State law schools and subsidiarity

Rob asks, w/r/t the Solomon Amendment case, "[s]ince we're talking about state law schools, isn't it vital that they be given the space to function as bodies that mediate between the citizens of a particular state and the federal government?"  He addes, "[i]f every government entity is equated with all other government entities, haven't we forsaken much of society's mediating capacity?" 

Certainly, Rob makes a great point; after all, much of the normative (and practical) appeal of "our Federalism" stems from the "laboratories of democracy" idea, which seems some imply at least some distinctiveness and difference between and among the various laboratories.  That said, I would regard it as "vital" that we not equate state-run and private institutions, particularly educational institutions.  Subsidiarity, as I understand it (and, I'm sure, as Rob does too), is about more than diffusion and mediation.  Especially when it comes to education, it is -- as Tom's post suggests -- important that the sources of value and formation not all be governments.

To anticipate an objection:  My point is not offered as simply a "government is bad" assertion.  Still, the project of "state control over education" is not an ideologically neutral one, and is not one that we who endorse subsidiarity for reasons rooted in Catholic Social Thought should too quickly embrace.  So, we should, I think, worry more about preserving the independence and distinctiveness of private law schools, even as we also worry, too, about federally imposed homogeneity among government-run schools.

Rick