uh you know this magnificent building was not exactly built for microphones uh you know I I guess we we should have like polished our oratory skills and and you know just spoken without microphone but this is much better I think um so welcome back uh warm welcome to all of you here in the sheldonian as well as those who are joining us at Road's house and around the world uh for this uh concluding session of our 120th uh anniversary programming which will focus on the future uh and issues that we engage with as we think about the next 120 years uh of the of the road scholarship um I did want to start by recognizing the fact that there are a lot of Scholars and residents in sh the Sheldon we're so pleased to see you all here yep um a and also to say that we've had some incredible scholar uh volunteers and leaders as a part of this uh this whole reunion and I I did want to give a shout out I have no idea if they're here but um uh we were I especially wanted to give h a shout out to Kenza wils uh from Bermuda see here um kenza's Bermuda and Bal 2021 and misba RI India and Somerville [Applause] 2021 they they have worked incredibly hard on uh on the kind of scholar programming as well as the the volunteer efforts that they have um they have put throughout the the time that we have been together um also want to just take a moment to welcome our Chancellor uh Lord Patton of Barnes uh we're really delighted to have you here although he refused to sit in his chair I was I was I was kind of disappointed that we couldn't we couldn't talk him into that so we are all in for a treat in this next session um it's my great pleasure to uh very briefly but to introduce because I could I could spend a long time introducing Michael but to introduce Michael sandel Massachusetts and Bal 1975 Michael is the auntie and Robert M bass professor of political Theory at Harvard University where his course justice has not only engaged generations of Harvard undergraduates and broaden their thinking and uh and you know spark their imagination but has also been viewed by tens of millions of people around the world basically everyone else who studied philosophy at Oxford is thinking wow I've never done anything that's been you know viewed by tens of millions of people but it's I just I love how Michael has taken his uh his philosophical training and brought it to the public sphere in a way that goes back to some of the early roots of philosophy as a as a Civic activity uh that engages engages the broader community and he is also the author of I think I may have lost count 12 books um including liberalism and the limits of Justice what money can't buy the moral limits of markets democracy's discontent and a book that is quite relevant to the session he'll be leading with us with all of us uh this afternoon the tyranny of Merit so please join me in welcoming Professor Michael [Applause] sandel thank you Elizabeth for that generous introduction thank you all for being being here we are having a debate in in the round because this is not a lecture really it's a kind of a forum and Elizabeth you've given me a daunting assignment to lead a debate about meritocracy in a theater full of Road Scholars it's a bit like asking the Argentine championship football team whether they approve of the World Cup it's also ours is an intergenerational dialogue yet another aspect of the challenge and the opportunity we have a large cohort of Scholars in Residence they're young vigorous idealistic and we have us RADS alums how shall I describe us not ancient no seasoned how about that now to Think Through the question of meritocracy requires us to think through a fundamental question of Justice who deserves what and why how should the good things in love life how should income and wealth but also power and opportunity honor recognition and social esteem how should they be be distributed we'll come to that but first I'd like to put to you a question about who should govern in the mid 19th century the philosopher John Stewart Mill had a proposal about who should govern who should have the right to vote he favored universal suffrage for women as well as men he thought everyone in a democracy should be able to vote but he also thought it was important that those who were well educated have the greatest influence and so he proposed a system of plural voting the number of votes a citizen received would depend on how well educated that person was so for example an unskilled laborer should get a vote one vote a skilled laborer to a supervisor three a Trader or a farmer four professionals lawyers Physicians members of the clergy they should get five or six and graduates of universities those with degrees should get at least six maybe seven because Mill thought it was important that we be governed by those with the greatest knowledge and understanding of public affairs imagine how many votes he would have given Road Scholars 17 maybe he had a Proviso which was that if you didn't have a degree but if you were very knowledgeable you should be able to take an exam an impartially administered exam and if you did well enough you too would qualify for the maximum number I'd like to begin our discussion by seeing what you think of John Stewart Mills proposal more votes for the better educated how many would be in favor of such a system raise your hand I don't see very many hands here in the sheldonian theater I see only about three or four hands how many are opposed I assume everyone else all right now to begin our discussion let's hear why almost everyone is opposed what's wrong with John Stewart Mills scheme who will begin our discussion we'll begin with the scholars in Residence yes and tell tell us your name we'll bring you a microphone oh there you go okay my name is Jeffrey fga Canadian prairies and Jesus 2021 um and I'd say the problem with that there's not equal access to education so people don't have the same opportunities to get the maximum number of votes and therefore it's wrong to and therefore since not everyone has an equal opportunity to get a University degree it would be wrong to give degree holders more votes that's correct yeah and what do you say to Mill's argument shouldn't we be governed by those who are knowledgeable I think we should be governed by those are knowledgeable but like the specific question about whether you should get more votes than other people when it's inequal access to education I would say no okay thank you for that who else who else has a view about about it yes go ahead please and tell us your name hi everyone my name is fion Quebec and exitor 2021 um I would also agree with Mill's proposition on the basis that democracy is supposed to represent the entirety of the people and the entirety of the people includes people who are more educated and perhaps more knowledgeable and not that those necessarily always go together um and people who are less educated and or potentially less knowledgeable um and so the idea that you can only draw from one stratum of society and particularly given the access issues Jeff mentioned um to to govern everyone I think that that falls into maybe dangerous epistocracy okay thank you for that it's f f Fon thank you fion for that so now Jeff and fion have given uh two reasons to object to Mill's proposal including the idea that in a Democratic Society everyone should be represented not only the best educated and fion what do you say to the idea that well-educated people if they're knowledgeable and if they're concerned about the common good they can represent everyone why not they can but they don't always um and they aren't necessarily better equipped to represent everyone um than other people would be I mean we don't get taught in an educational institution how to represent everyone we get taught ways to critically reason and to critically analyze information and I think those can be skills that can help us represent everyone but they're not necessarily inherently trans um to have that specific function okay thank you for that is there anyone here who would like to defend John Stewart Mills proposal against the arguments we've heard from fion and Jeffrey anyone yes my name is Mike Williams I think the difficulty with a qualified franchise is how you draw qualifications it's impossible to draw up qualifications that everybody's going to agree hold itose it's it's impossible just hold it a bit closer they tell us it's impossible to come up with a set of qualifications that you're going to get agreement on it's impossible to come up with a set of qualifications Mark says that everyone will agree on but holding a University degree can't we don't you think that qualifies someone to govern well be one of the criteria yes there have been experiments in this and they haven't worked for example in redia there was a qualified franchise and it didn't work because of the way it was drawn up it could have worked but it didn't so it doesn't sound like you're offering a robust defense of John Stewart [Laughter] Mill I think you need to sit down and think very hard and I don't think his analysis is particularly relevant in the society today all right well let's ask thank you for that let's turn to society today and the system of representative government that we have now What proportion of citizens let's say in Britain and the US and in most Western European countries hold a University degree anyone just call it out if you have it's a it's around a third 30 to 35% which means that the vast majority of people do not hold University degrees 2/3 to 70% or so do not now let's look at the educational profile of representative government what percentage of members of parliament in Britain have a University degree it's it's close to 90% only 11 or 12% in Britain in in Britain's Parliament do not have a University degree in the United States Congress the pattern is even more pronounced in the US Senate 100% are degree holders many of them have law degrees besides and in the US House of Representatives the people's house only 5% do not have a University degree and the numbers are similar in most European countries in Germany in the Netherlands it's around 10% now what about this system of representation the educational profile of members of Congress virtually none of our fellow citizens who lack who are without University degrees find themselves in National legislative bodies or parliaments let's take a vote on this one how many find this objectionable and how many do not how many find find it objectionable raise your hand if you do and how many do not that's a different vote quite a different vote from the first one where there where here we're a divided group now let's hear from someone who does not find it objectionable that those without degrees are virtually absent from Parliament and from Congress why do you not object is there someone who will tell us why who will tell us why let's go any of the scholars in residents some of you voted that it's not objectionable who will Who will start us off well suddenly you've turned timid all right tell us I mean I guess the fact that we're Sor Emma odonnell Bermuda and St Catherine's 2022 yeah um I guess part of the reason that we're all here is that we believe in the power of Education to open our minds and to become to help us become leaders and help us learn and broaden and so I guess the reason that I don't personally find it objectionable although I will say when you flip it the question the first question was do you find it objectionable that x amount have degrees and when you flip it when you say do you find it objectionable that without degrees are not represented I guess it does make you think about it separ differently but the fact that we're here and the fact that we are trying to push forward and open and broaden ourselves I guess says something about what we May hold in values in terms of being a leader and what education can do for leaders so I guess in terms of in terms of that sort of using it to as a as a pathway to make broader connections and maybe that's more of a question of whether education is teaching us the right things but so it's Emma yeah so Emma would you go so far say it's actually a good thing that most of our elected represent resentatives have degrees have been to University yeah I would say that in terms of that they can if they're using what they've learned to critically analyze and using what what they've learned to help process new information and include people along the way with kindness then yes I don't see that as a problem and I don't think it could be a good thing yes what what do you think go ahead you disagree with Emma all right I love you Emma but I disagree uh my name is seren Singh Colorado and Christ Church 2019 I think about the quote from Albert Einstein which is if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will live its whole life thinking it's unintelligent and I think that also applies to credibility that in the midst of us pursuing what means for us to be knowledgeable and credible and you know important in a position of power is actually us missing out on life experience that is more credible more knowledgeable more well- informed than potentially any education system or degree could have ever given and so so why why you voted that it was objectionable that those without a degree are virtually absent and what what exactly what do you say to the argument that better educated people should govern well I think I take issue with the definition of Education in our current system we understand education to be a degree or an understanding of an institution that represents you but I think the modern day education expansiveness is really about experiences and it's the ability to connect with individuals who understand the actual on theground challenges that our topown officials are trying to solve I cannot no matter what education I get understand the life experience that many of the policies are trying to actually get at solving would you would you say Serene that the education you've received and that you are receiving here at Oxford does not equip you to govern I do believe that the purpose of my unique stance and positionality as a student that has been given this opportunity to study at Oxford has also informed me of the importance of bringing people along in my journey to solving problems so I don't believe that I single-handedly should hold up the torch and solve the problems of the world but rather to bring along people that can better inform me and use the networks and connections that I have to actually attack the issues of the world and one more question Serene if I could of course you voted against the current system and you also voted against John Stewart Mills idea of giving more votes to the well-educated correct do you see your position as more consistent than the many people in the room who voted against giving uh plural votes to the educated but who don't object to the lack of degree holders in Parliament well I think part of the disparity between the first question and the hands in the room and the second and the hands in the room is a little bit of the unique disciplines that us Road scarers come from and the backgrounds from which we are able to address problems I do believe that there are certain issues and challenges that must be addressed that an education system that is well integrated and Grassroots and on the level of the people that are experiencing whatever those issues might be might actually be bettered because of that person's degree but I do think that there's many other ways to get life degrees and it doesn't necessarily have to be through an Oxford education thank you for that thank you for that now who a lot of lot of finger clicks for [Applause] Serene which makes me want to hear from someone who disagrees with Serene and who disagrees with Serene and would like to offer a reply yes stand up if you would and tell us your name does that work yes okay yeah very good David Clem Germany in Hartford 1995 I would argue that the John Stewart Mill proposal is wrong because if you give multiple V votes to those best educated there's an inherent danger that they govern in their own interest predominantly if you give everyone a vote and then they freely elect those who are best educated to represent them then you have a control against that danger and you could argue that the best educated know best but you protect against them governing their own interest by making sure that regularly there's another vote where everyone can vote and can vote them out of office now J it's John is it David David I'm sorry David would you say that the members of parliament or the bundestag or the Congress now disproportionately with University degrees do you think they resist the temptation to govern in their own interest I give you that point all right thank you now who who else who else would like to challenge the argument we've heard that well let me sharpen the argument this way John Stewart Mill would have allowed the well educated to out vote their less educated fellow citizens by a ratio of 6 to1 but in Parliament many people in this room are okay with a system that allows those with degrees to outvote their fellow citizens without degrees by 10 to one 15 to1 in Congress and in Parliament so how is it possible to oppose John Stewart Mills system but not to be worried about the current system of representation what do you think here wait we'll get you a microphone all right go ahead use use mine all right thank you uh