Letters

From the May 1997 issue

(Page 3 of 3)

Rick Henderson's comprehensive article on school choice unfortunately gives a misleading impression of my attitude toward low-income voucher programs and the activities of the Institute for Justice in defending them against challenges in court.

I do believe that a universal plan should be our goal. At the same time, I have consistently supported many programs, such as the Milwaukee and Cleveland plans and the CEO private voucher plans, that provide some parents with a wider choice and their children with an opportunity to benefit from better schooling. However, unless the means-tested plans prove to be steppingstones toward universal choice, I believe the end result would be to stymie effective reform of our educational system.

I commend the Institute for Justice for its dedication to promoting economic freedom not only in this area but in others and for their effectiveness in doing so. As Henderson reports, my wife and I have set up a foundation to promote universal school choice. However, that foundation is located in Indianapolis and is being run by its president, Gordon St. Angelo, and his staff, not by us.

Milton Friedman
Senior Research Fellow
Hoover Institution
Stanford, CA

Rick Henderson provides fresh insights into the battle over school vouchers. He errs seriously, however, in describing the Institute for Justice and Milton Friedman as representing "poles of the debate"between universal and means-tested vouchers. I.J.'s mission is to promote and defend educational freedom, and the entire movement owes an enduring debt to Dr. Friedman for pioneering the most effective means to do so. Our goal is to create legal precedents that recognize parental autonomy, and we defend against legal challenge school choice programs, whatever their contours. The Milwaukee and Cleveland programs are means-tested, while the Vermont program for students in rural school districts is universal. As we succeed, school choice programs of all varieties will blossom.

As for the "separationists,"the goals are laudable but the tactics counterproductive. The real debate today is between defenders of the status quo and champions of school choice. When separationists gratuitously trash vouchers, they aid and abet the public school monopoly, creating a division among advocates of educational freedom that the National Education Association gleefully exploits. If we lose the battle over parental sovereignty, how can we expect to win the far more difficult battle over separation of school and state?

Clint Bolick
Chip Mellor
Institute for Justice
Washington, DC

Rick Henderson replies: One section of my article addressed the public-choice objections to vouchers that Mr. Lamer cites. I pointed out, for instance, that unions and education bureaucrats would be tempted to impose new regulations on voucher-accepting schools and that many separationists worry that parents may perceive vouchers as a new welfare entitlement. Yet I said that countervailing forces--including the resilient network of parents who already educate their children in religious institutions or at home--could restrain overreaching regulators.

But Mr. Lamer is not objecting to tuition vouchers so much as he is to tax-funded schooling of any kind. As I wrote, taxes have supported elementary and secondary schools in this country since before the Constitution was ratified. Those of us who would like to see the state's role in education limited, if not eliminated, should acknowledge the political obstacles that face anyone who opposes a tradition perhaps more American than apple pie. I thank Professor Flew for pointing out that liberty lovers appear to owe yet another debt to Tom Paine.

A careful reading of the letters from Professor Friedman and Messrs. Mellor and Bolick merely underscores what I said in the story: The Friedmans and the Institute for Justice aren't at war with one another; they just believe in different paths to a similar goal. Milton Friedman will support tax-funded vouchers only if they will result in a universal program. I.J. defends all school choice proposals, "whatever their contours."

Comments

|8.3.10 @ 10:38PM|#

Great post, very informative. I think a lot of people will find this very useful.Submission Software Review

log in or register to reply

nfl jerseys|11.16.10 @ 2:53AM|#

xeythf

log in or register to reply