Book review: John Tillson, Children, Religion and the Ethics of Influence

body), but also itself constitutes an ideology which obscures rather than clarifies what may be feasible and ignores more straightforward policies to counteract educational injustice, independently of how ‘diverse’ students are. In the third part, Merry engages with three debates about educational justice in the context of the debate about the inclusion of autistic children in the public school system, the debate about Islamic schools, and the debate about sound selection procedures for admissions to schools. In his detailed reconstructions of each of these cases, Merry outlines the many dilemmas and complexities one has to deal with, if one wants to provide normatively sound, empirically informed, and feasible suggestions for policies that may foster educational justice in real-world conditions. Throughout his discussion of these debates, he points out both the practical limits of policies that aim to enhance educational justice within the context of broader socioeconomic and political injustices and the limits and shortcomings of existing policy proposals, which in some cases are based on dogmatic beliefs and myths rather than empirical evidence. Nevertheless, pointing out these practical constraints, tensions, and obstacles does not imply cynicism and hopelessness with respect to the possibility of counteracting educational injustice. On the contrary, according to Merry, a realistic take on the relevant problems and an awareness of the many empirical uncertainties are necessary prerequisites to identify viable, justice-enhancing policies. Merry provides a compelling and nuanced critique of established and long-held assumptions concerning both the methodology of theorizing educational justice in general and core beliefs and dogmas of liberal egalitarian conceptions of justice in particular. This critique – even if one does not accept all the arguments and assumptions (e.g. concerning radical critiques of public schools) – is certainly long overdue in light of the fact that quite a few of Merry’s arguments have been aired for decades in the sociology of education as well as in other educational philosophies and sciences (and not only by more radical left-wing types). Merry provides ample reasons for the view that we need a methodological shift away from the liberal paradigm, if we want to provide a theoretically clear and empirically informed idea of what is actually required by educational justice in the world we live in. In short, this is an excellent book. It represents empirically informed philosophy at its best and is a must-read for everyone interested in debates about educational justice.