Materials:

Pre-printed cards in three categories: relationship, occupation, and dwelling (see below)

Description:

See the Lesson Plan Attachment above for slides you can use in class to help with this exercise (slides were developed by Jane Shay of the Evergreen School).

This exercise is intended to explore the question, “What is fairness?” by giving students an opportunity to assume different characters in a community and wonder about the most equitable way to distribute social benefits to all members of that society.

The late philosopher John Rawls is famous for exploring the relationship between justice and fairness.  In his seminal A Theory of Justice, Rawls argues that the guiding principles of justice are those that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality.[1]  The choice which rational people would make in this hypothetical situation of equal liberty, determines, for Rawls, the principles of justice.  A key concept in Rawls account of justice as fairness is that—when choosing these principles—no one know what his or her place in society is.  Agents choose the principles of justice behind a “veil of ignorance” that ensure that no one is prejudicially favored in the distribution of natural assets or social benefits.  Presumably, fairness—and thus, justice—is guaranteed by this arrangement.

This exercise attempts to recreate the Rawlsian model through an exploration of the question, “Is Life Fair?”

To begin, students are dealt cards that assign them a job, a relationship, and a living situation.  You should make the point that, in everyone’s life, these three categories exist, even if the category itself might be empty—as in the case of someone being unemployed, or homeless.  (The complete list of cards follows this section of text.)

In any case, cards are dealt out randomly to each student.  The relationship cards are given first and determine, based on whether the character dealt is single or married, whether a student will receive one occupation card or two.  (Single characters receive one; married characters receive two.) Depending on the hand dealt, a character might be, for example, a married couple with 3 children, with one parent being a janitor and the other a salesclerk, living in a two-bedroom apartment. 

Once students have their identities assigned, they are charged with writing a short biography of their characters.  Sometimes odd combinations result, as in the case of a character who has a good job but who ends up homeless.  It’s a useful exercise for students to imagine how such scenarios are possible.

Then go around the room discussing whether life is fair.  (Usually, the students who have good jobs and houses say “yes;” the others say “no.”) 

A number of societal benefits are then offered.  These benefits include job training, new housing, educational subsidies, even a lottery win.  Strategize with the students ways to allocate social benefits in ways that would be most fair, and ask students to develop a list of principles for allocating these benefits.  Some typical alternatives include by merit, by need, by random, or by people with blond hair.  In general, there is usually spirited discussion about the best way to allocate benefits; and in general, students find it difficult to reach a consensus since—for the most part—they are trying to figure out ways that the benefits will accrue to them.

Then ask the students to set aside everything they know about their characters.  To do this, hand out paper clips to each student.  They should clip their cards together and then you collect them all.  Explain that you will pass back their lives presently, but no one knows which life they will receive.  Consequently, no one knows whether, for example, they are married schoolteachers making $30,000 dollars a year or single homeless persons living on welfare.  Behind this “veil of ignorance” then, what turns out to be the fairest, most just way to allocate benefits?

The character of the discussion usually changes radically at this point.  No longer are students solely focused on what they can get.  Rather, they are interested in designing and selecting principles that allocate social benefits in a far more just and equitable way.  The principles that emerge from this discussion can then be applied in their own lives—in the classroom, on the playground, and with their families and friends.  

Usually, the principles that prevail are broadly need-based.  Typically, students come to agree that benefits should be passed out to people who are homeless or who make the least money and have the most kids, or who are unemployed or living on welfare.  Sometimes, though, students want to assert that handing out benefit randomly in the fairest method of doing so.

Then pass back the “lives” you’ve collected, and try to make sure that no one gets the “life” they had originally.  You can then “test” the principles for distribution that students came up with by passing out the benefits to the characters whose situations fit those principles.  Usually, a pretty good discussion follows about whether the principles that were generated for distributing the benefits really are fair.  Often, students remain satisfied that they are; at other times, the general consensus is that, in practice, the principles don’t really work.  If that’s the view, you can explore further why that’s the case, and whether there is any fairer way we could have come up with.

Finally, hold up cards on which are a number of bad things: death in the family, job loss, long-term disability, etc.  The question is posed as to what the fair way is to hand out the bad things.  Generally, students tend to converge on the view that bad things should be passed out randomly, since that’s how it happens in real life.  However, sometimes, classes want to argue that the rich people should get them since they will be better able to handle them, and some students have even claimed that the fairest way to pass out the bad things is to give them to the worst off, since that’s real world, or to give them to anyone who previously received benefits, as a way to balance the good with the bad.

As a consequence of this exercise, students develop a more sophisticated understanding and appreciation for the relationship between justice and fairness, as well as an increased ability to apply the principles of justice for themselves.

Here is the list of cards, according to categories: 
(There can be more than one of each in the Relationship and Dwelling categories.)

Relationship Cards

• Single Parent, 1 Child
• Single Parent, 2 Children
• Two Parents, 4 Children
• Two Parents, 2 Children
• Single, No Children
• Two Parents, 1 Child
• Single Parent, 3 Children
• Two Parents, 7 Children
• Two Parents, 3 Children
• Single Parent, 7 Children
• Two Parents, 4 Children
• Two Parents, 0 Children

Occupation Cards

• Bank Executive, $125K/year
• Nurse’s Aide, $20K/year
• Front Desk Clear, $17K/year
• Police Officer, $40K/year
• Biologist, $35K/year
• Owner, Rock Climbing Gym, $10K/year
• AFDC Recipient, $6K/year
• Computer Analyst, $100K/year
• Zookeeper, $38K/year
• Professional Salesperson, $50K/year
• Contractor, $36K/year
• Trucker, $65K/year
• US Army Private, $13K/year
• Accountant, $30K/year
• Bartender, $15K/year
• High School Teacher, $40K/year
• Computer Consultant, $190K/year
• Doctor, $125K/year
• Attorney, $206K/year
• Dishwasher, $7K/year
• Physician, $190K/year
• Corporate CEO, $1,500,000/year
• Hotel Worker, $10K/year
• Fruit Packer, $8K/year
• Systems Technician, $40K/year
• Janitor, $35K/year
• Graphic Artist, $50K/year
• Architect, $60K/year
• Forklift Operator, $21K/year
• Plumber, $80K/year
• Engineer, $76K/year
• Management Consultant, $110K/year
• Scientist, $80K/year
• Electrician, $65K/year
• Computer Programmer, $95K/year
• Chiropractor, $125K/year
• Chemical Engineer, $110K/year
• Owner, Printing Company, $26K/year
• Mailroom Clerk, $18K/year
• Taxi Driver, $25K/year
• Artist, $6K/year
• Research Assistant, $20K/year
• Actor/Actress, $15K/year
• Farmer, $35K/year
• Psychologist, $60K/year
• Motel Owner, $35K/year
• College Professor, $35K/year
• Realtor, $45K/year
• Office Clerk, $20K/year
• Mechanic, $25K/year
• Laborer, $10K/year
• Social Worker, $25K/year
• City Councilperson, $30K/year
• US Air Force Lieutenant, $75K/year
• Unemployed, $0/year
• Journalist, $55K/year
• Part-time Store Clerk, $5K/year
• Health Care Attendant, $9K/year
• Landscaper, $26K/year
• Store Owner, $10K/year
• Waiter/Waitress, $20K/year
• Firefighter, $35K/year
• Construction Worker, $16K/year
• Record Store Clerk, $20K/year
• Fast Food Cashier, $15K/year
• Barista, $24K/year
• Day Care Provider, $15K/year

Dwelling Cards

• Loft Apartment
• 2 Room Apartment
• 2 Room Basement Apartment
• 2 Bedroom Mobile Home
• Live With Relatives in a 3 Bedroom House
• Studio Apartment
• 6 Bedroom House
• Live With Friends in a 2 Bedroom House
• 1 Room Residence Hotel
• Homeless
• Live in Car
• 3 Bedroom House
• 1 Bedroom Apartment
• Live in Schoolbus
• 1 Bedroom Guest House
• 4 Bedroom House
• Share 2 Bedroom Apartment with a Family of Four
• Share 2 Bedroom Apartment with 3 Friends
• 2 Bedroom Condo
• 5 Bedroom House with 25 Acres

Benefits Cards

• Win Lottery, $50K
• Job Training Program, New Job
• Cash in Stocks, $50K
• College Scholarship, New Job
• Inherit New Home, 4 Bedroom House
• New Job, Salary Increase $50K/year
• Graduate School Scholarship, New Job

Bad Things Cards

• Car Stolen, Can’t Get to Work, Fired
• Drug Addiction, Lose Job and Home
• Mental Illness, Lose Job
• Burglary, Lose $50K
• Death in Family, Lose Job
• Medical Emergency, Lose Job
• Fire, Lose Home

[1]Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), p.11.