Today in Supreme Court History: November 7, 1922

11/7/1922: Oregon enacts the Compulsory Education Act.

Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary

Comments

[Michael D]

Thank goodness for the Pierce decision in 1925. That said, what has never been addressed is the concept of compulsory education itself:

“Perhaps the most significant cost of compulsory education, however, is the implication that liberty can be granted à la carte. In this environment an individual right is only guaranteed until a critical mass of demagogues determines otherwise. Legal-tender laws, military conscription, and health-insurance mandates are blood relatives of compulsory education; all dictate the actions of private individuals and survive on the premise that citizens are subservient to the interests of the state.

Compulsory-education laws invite further intrusions into our personal lives. Still, the left-liberal who supports marijuana decriminalization and the conservative who advocates for gun rights often fail to see this obvious relationship. Simply stated, à la carte liberty is veiled tyranny — it is impossible to sacrifice one right without putting others in danger.”

from: https://mises.org/library/costs-compulsory-education

[JasonT20]

Other than some vague threat to liberty or slippery slope thinking here, what is bad about insisting that kids get an education? Well, maybe that parents can't put their kids to work in the fields or factories instead?

[Michael D]

Other than a lack of critical thinking, what is wrong with your straw man argument?

[JasonT20]

What you quoted is describing compulsory education entirely in terms of how it leads to "further intrusions into our personal lives" and such. It does nothing to define any problems with compulsory education by itself.

[Michael D]

I suggest you read the entire linked article

[JasonT20]

I'm not going to argue with something that you link. Either you make the case that I should want to read it, or don't. I don't care, but I'm not going to waste my time otherwise.

[bernard11]

And some wonder why libertarianism isn't taken seriously.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Libertarians?

Or the "often libertarian"?

Or the "libertarianish"?

Or just sheepish right-wingers masquerading awkwardly in garish, unconvincing libertarian drag?

(I prefer the genuine article)

[Michael D]

Yes, because the words “compulsory” and “mandatory” are generally part of libertarian vernacular.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Whose vernacular?

Libertarians For Statist Womb Management?

Libertarians For Authoritarian, Bigoted, Cruel Immigration Policies And Practices?

Libertarians For Abusive Policing?

Libertarians For Government Gay-Bashing?

Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics?

Libertarians For Military Misadventurism And Massive Military Spending?

Libertarians For Expedited Death Penalties?

Libertarians For Building Border Walls?

Libertarians For Race-Targeting Voter Suppression?

You know . . . the "libertarians" who flock to a White, male, movement conservative blog.

[Michael D]

So the proof of your assertion is a music video? Your baseless assertions have no place in any intelligence discussion of political philosophies or their adherents.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The music attempts to bring some joy to a bitter, humorless blog (and, occasionally, mocks the clingers).

(Tiran Porter, bass guitar)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The few remaining antisocial, selfish, valueless misfits who contend society is not entitled to insist that children have the opportunity to become educated are among my favorite culture war casualties.

Better people should continue to enable these too-dumb-to-live contrarians to continue to express their deluded, ugly thinking, and to believe as much nonsense as they wish. But better citizens owe these losers no respect and no accommodation beyond the childish ranting. Mockery and scorn are the sole sensible course.

Get an education, Michael D. Try to improve.

[Michael D]

Ahh yes, the inane belief that absent government mandated education, there will be no education and apparently that society did not exist until its advent.

In fact, the advent of public education was not about enrolling students but instead was based on exactly the type of politics you claim to deride on these pages so often. Dr. Charles Glenn of Boston University explains the shift to a centralized education system was largely fear-based. Horace Mann and the leaders of the Common School Movement successfully stirred up concerns among the public that large-scale immigration and too much educational diversity would destroy America’s unity and sense of identity (sound familiar?).

And in their research, Drs. Carl Kaestle and Maris Vinovskis conclude that Americans before 1840 also cared very much about national unity and the preservation of the republic, “but believed that schooling in their society was ample and that most children received the kind of rudimentary intellectual and moral training the public theorists had in mind, even though much schooling was neither publicly controlled nor free.” (https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED150048)

[JasonT20]

Sure, going back to the founding of the republic, literacy for white men was relatively high. After all, they had to read the Bible. But education as a means of upward mobility for all children, regardless of race, gender, or national origin is a different story, isn't it?

[Michael D]

I am curious, what is the difference between literacy and “education as a means of upward mobility”? Does literacy not create the same potential for upward mobility? Or are you suggesting that only with a mandate does upward mobility occur? And why would parents not want their children to be educated absent compulsory education?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Same reason no roads were built until governments started building them, no houses were built until government building codes and zoning showed the way, no dams were built etc etc etc. Some idiot on these pages a few months ago actually used roads, schools, dams, radio frequencies, airports, air traffic control, and a host of others as examples of things which were only possible as government projects.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" And why would parents not want their children to be educated absent compulsory education? "

Some parents are stupid. Some are mean. Some are inept.
Some are warped. Some are ignorant. Some are addled by superstition or other delusion. Some are selfish.

Modern America need not -- and should not, and will not -- appease substandard parents at the cost of child abuse. Whether the context is physical abuse, or superstitious daffiness, or deprivation (food, education, shelter), or emotional abuse, or sexual abuse -- competent adults will devise and impose standards that protect children. Those who disagree should try to improve, stand aside, or prepare to get run over by better people.

(more context, for those willing and able to see and to try to understand)

[Michael D]

You come up with baseless straw man assertions and attempt to apply specifics to the general as an argument that without the threatened use of government force, some small handful of parents would cause their children harm but, thank goodness, the government riding its white horse will come in and save the day.

Never mind the educational and indoctrination, stupid programs like DARE, kids being bullied in schools by other students, police in schools arresting kids for school infractions, the failure to adequately educate the kids at a price which is beyond excessive on a per pupil basis. Nothing else matter except to drag the kids into the class.

Art, we know you are at heart a totalitarian based upon your frequent commenting. The safety issue is the oldest path to tyranny. And you just double down on it proving your true authoritarian bona fides.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Disaffected, faux libertarian clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

Your betters no longer want your approval.

But we will continue to have your compliance.

That includes preventing substandard people from denying a child an education.

[Michael D]

Libertarians would argue the substandard education of the government is the problem and your authoritarian approach is the opposite of liberty in an ends justifying the means sort of way.

[bernard11]

Americans before 1840 also cared very much about national unity and the preservation of the republic, “but believed that schooling in their society was ample and that most children received the kind of rudimentary intellectual and moral training the public theorists had in mind, even though much schooling was neither publicly controlled nor free.”

Americans before 1840 believed a lot of things that weren't true, as do many today.

[Michael D]

So they were wrong and you are right? Or they were right and you are wrong? Which is if?

[bernard11]

Yeah. They were wrong.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

And so are you and every other statist. While socialists were busy murdering 100 million people last century, capitalism was lifting billions out of poverty, in spite of the worst crony efforts to stymie it.

[Sarcastr0]

It isn't 1840 anymore.

Universal education has been a clear necessity worldwide for just about the entire modern era.

If that's statist, then like 90% of the country is statist.

[Michael D]

Of course they were. Thank you for your supreme genius and omniscience.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

So long as you continue to toe that line established by your betters, you are welcome to grouse about it as you like.

[ReaderY]

Yoder, which doubled down on Pierce, is still good law. It was also one of the last applications of a collective conception of the First Amendment. Sweeney applied to universtiries and Griswold to families as institutions, not to individuals as individuals. And Yoder, despite coming after Eisenstaft, applied to the Amish as a collective. The Amish are generally law abiding and generally not dependent on public support.

The test is necessarily a group test, it doesn’t really even make sense as applied to individuals. Individuals cannot lose their constitutional rights just because they fall on hard times for a stretch. But a group that can usually make its own way as an independent subsociety gets some protection from having rules designed to integrate into mainstream society imposed on it and can to some extent set its own rules. While a group that consistently fails to do so, Yoder warns, does not.

We’ve never seen a case where a group that refuses mainstream educational norms but doesn’t refrain from crime or support itself - that consistently and systematically exploits public support or consistently engages in fraudulent schemes - is held to have failed the Yoder test and its members declared to have forfeited their right to not have to set their own schooling standards and their children ordered to attend public schools.

I am franlkly suprised that nobody has attempted to make this argument.

I am particularly suprised that Professor Bernstein, who periodically writes posts claiming (with outrage) that certain Jewish religious groups appear to be largely dependent on pubic support, has never raised this issue. I have noted in reply to some of his posts that in Israel it’s legal to depend on public support for the purpose of making religious studies a career, there are laws for the specific purpose that allow this, and people who follow the law cannot be regarded as criminals just because you don’t like the policy behind the laws. People are entitled to take advantage of their country’s laws, and if you don’t like the law that’s on the legislature and nof them.

But the US is very different. Yoder in particular basically agrees with Professor Bernstein’s position. I’m surprised Professor Bernstein, or someone else of similar bent, has never followed up on it.

[CJColucci]

Jewish religious groups appear to be largely dependent on pubic support

Circumcision?

[Dan Schiavetta]

No country today can capably govern itself and compete in the international market without compulsory education.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Irrelevant if we are talking about the constitutionality of compulsory education in the US.

On the other hand, compulsory education is generally enforced at the state level and the states have broad authority under the federal constitution.

That said, I do not think state compulsory education laws in and of themselves are barred by anything in the US Constitution.

[Michael Ejercito]

This Quora answer proves that compulsory education laws are immoral.

http://www.quora.com/If-you-had-a-child-in-middle-school-who-was-being-bullied-how-would-you-handle-it/answer/Dennis-Manning-9

[JasonT20]

This Quora answer proves...

Quora - even more authoritative than Wikipedia!

[Cal Cetín]

How about prosecution any educators (including homeschool parents) who fail to educate their charges in literacy, the rudiments of mathematics, and the elements of good behavior.

Fines for the neglectful homeschooling parents, closing and shuttering of private *or public* schools who show similar neglect.

Equal treatment of parents and professional educators.

What do you say?

[Ed Grinberg]

With regard to public schools, I would just close them. (Education is not an essential government function, which, arguably, means it isn't a proper one.) That would leave (a) private schools and (b) homeschoolers. With regard to them, I'd keep the current setup, where the student is annually tested according to government standards.