Catholics seem to have forgotten that they were once the most despised group in America, such that one of the Founders, John Jay, wanted them excluded from citizenship altogether. Most White Americans were at one time members of despised immigrant groups. They were the victims of the very anti-liberalism they are now voting back into power. They climbed to equality using liberalism as their ladder, and now that they have reached their destination they would pull away the ladder and abandon liberalism. Having obtained their equality using the laws and institutions of liberalism, their passion for liberalism has faded.

The Founders understood, and feared, that the fervor for rights and liberalism that animated the Revolution might not last. Writing in 1781, two years before the end of the war, Thomas Jefferson predicted that once the war ended, “we shall be going down hill.” The people would return to their quotidian lives, forgetting their passionate concern for rights, intent only on “making money.” They might never again come together “to effect a due respect for their rights,” and so their government would stop being solicitous of their rights. Over a half-century later, Lincoln, in his famous Lyceum address, lamented that the original spirit of the Revolution had dissipated with time, leaving Americans with only the normal selfishness of human beings. The original “pillars of the temple of liberty” had “crumbled away.” A little over two decades later, the nation fell into civil war.

If the American system of government fails this year, it will not be because the institutions established by the Founders failed. It will not be because of new technologies or flaws in the Constitution. No system of government can protect against a determined tyrant. Only the people can. This year we will learn if they will.

• Opinion | Why campus protests against Israel probably won’t be effective April 25, 2024 Opinion | Why campus protests against Israel probably won’t be effective April 25, 2024
• Opinion | Why Trump’s vice-presidential search may have taken a new turn April 23, 2024 Opinion | Why Trump’s vice-presidential search may have taken a new turn April 23, 2024
• Opinion | How to fix college finances? Eliminate faculty, then students. April 23, 2024 Opinion | How to fix college finances? Eliminate faculty, then students. April 23, 2024

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Judge throws out case against UK climate activist who held sign on jurors’ rights

Trudi Warner was accused of contempt for holding placard reminding jurors of right to acquit based on conscience

A high court judge has thrown out an attempt by the government’s most senior law officer to prosecute a woman for holding a placard on jury rights outside a climate trial.

Mr Justice Saini said there was no basis for a prosecution of Trudi Warner, 69, for criminal contempt for holding a placard outside the trial of climate activists that informed jurors of their right to acquit a defendant based on their conscience.

The judge accused government lawyers of “mischaracterising” the evidence when they said Warner had acted in an intimidating and abusive manner, confronting potential jurors outside the court and following them, in a deliberate attempt to interfere with the administration of justice.

Warner, a retired social worker, was being pursued for contempt of court after a lone protest last year outside inner London crown court in which she held up a placard highlighting the right of jurors to acquit defendants on their conscience. She protested at the start of a trial of Insulate Britain protesters for a peaceful roadblock. But the attorney general decided to pursue Warner for contempt of court, and the solicitor general was in the high court last week to seek permission to charge her.

In Monday’s ruling, Saini threw out the government lawyers’ application. He said: “The solicitor general’s case does not disclose a reasonable basis for committal … the conduct did not amount to an act of contempt.

“I refuse the solicitor general permission to proceed and I dismiss the claim.”

He challenged the solicitor general’s allegation that Warner had confronted, instructed, encouraged or incited potential jurors to ignore the judge’s directions when they came to their verdict. Saini said Warner had not harassed, impeded or even spoken to any of those entering inner London crown court last year, and criticised the government lawyers.

“It is fanciful to suggest that Ms Warner’s behaviour falls into the category of contempt,” he said. “The category is limited to threatening, intimidatory, abusive conduct or other forms of harassment.

“I reject the arguments made in the claimant’s … argument that Ms Warner confronted jurors … these submissions significantly mischaracterise the evidence.”

Warner’s sign was in reference to a 1670 landmark case which cemented the independence of juries, known as “Bushel’s case”, in which a jury refused to find defendants guilty despite having been repeatedly instructed to do so by the judge.

Warner’s placard read: “Jurors, you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.”

Warner, who waited for a year to find out if she would be prosecuted for contempt of court, said outside court she was feeling “very relieved”.

“I feel it is job done,” she said. “What I was doing was drawing attention to the terrible repression of conscientious protectors, and in particular climate protesters, by the state.

“If what I did will empower other defendants to use the power to acquit by juries, this will have been the fight of my life.”

In his ruling, the judge said there was a well-established principle in law of jury equity; this was a de facto power to acquit a defendant regardless of directions from the judge. He said the principle in law had been tested in the highest courts in England and Wales, and existed in other countries such as Canada, New Zealand and the US.

Warner stood outside inner London crown court last March for 30 minutes holding the placard as members of the public, lawyers and potential jurors filed into court. She held the sign on the first day of a trial for public nuisance of members of the climate campaign group Insulate Britain.

The judge in that trial, Silas Reid, referred her action to the attorney general to consider contempt of court.

Last week, the solicitor general argued in the high court that Warner should be prosecuted for contempt for holding the sign.

Aidan Eardley KC told the court a prosecution was needed “to maintain public confidence” in the independence of the jury system and that if Warner went unpunished, similar acts were “likely to propagate”. He claimed Warner had confronted jurors outside court and her actions were an interference with the administration of justice.

Saini said in his ruling on Monday Warner had made no attempt compel those going into the court.

“What is striking to me is how little Ms Warner tries to engage with people, to get their attention, or to persuade them of anything. She was … in essence, a human billboard.”

The decision was welcomed by supporters outside the high court. It came after the UN rapporteur on environmental defenders highlighted the repressive actions taken against climate campaigners in the UK.

Michel Forst said he was alarmed at the restrictions being placed on defendants in climate trials, which include being prevented from mentioning the words climate change or fuel poverty, or the tradition of peaceful protests embodied in the US civil rights movement.

• UK criminal justice
• Climate crisis
• UK civil liberties

More on this story

Extending extremism definition risks fuelling unlawful protest, warns Greenpeace UK

Calling Gaza protesters extremist risks dividing UK, says government adviser

No 10 faces Tory backlash over plans to broaden extremism definition

UK ministers consider ban on MPs engaging with pro-Palestine and climate protesters

Tories accused of hypocrisy for supporting farmers’ protests

Why does Rishi Sunak want to clamp down on protests?

Sunak demands ban on protests at MPs’ homes and crackdown on ‘mob rule’

European nations must end repression of peaceful climate protest, says UN expert

UK home secretary may tighten restrictions on protests

Most viewed.