Changing my Mind

I had a recent post on school vouchers in which I discussed the tendency of people (including myself) to shy away from making changes to our political system because said changes would create new problems (read, new opportunities for government intervention). I said that the creation of new problems should be approached as pressure to continue the migration to its logical conclusion (e.g., the problems created by home-schooling and a voucher system should be used as pressure to further dismantle the public education system). At this level, my opinion has not changed.

However, a couple of current events, and a lecture by C. Bradley Thompson have changed my mind on supporting the initiative for school vouchers. In Brad Thompson's lecture on the separation of school and state, he made a (what I believe to be) critical distinction between reformers and abolitionists. To paraphrase, in the 1830's, abolitionists did not begin their quest to abolish slavery by arguing for a shorter workday and better meals for the slaves. No--they argued consistently and on principle that slavery as an institution should be abolished.

Bringing this argument to todays context--my interest is not in school vouchers, but in the replacement of the public education system by a fully private system. I would advocate school vouchers as a migratory means to that end, but otherwise I'm not interested. Further, when considering that the primary advocates of school vouchers are conservatives that want to send their kids to religious schools, and that they do not share my ultimate goal of dismantling the public education system, I cannot ally myself with them on this issue.

I will go a step further and say that conservatives do not actually want school vouchers--but school vouchers represent a pragmatic way for them to use state funds to pay for religious-based schooling for their kids. If conservatives had their way, they would institute religion into the public school system, and it would be the Left that would be clamoring for school vouchers against conservative opposition.

I would usually avoid comparing people to the Nazi's, but I can't resist linking you to a story from Germany. Apparently, a girl their was being home-schooled by her parents, which is illegal in Germany. The girl was diagnosed by a state psychiatrist as having "school phobia" and taken from her family and institutionalized. Home-schooling was banned during Hitler's reign of power.

Quote:
In 1937, the dictator said, "The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing."

The modern ruling on the law reads much the same way:
"Not only the acquisition of knowledge, but also the integration into and first experience with society are important goals in primary school education," the court said. "The German courts found that those objectives cannot be equally met by home education even if it allowed children to acquire the same standard of knowledge as provided for by primary school education. "The (German) Federal Constitutional Court stressed the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society," the ruling said. " (emphasis added)

In other words, the purpose of public education in Germany is to indoctrinate children is to indoctrinate the students of the country with a common set of philosophical ideas and to "socialize" the child into society. I would imagine that the "separate philosophical convictions" referred to are in fact Nazi- or other forms of racism. I cannot plumb the depths of irony that a law passed by Hitler to ensure that all children were educated as Nazis would now be used to curt-tail the same freedom of thought, and ensure that all children were educated as multi-culturalists.

The parents in this case are Christians that are upset at the sex-education in public schools, and don’t want their children exposed to it. I personally would be in favor of sex education for my children (if I had any), but at an appropriate age and with an appropriate level of detail. I wouldn’t want my 6 year old exposed to this, however. These parents are reformers, not abolitionists. I wish them all the best on getting their daughter back, but I am not in any sense a political ally of theirs.

Now imagine that the shoe were on the other foot. Imagine that it was the conservatives that had a grip on the public education system. Imagine that creationism was being taught in science class, and that sex was never mentioned in school at all, except that god hates fags. Imagine all the Leftists clammering for vouchers so that their kids could be taught evolution and multi-culturalism. Can anyone seriously believe that conservatives would be in favor of school vouchers then? I can’t. School vouchers are a pragmatic way for them to get what they want (religious education at state expense) in the current political climate. If they could ask for and get what they really wanted, it would be mandatory religious education at state expense in order to “avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions.”

Lest anyone think that Democrats are any less guilty of trying to legislate ideas, read this article. The FCC is trying to reign in violence on tv shows, even on cable networks. The Federal government has tried to regulate violence before by forcing manufacturers to include “V” chips in television sets, “But many parents don't use V-chip blocking” It’s Democrat Jay Rockefeller that is drafting legislation based on the FCC’s findings.

The article goes on to state that “A key obstacle to any such law has been crafting a definition for violence that could survive a court review.” (emphasis added) What’s the problem? Oh yeah, that pesky First Amendment, and that pesky absolutist, extremist, clear language: “Congress shall make no law…” So much for the pretend-defenders of the First Amendment.


In summary, I could support school vouchers if it was an idea put forth as a migratory first-step toward the privatization of the educational system. However, it is really being put forth as a way to religiously school children at state expense until the conservatives manage to get control of the public education system and change it to suit their wishes. I advocate the principle that school and state should be separate; conservatives do not, therefore we have nothing in common on this issue.

I am an abolitionist on the issue of public education, not a reformer. I will not ally myself with reformers.

Security

So I went to Carowinds this weekend with B., A., Em, and Em's father. We had a good time, but it was kind of annoying getting into the Park. There was a row of metal detectors before the security gate, and B. had his Swiss-Army knife taken to storage. Now, I ask you--who feels safer because B. didn't have his pocket knife?

Em summed up our general feeling with a single quip: "Freedom has a price: and that price is less freedom!"