Compulsory Schooling

From Education in the United States, by Robert Church (New York, 1976, p. 107) with parenthetical remarks and italics added by me:

At the same time Sheldon, sensing the inadequacy of a single ragged school, began caimpaging for the city to establish a free (and mandatory) school systsem. The politics of his caimpaign were quite similar to those in other cities. The city's elite supported the idea but one man whom Sheldon identified as "a politician" urged the city's Catholics to oppose a free (and mandatory) school system on the grounds that it was a protestant plot against Catholic children. The Catholics, with the help of other portions of the (lower class) population, successfully blocked Sheldon's efforts. When it become clear that the mass of the city's population would not consent to the plan, Shledon and his influential supporters determined to circumvent the popular will. In 1853 (5 years before the first state-ratified compulsory school in Massachusetts) they persuaded the state legislature to to pass legislation establishing free (and mandatory) schools in Oswego; that legislation contained no provision for a popular referendum on the issue within the city. The law, Sheldon remembered somewhat gleefully, "was in truth sprung on the people, as one might say, contrary to their will" (this quote is taken from Sheldon's own autobiography [New York, 1911, p. 93]) . The need for reform was so great as to outweigh democratic principle.

Here is the dilemma: For the most part, we have democratic feelings about how things should be done in public affairs. We would like to think that we cannot be required to do things (obey laws, pay taxes or levies, and so on) without some kind of democratic choice or representation. In some cases we don't mind indirect representation, but on big issues (like casinos and school levies) we want to vote. Sadly for some and gladly for others, this is not the case historically with many big things and the school is one of them.

We generally trust the public will in a democracy because we think that if something is so good for the general public, then, they will obviously vote for it. In the case of compulsory schooling, most (if not all) people think it is for the general good today and would clearly vote for it if they had the chance, but it was historically created against the grain of popular sentiment. In other words, with time we have become accustomed to being forced to go to school by a rule of law that was not instituted democratically and that just might explain why we do not question the authority of the state or school anymore--we kinda forgot, or were allowed to forget, those historical memories.

This raises the question: What is more important: Freedom or obedience to a common rule of law? The rule of the people (i.e. democracy) or the rule of laws instituted by an elite (i.e. aristocracy or poliarchy)?

Much more to come...

Some Poetry for a Snowy Day

Classes are canceled and I am revising a paper, so, in the meantime, here are three poems I wrote this past year.

Aliens

Aliens come and go,
In time and space they wander.
Aliens say hello,
Yet too much time they squander.

For by the time of greeting,
The alien is no more.
The alien face is fleeting,
Like the sandcastle on the shore.

And while the alien wishes,
For just a while longer,
It must be washed like soiled dishes,
Before it grows any stronger.


Baby Eyes

Baby eyes don't see that well,
At least that's what experts say.
Baby arms aren't all that strong,
Baby heads loosely bob and sway.

Baby teeth don't exist quite yet,
And baby legs can't stand alone.
Baby hearts beat ever so softly,
And baby words say the unknown.

Baby is the one that needs me,
Baby is so helpless thus it seems.
When really I'm the helpless one,
Wishing for my baby's dreams.

The dream of complete surrender,
The silent radiance of peace.
The dream of conscious thoughtlessness,
The moment of complete release.

While baby's eyes don't see that well,
They see more than I for sure.
For in my baby's blindness,
Lies an answer and a cure.

To Be Original?

To be original.
To be the same.
To be different.
All along the way.

Too much madness.
Too much sense.
Too much normal.
Sing an older hymn instead.

Why not listen?
Why not whisper?
Why not linger?
All along the way.

This just in from Vox-Nova

Here is an interesting piece from our dear friends at Vox-Nova:
The Vatican and Obama

Oh Sam, you're just so special!

No I'm not.

I mean, that's not what you mean. You mean I am weird or odd or maybe downright stupid and out of touch with reality. You say 'special' but you mean other words that you would rather not say to me. You are deodorizing the meaning of your other words and relying on the private meaning they have to us here (culturally, regionally, personally), how you inflect your voice, and what the context is to convey the meaning. But you do not mean that I am really special. You mean something else. Right?

So here is my suggestion: If you like to say things that are not what you mean, then, go ahead; but don't think--even for a second--that the meaning of the words go away. It's there, all the time. Now, I imagine you will get away with saying things you don't mean and many people will forget about the meaning of your language, but, when people happen to remember, you must admit to them what you are doing. Otherwise, you are tricking yourself.

So, by the way, what do you think about socialism? Are you pro-life?

Onward pro-life soldiers???

The commentary offered on the March for Life thus far has been interesting, and I'd like to add my two-cents, for whatever they're worth.

First of all, I agree with Skogey about the March ending at the Capitol and not the Supreme Court---certainly, the Supremes are probably, to some extent, influenced by protesters, the wealthy, political expectations, etc- but to support this sort of influence, and even to participate in it, is something any American who believes in the rule of law ought to be ashamed of. Nevertheless, anyone in the legal profession knows as well as I do that good law, and bad law, both come under pressure from political expectations and desires, and that law is the product of compromise to begin with-- pragmatic, dissapointing, and dispiriting, obviously, but unless we determine to have all of our laws made by those ideal philosopher-kings of utopia...law will be an imperfect attempt to reflect a society's values.

Sadly, of course, law has lost any teleological grounding at all-- the idea that law exists to shape and direct a community's values, rather than merely to reflect them, has been all but lost by anyone but the most traditional legal scholars---I include myself in this category because I beleive in the very basic proposition that law might make us good, but this notion is largely lost on the legal community, particularly in the United States. But, as is often the case, I digress.

I had wanted to blog about the March for Life and its role in the pro-life movement in the United States. For my purposes, I will define pro-life as the movement to reduce the nubmer of abortions taking place in this country. I understand the seamless garment issues that narrow definition raises, and, to some extent, I support them, but I also support the notion that the body has many parts- and it isn't wrong to expect different things from hands and head and feet, etc.

So- does the March for Life contribute meaningfully to a reduction in the number of abortions in the United States? I'm not certain. In one sense, as Steve pointed out, its capacity to influence politicians is insignificant. Seeing a constituency may remind lawmakers of their obligation to that constituency, but I believe that it is actually on the agenda of precious few lawmakers to do sometihng to reduce the nubmer of abortions in the United States. Pro-lifers are an easily trusting lot, and by and large we accept the rhetoric of the Republican party, demand very little in the way of results, and profess profound gratitude and adulation for those who toss us even the tiniest of crumbs. The political impact of the March for Life, therefore, seems to be negligable. In fac,t we may be doing ourselves a dissservice by providing "pro-life" politicians the easy opportunity ot appease the masses with one day of lip service rather than substantive results. Furthermore, the March for Life may have the impact of villifying politicians who do not believe in making abortion illegal, but whose agendas, including greater access to health and prenatal care, childcare for working mothers, significant maternity leave, etc would acutally contribute to a culture of life. While we should never be compromising on our attempts to render abortion illegal, we need to stop being averse to working with politicians of all stripes to create an overarchign Culture of Life--and if these folks are villified, that becomes all themore difficult.

Does the March for Life contribute meaningfully to a reduction in the number of abortions in any other way? Again, I'm not certain. Unfortunately, since the political battle does not seem to be working ,the real way to reduce the number of abortions is to help provide those services and resources to pregnant woman who need them in a way that they'll feel compfortable accepting them. In short, to build an authentic culture of life. Unfortunately, the March for Life may impede these sortso f efforts too. If the March becomes our "pro-life activity" and well-meaning people can go, check "do pro-life activity" off their to do lsit, and feel fat and happy and good watching the Super Bowl, then the kind of complacency we've encouraged has not been helpful at all. However, if the March inspires people to create all kinds of creative initiatives for building a culture of life on the lcoal level, it has osme value. I don't know if it does.

Finally, Sam is right. The polemical nature of sidewalk debate can create hatred. No abortions are stopped by villfiying politicians with incorrect ideas, nor is sidewalk debate valauble to anyone. Encouraging this kind of argumentative, militant stance, as opposed to one that is creative, collaborative, and overwhelmingly positive is a dangerous thing.

The folks who may get the most out of the March for Life are those who areworking every day, in some capacity or another, on pro-life initiatives. THese folks might be bouyed up, encouraged, and inspired by seeing other s come out to support them. Or they might grow cyncial at the nubmero f people willing to walk around in the cold, but unwilling to volunteer to stuff envelopes, or put pregnant women up, or collect bottles, or whatever it is. I suppose that depends on temperment.

In spite of the drawbacks, and perhaps the limited means by which the March for Life helps anything, I would, if it were accessible to me, continue to attend, if for no other reaosn than t odemonstrate solidarity with the unborn, and with women in crisis pregnancies. I would like ot demonstrate tihs ina more meaningful and tangible way, but a start is a start, and I'd rather see well-intentioned people do sometihng ,however ineefeictive it might be, than do nothing at all. Perhaps our efforts sohuld be focused on encouraging the March for Life to make sosme changes, to become an expression of solidarity and aplace ot commit to authntic change---perhaps we who oppose many elements of the March should see the seminal goodness in such a gathering and work to nurture it into all that it could be. Ultimately, the entire pro-life movement needs a new and different generation of leaders, working to make authentic changes on a grassroots level. Maybe the AMrch is the right place to start.

JDF

Another Alternative View on the 'Life' Movement

Courtesy of an anonymous comment, here is a different spin on the March for Life from insidecatholic.com, entitled, "Why I Didn't Attend the March For Life", by Steve Skojec.

You can read it here.

How the 'Pro-Life' movement left me behind

This image is usually used to imply that 'pro-life' advocates are somehow violent people in general or, at the very least, that they are somehow meaner or crankier than most. Let me be clear: This caricature is an indefensible generalization. Truth be told, either side of the abortion debate can be vicious, mean, and pig-headed.

However, it describes a different sense of why I have slowly felt left behind by the 'pro-life' movement in the United States. I will spare you a long, drawn-out chronological anecdote and be direct. Intentions aside, it is very confusing. What I mean here is that despite the very best--even heroic at times--intentions and beliefs of individuals (many of whom I personally respect and admire), the movement in general can only commit to one thing. That thing being, that, since life begins at conception, abortion at any stage and for any reason is tantamount to murder and ought to be illegal. This one thing is supposed to exhaust what it means to be 'pro-life'. Any questioning of, or embellishment to, that meaning is seen as a nuisance at best and a threat at worst.

I find that, as I have grown in my understanding of what 'life' means, I have become far too radical for this movement. Here are two simple points:

For one, I don't think that we can say that life begins at conception. That biological idea to me is to give into the need for science to dictate when life begins and ends using human rationality. I am of the inclination to take the verse, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." (Jer 1:5) very seriously. So seriously, in fact, that I am not willing to concede that mysterium tremendum of the genesis of life to biological distinctions. Secondly, I think that murder is something that needs to be parsed out very carefully, as we do juridically in all other cases of suspected murder. It seems very reasonable, based on just these two reasons, that we can have a thoughtful and measured discussion of abortion based on rather different principles than those of the mainline 'pro-life' movement in the U.S.

Then, there is my inconvenient (to 'pro-lifers') belief that life is something that is never excluded in any human issue whatsoever. In other words, my conviction that what makes a thing 'human' is precisely because it involves life (which ought to be radically included into any cause for the preservation and defense of life), is something that I have found resisted by the 'pro-life' movement in general. In my post below, this point is made quite plainly.

Finally, the battlefield setting of this testy discourse in protest rallies and signage, which all-too-often has lead (from personal experience) to sidewalk polemics--and, at times, hatred--has also left me very alienated. I would love to see the efforts used to demonstrate and protest directed towards opening up forums for discussion and rigorous (re)evaluation of the robust issues of life which would include, not the other way around, as much goodwill as possible. It may be controversial, but it seems to me that each argument on either side of the abortion debate is based in what is understood (perhaps wrongly) to be good for the person. Getting a meaning we can understand and implement culturally and legislatively will require much more than signs, I think.

So, while I do not see myself on the sidelines, I am playing on what I see to be a somewhat different playing field. This field does not exclude the 'pro-life' vision, but it is also much more than that too. I am pro-love.