I first want to thank Penny Enslin and Mary Tjiattas for offering a richly textured discussion to which the opportunity of crafting a response gives me great pleasure—on two counts. First, the paper addresses what I see, along with the authors, to be a pressing problem for philosophy of education and for the political orientation of education more generally, namely the question and status of the universal for addressing injustices. This problem, as Enslin and Tjiattas acknowledge, has become sharply profiled within the pervasive talk of globalisation and current turns to cosmopolitan thought, and it therefore deserves the serious thinking it has received in their paper. As for the second source of my pleasure, Enslin and Tjiattas’s desire to work toward a ‘qualified universalism’ is one for which I have a great deal of sympathy, given that it is no longer possible to think exclusively in ‘absolutist’ terms as though cultural practices were irrelevant to the promotion of global justice. The paper builds rightly, in my view, toward a reflective engagement with the terms upon which justice can be reconceived.