Rick called Utah's referendum on school vouchers to our attention a couple of times, as I recall. I awoke this morning to the following editorial in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. I reproduce it here not because I agree with it--I am not competent to address this controversy in an expert way--but because I thought some MOJ-readers would be interested in hearing another point of view.
Why vouchers fail
Voters once again reject using taxpayer money to subsidize private-school tuition
Voters
in conservative Utah have soundly rejected one of the pet causes of the
modern conservative movement, with 62 percent voting Tuesday to kill a
school voucher program enacted by the Utah Legislature.
That
outcome may have surprised some, but it mirrors the results of two
similar referendums in 2000. That year, 71 percent of voters in
California rejected a proposal to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize
private school tuition, and 69 percent of Michigan voters did the same.
In
fact, in every part of the country and every time the question has been
put to them, voters have rejected the concept of private school
vouchers. They have done so in blue states such as California, and in
the reddest of red states such as Utah. People are sending a message,
and it's not one that opponents of our public school systems want to
hear. They're telling their political leaders that they believe in
public schools and are committed to making them work.
There's no
question that the public school system faces critical challenges,
particularly here in Georgia. Far too many kids drop out before they
get a degree, condemning themselves to a lifetime of struggle in
poor-paying jobs. Far too many who do graduate lack the skills and
know-how to compete in a rapidly globalizing, knowledge-based economy.
But
to their credit, the American people understand that vouchers would
address none of those problems. To the contrary, using taxpayer dollars
to finance private education would bleed money, students and political
support from public schools. Vouchers would represent an act of
surrender, cutting large numbers of children adrift to fend for
themselves.
It is true that in many cases, the public school
system has grown too rigid and bureaucratic. But through charter
schools and other approaches, that is beginning to change.
It is
also true that a big part of the problem has been a lack of parental
involvement and commitment to their children's education. In fact, when
you find a student struggling in school or dropping out altogether, the
odds are good that you'll also find parents less than engaged in that
child's schoolwork.
Vouchers can't fix that. In fact, while
voucher advocates claim to be fighting on behalf of students who are
being failed by the current system, a voucher system would leave those
students far worse off.
If you believe voucher proponents,
parents who don't care enough to check their kids' homework — or who
themselves lack the education to do so — would somehow be transformed
into motivated, sophisticated shoppers in the education marketplace,
using tax vouchers to place their kids in exactly the private school
environment best suited to their needs.
It is a fantasy, and most Americans understand that, even if many of their leaders do not.
Seven years ago, the international community declared a goal of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty and hunger by 2015. While some progress has been made, it appears that those most in need are being left behind. The International Food Policy Research Institute has just issued a report, The World's Most Deprived: Characteristics and Causes of Extreme Poverty and Hunger. The report (available here) is sobering. Of the one billion people in the world living on less than $1/day, 162 million live in "ultrapoverty", that is, less than 50 cents/day. Those ultra-poor are "overwhelmingly" concentrated in Sub-Sahara Africa. While substantial progress has been made in attaining the Millennium Development Goals in some areas (e.g., in East Asia and the Pacific), there has been an increase in the number of people living in all categories of poverty, particularly ultrapoverty, in the Sub-Sahara. If current trends continue, improvements "will largely exclude a large share of the world's absolute poorest." The report discusses the characteristics of the poorest, some of the reasons for the dismally slow progress in reducing ultrapoverty, and makes recommendations as to interventions necessary to move the poorest out of poverty.
There are no easy answers here, but the Millennium Development Goals are worthy ones. The IFPRI report is important in reminding us that "[a]s the world moves toward achieving the Millennium Development Goal of cutting hunger and poverty in half, it cannot be content to focus only on the marginally poor and hungry - the desperate, grinding poverty of the world's absolute poorest must also be assuaged."
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Today, Judge Ronald Leighton of the Federal District Court in Tacoma, WA issued a preliminary injunction [Download stormans_prelim_inj.pdf ] sought by plaintiff pharmacists against the Washington State regulations making it sanctionable for a pharmacy to permit a pharmacist-employee to refuse to fill a lawful prescription because of religious or moral objections. The plaintiffs asked the Court to enjoin enforcement of provisions contained within certain regulations as applied to “Plan B” contraceptives, also known as the “morning after” pill. The court, in granting the injunction said this:
"the evidence before the Court convinces it that plaintiffs, individual pharmacists, have demonstrated both a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury"
This decision, while on a preliminary injunction, could well set a course for the protection of religious liberty and conscientious objection based on faith. It will be an important case to follow through the trial on the merits and beyond. But for the time being, one Federal judge has acknowledged that something is amiss in the proposals designed to eliminate religiously based conscientious objection to matters that are most objectionable.
RJA sj
Several weeks ago, there were several posts (see here, here and here) about the SCHIP debate and how the Catholic faithful ought to respond. I agree there are matters of judgment in how we address this situation, but I hope we can agree that we face a serious problem in this country with respect to ensuring the health of our children. As Congress continues to seek agreement on a revised bill that would survive a presidential veto, let us keep in the front of our minds the fact that 9 million children in this country lack health insurance, about 70% of whom live in families with incomes below 200% of the poverty line. Approximately one-third of those children without medical insurance go without medical care for an entire year. Not surprisingly, uninsured children are substantially more likely to miss school and to have untreated vision problems, making it more likely they will fall behind in school. (See here for some of these statistics.)
Go to this website, "The Blog Readability Test", and enter www.mirrorofjustice.com. Hee hee. (I wonder . . . by writing "hee hee" will I reduce MOJ's score?)
Anyone interested in theories of associational freedom (and if you read MoJ, you probably are) needs to read a new paper by George Mason law prof Eric Claeys titled The Private Society and the Public Good in John Locke's Thought. Here's the abstract:
This Article interprets John Locke's mature writings on politics, ethics, and philosophy to identify his teachings on liberal freedom of association. The conventional wisdom probably holds that Locke does not propound a general theory of associational freedom, just a theory of toleration specific to the church-state problem. In reality, Locke defends religious toleration as one particular application of a much more encompassing theory of associational freedom. Presumptively, private associations enjoy the rights to associate on whatever terms they want, set and enforce their own policies, and control their own membership. But private associations lose this presumption of freedom if they promote common opinions antithetical to respect for life, property, family, and the other the material interests on which the Lockean commonwealth focuses. More controversially, private associations also lose this presumption if they propagate opinions inconsistent with the common political opinions a Lockean political order inculcates to reinforce the moral conditions for liberalism.
Although this Article is primarily interpretive, it does defend Locke's position enough to make it clear why that position is worth interpreting. To that end, the Article shows why Locke's defense of associational freedom accords more with our experiences and observations than do deontological accounts of associational freedom by John Rawls and Robert Nozick.
Also to that end, the Article suggests how Locke's position may protect associational freedom more and less than contemporary practice. On one hand, Lockean associational freedom gives the political community wider latitude to bar and expel seditious associations. Here, Locke's account presents a tougher-minded theory of liberalism than theories influential in modern law and practice. On the other hand, Locke's account provides stronger defenses of associational freedom in the face of anti-discrimination policies. Here, Locke's account explains the public-private distinction in greater depth than modern law and practice.
