In this response, I shall not so much disagree with Messrs. B. Paul Komisar and Jerrold R. C,oombs, the mtthors of "The Concept of Equality in Education," 1 as much as continue their analysis at two points where it seems to me to be incomplete. I shall argue that 'equality,' even vchen taken in. the "fittingness'" sense, implies sameness; that no particular brand of sameness is implied; and that a persola making a demand or claim for equal treatment or ,opportunity thereby ,commits himself to specifying in what sense the treatment is the same as that afforded other people. Finally, I shall argue that Komisar and Coombs do not place enough emphasis on the "essen6ally contested" character of the concept of equality, which is all that saves the concept from total vacuity. ! The two senses of equality: ~'sa me ness" and "fittingness" In Komisar and C oombs's analysis there are two concepts of equality. The first is descriptive and has a "determinate definition and a singular meaning" -'the same". (p. 224) Its correct use involves accurately applying a single valid measurement scale to two or more individuals who are .found to be the same in respect of the wharacteristic measured. (p. ~26) The second is indeterminate, ascriptive, 2 and prescriptive; its correct 1 B. Paul Komisar and Jerroid B. Coombs, "The Concept of EquMity in Educatlon," STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY AND EDUCATION Ill (Spring, 1964), 223-244. Each quotation from this essay, or reference to some part of it, is followed by the number of the page on which it appears. I have argued some of the points appearing below with Professor Komisar, who is not to be charged with any weaknesses herein.
2 There are some problems with the notion of "ascription" which I shall not deal with here; these are connected with a too-broad extension of the notion, and not as much with the rather narrow sense in which V. C. Welsh and Komlsar and Coombs use it. For the positive view, see V. C. Welsh, "Ascriptions and Appraisals,"