A significant interest of mine is how public elementary and secondary schools---government schools---force diverse people into conflict rather than, as the gauzy mythology tells us, bringing them together. After all, unless people are prepared to ditch deeply held values and opinions about what's best for their kids, they have no choice but to engage in political (and sometimes actual) combat. And whether it's over evolution or "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," engage they do.
There is a corollary to this in higher education. All taxpayers are compelled to support colleges and universities, whether through direct aid to institutions or to students. As a result, either taxpayers are forced to support all academic speech---including speech they may find abhorrent---or government must deem some academic speech unacceptable. Either way, government impinges on individual liberty.
The negative consequences of this are not nearly as apparent as in K-12, where values-based conflicts make headlines almost every day. The reason such headlines aren't nearly as prevalent in higher ed may be because far fewer people have strong connections to the ivory tower.
This is not to say that collisions of taxpayer funding and academic freedom never make a loud bang. When the Ward Churchill "little Eichmanns" situation blew up in 2005, Colorado Governor Bill Owens immediately seized on the compelled-support angle, stating that "no one wants to infringe on Mr. Churchill's right to express himself. But we are not compelled to accept his pro-terrorist views at state taxpayer subsidy nor under the banner of the University of Colorado."
Colorado taxpayers, however, were technically required to pay for Churchill's "pro-terrorist views." While academic impropriety---not his 9/11 essay---officially got Churchill canned, the academic accusations were almost certainly brought to the fore by Churchill's essay-delivered infamy. Indeed, in 2009 a Colorado court concluded that Churchill had, de facto, been improperly let go due to his 9/11 essay, and awarded him $1 in damages. Just this past April, however, the state Supreme Court ruled that Churchill was neither entitled to back pay nor reinstatement.
Did you follow the clear principles guiding all those decisions, by the way? Me neither, but such is the malodorous hash you get when you try to reconcile the irreconcilable.
It is not individual cases, though, through which the death match between taxpayers' and professors' rights is most readily revealed. No, it is manifested most concretely in the seemingly endless war between conservatives and the politically correct academy.
There is little question that academia is a battleship of the left. Indeed, as the Higher Education Research Institute just found, its port-side tilt has recently gotten even worse. Conservatives, reasonably, find having to pay for their intellectual enemies disquieting. But the solution often proffered for this---achieving intellectual "balance" or "diversity"---is little better than the status quo.
For one thing, who would be the arbiter of proper balance, especially understanding that peoples' views are not monolithically liberal or conservative? And even if brilliantly proportioned ideological representation could be achieved, on what grounds could the apolitical be compelled to subsidize it?
The only fully satisfactory solution to the compelled-support problem is to, well, end compelled support of higher education. But there are good, better, and best options for reducing the problem short of complete government withdrawal.
Good: End government subsidies that go directly to schools. These are pure compulsion, with no individual choice involved. It's basically how we fund elementary and secondary education, the hottest of all culture-war battlefields.
Better: Connect all money to students, though in the form of loans, not grants. That would add a heck of a lot more choice---students would freely choose where to attend---and the decision would ultimately be paid for by the consumer. Of course, taxpayers would have no ability to choose recipients of the loans, so appreciable compulsion would remain.
Best: Move entirely to tax credits for individuals and corporations that donate to organizations providing scholarships---or perhaps even loans---to students at all levels. Donors would choose to donate and students would choose schools. There would still be government influence---your only choices would be to donate or pay taxes---but taxpayers would have the option not to subsidize higher ed at all.
Academic freedom is fantastic if it means academics have freedom from government coercion. But freedom for all is even better, and that requires ending subsidies for higher ed.
Cross-posted from SeeThruEdu.com
Last Friday, a Colorado District Court halted the new and unique Douglas County school voucher program with a permanent injunction. School choice legislation is a little like the Field of Dreams: pass it, and they will sue--and we all know who "they" are. So there's a tendency to dismiss legal setbacks for the choice movement as purely the result of self-serving monopolists exploiting bad laws or partisan, activist judges. There are certainly cases that fall into that category, but this Colorado ruling isn't one of them.
Oh, the self-serving monopolists and opponents of educational freedom are no doubt cheering it, but the ruling does not read like the work of a rube or an ideologue, and not all of the state constitutional provisions on which it was based can be dismissed as outdated examples of religious bigotry. The state's "compelled support" clause, in particular, seems to uphold a fundamentally American idea: that it is wrong to coerce people to pay for the propagation of ideas that they disbelieve. Thomas Jefferson, in his Virginia Declaration of Religious Freedom, called this: "tyranny."
Obviously, conventional public schools have been a source of such coercion for a very long time--everyone has to pay for the public schools, despite profound objections they may have to the way those schools teach history, literature, government, biology, or sex education. That's why we've had "school wars" as long as we've had government schools. And obviously vouchers offer the advantage of giving parents a much wider range of educational options for their children than do the one-size-fits few public schools. But despite this advantage, vouchers require all taxpayers to fund every kind of schooling, including types of instruction that might violate some taxpayers' most deeply held convictions. That's a recipe for continued social conflict over what is taught.
If there were no alternative to vouchers for providing school choice, perhaps it would make sense to have a debate over which freedoms should take precedence: the freedom of choice of families or the freedom of conscience of taxpayers--and then to sacrifice whichever one was deemed less worthy. But there is an alternative, and it does not require anyone to be compelled to support any particular type of instruction. I discuss this alternative, education tax credits, in a recent Huffington Post op-ed.