Is age discrimination always wrong? Or it is fair to treat different ages differently? How do we take people's age into account without being ageist? These are the questions we’re asking this week, in an episode called “Should All Ages Be Equal?”

Last time, I asked: Given that meritocracy as traditionally defined is practically impossible, is there any point in appealing to it as a social ideal? This time, I suggest a way to peel off two ideas from the mirage ideal of meritocracy that might actually be feasible and worth striving for.

The slogan “one person, one vote” have been used in a variety of settings to express a democratic ideal: elections should provide every citizen with an equal say in governance. But in America, the reality still falls short of the ideal.

Most of us hold the deep moral commitment that we are all equal in some basic way. All humans are worthy of equal (moral) concern, respect, and dignity. But is a commitment to basic equality enough to ground meaningful principles of justice?

The SAT has long been an important factor colleges consider when evaluating applicants, but it has also been the subject of abundant criticism regarding its ability to assess students fairly, without reflecting socioeconomic inequalities into college admissions.