Response to Jim Dwyer

Like Michael S., I am grateful to Jim Dwyer for participating in our MOJ discussion about children, education, freedom, poverty, and the state.  A few thoughts:

First, I am confident that Jim is right to remind us that "a child is a human being ontologically separate from his or her parents and other family and community members."  At the same time, just as there is a danger in "elid[ing] the distinction between child and parent," dangers also attend neglecting the extent to which children -- like all human beings -- are necessarily, inescapably, ontologically social.  It seems to me that to be human -- and, to be a human child -- is to be rooted, connected, situated, dependent, and shaped by others, parents in particular.  And, there is the fact that, when we are talking about children, we are *always* talking about the relative moral weight of the claims of parents and the state, respectively, to make decisions about children's education, welfare, and upbringing.  To say that children are ontologically distinct from their parents -- as they surely are -- is not, it seems to me, to show that parents' moral claims are inferior to those of the state. 

Second, I agree with Jim that "liberals" and "conservatives" alike need to take care -- and do not always take care -- that children not "drop out" of our discussions and arguments about social-welfare policy, and that we not permit concerns and claims about the treatment and rights of adults to serve as complete proxy for concerns and claims about the welfare and dignity of children.   That said, I (continue to) disagree with Jim's view that conservatives' position in the voucher context (i.e., the pro-parental-choice position) is an example of this mistake.  Yes, Jim is right that it is not children, but parents, who are choosing.  But it is not, in my view, "oxymoronic" to think that, as between parents and the state, parents have a right to decide where their children should go to school.  Someone -- parents or the state -- is going to decide.  Jim's view, I know, is that even the parents' presumptive authorization to decide is not -- as I believe -- meaningfully prior to the state's decision to so authorize them.  I suppose, this side of Heaven, we are not likely to convince each other on this point.

But, it seems to me that it is entirely consistent with the child-focused approach that Jim supports to conclude that children are better served by an education-policy regime that permits parents to select (and funds low-income parents' decision to select) of private, religious schools.  (I have no objection to the regulation of such schools, in the interest of children's welfare, health, and educational success, so long as that regulation is consistent with an appropriate respect for the character, identity, and private-ness of the school.) 

Finally, with respect to poverty programs, I think Jim raises an important and -- to me -- compelling point, namely, that our debates about the good and bad effects of poverty programs, and the incentives they create, cannot be limited to the effects on and incentives of adults.   Now, this point does not necessarily undermine the "conservative" arguments about, say, the bad social effects of some social-welfare programs, e.g., that they create a culture of dependency, or create disincentives for marriage, and so on.  After all, a culture of dependency and the creation of disincentives for marriage are -- conservatives believe -- bad for children, and not just adults.  In any event,  Jim is right that we all -- liberals and conservatives alike -- need to "apply ourselves to the task of doing everything" -- at least, everything that is plausible and actually helpful, and that does not wrong people who are affected -- "that can be done to help children in poverty have something approximately an equal opportunity in life." 

But again, this strong point of Jim's seems to weigh heavily in favor of the "conservative" position regarding the state's effective monopoly on publicly funded education.  As Jim knows, in the real world, the anti-voucher argument gets its political heft primarily from (a) the interests of (adult) unionized teachers and (b) (adults') objections to the possibility that public funds might support the educational mission of religious institutions and communities.  A child-centered approach to education, it seems to me, would quickly lead us to school-choice and would thereby make progress in helping the vulnerable escape what Jim rightly calls the "hell of urban poverty."