It is with mixed feelings that I approach the task of responding to Professor Perkinson's 1 and Professor Perry's ~ criticisms of my article on equality in education. So far as they have raised challenging points and carried the argument in new directions, it is rewarding to enter into a discussion that promises to break some fresh ground. But when as careful and astute a reader as Professor Perry a~tempts with great force of logic and rhetoric :to break through doors which had been thrown wide open in the paper he criticizes, it is frustrating to have to go once more over the well-trodden territory to remove the debris.
The first two sections of this rejoinder will deal with some interesting points raised by my critics, which either had been taken for granted or could be ,touched on only briefly in my previous essay. The third section will be devoted to answering some of Professor Perry's objections which I regard as unfounded. ! Principles and policies It is flattering to be to]d by Profe'ssor Perkinson that as a philosopher one has, inadvertently, performed an important service for another learned discipline. (p. 49,8) Yet it is all the 1 Henry d. Perkinson, "On the Usefulness of P'hllosophers of Education," STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY AND EDUCATION, V (Fall, "1967), 428-32. Each quotation from this essay, or reference to some part of it, is followed by the number of the page on which "it appears. 2John R. Perry, "Equality and Education: Remarks on Klei.nberger's Paper," IBID., 433-45. Quotations and references will be attributed in the manner indicated in note 1, above.
Studies in Philosophy and Education