not permanent. Given the shifting distribution of opinions in the society, the chances are that in the future they will either find themselves in a more powerful position to affect the agenda or more citizens in the society will see that their views are legitimate and important (if their own views do not undergo change). Thus, over time the significance of these inequalities will be mitigated for many groups.
Nevertheless, it is clear that there is no permanent or fully satisfying solution to the problem of the deliberative agenda. This problem explains perhaps more than anything else the permanent proneness of democracies to self-examination and reassessment. Democratic societies are and must always be restless and changing.
My discussion focuses on democracy among educated adults, but I want to make three observations with regard to education. First, such education must include an introduction to the principles of democratic government, including the basic norms of citizenship we are attempting to understand and a well-rounded coverage of the histories and cultures of the various peoples and groups in our society. Second, the analysis here makes a contribution to a more egalitarian conception of education insofar as it attempts to describe the framework within which democratic discussion about education can take place. Moreover, this framework ought to increase the understanding of the diversity of interests and points of view in the society as well as facilitate acceptance of it. Third, the norms outlined in this chapter are applicable to educational institutions to the degree that they are concerned with enhancing the skills in discussion and deliberation of citizens.