Censorship

[Robert Destro]

 Sandy Levinson wrote:

     But, of course, someone has to impose perspectives upon the minds of
     impressionable children, and the question, about which we continue in
     endless conversation, is whether the state has any legitimate role at
     all in this process.  ...

Sandy is correct that "someone has to impose perspectives upon the minds of
impressionable children," but I think he overstate's the case when he says
that the question "is whether the state has *any* (my emphasis) legitimate
role at all in this process."

"Who is the state?" to which (whom) Sandy would assign whatever role he
deems appropriate?  The local school boards, who often reflect local
community values? The state school boards? The legislatures? Or, as is
often the case, a combination of professional educators and teacher unions
who are the real face of "the state" on a day to day basis?

Having just returned from two weeks with my family in Ohio, I have had a
chance to watch close-up the ongoing political controversies over education
finance, content, and control that have arisen in the aftermath of the
DeRolphe and Cleveland school choice cases.  There is certainly agreement
that one role the state should have is collection and distribution of tax
revenues sufficient to "secure a thorough and efficient system of common
schools throughout the state", but there is a wide diversity of opinion
concerning funding levels, content, and control aspects of that state
constitutional mandate. [Witness: 1) Clevland's recent tax abatement/school
reimbursement referendum (the unions lost, but only 12.5% of the voters
even bothered to vote); 2) Ohio's ongoing school choice litigation; 3) the
current fight in Cleveland over mayoral control of the schools; and 4) the
unfolding dogfight over how to restructure education finance in the state,
not to mention ongoing disputes over curriculum content, test scores, etc.,
etc.]

All this underscores Sandy's basic point: education is, by its very nature,
the inculcation of knowlege, perspectives, values, and morality, both
public and private. But he is wrong when he tries to reduce the question to
the role of the state. There are at least three sets of interests to be
considered:

     1. the parents' obligation to educate their children, and their
     interest in raising them in the tenets of their faith or other system
     of belief;

     2. a child's need to be educated, and to be socialized as a member of
     a larger social, economic, moral, and political community, and the
     interest of the young adult in developing his or her ability to make
     informed educational choices consistent with his or her needs and
     aspirations;

     3. the State's interest in the health, safety and welfare of children,
     in the preservation and integrity of the family, and in the
     preservation of a common culture, language and political tradition.

All are legitimate interests, but nearly all debates over education focus
on the *state's* interest to the exclusion of the others. The state case
law especially reveals a distinct bias for the state's interest in
maintaining control.  It's interests are given priority; it's values; and
it's concept of what moral views shall, or shall not, be taught with tax
dollars.  The other interests are, in many ways, treated as secondary.

So, to answer Sandy's question: sure the state has a role. A very, very
large one. In fact, it was designed that way. Why? So that the state -- not
the parents or their churches -- would be in charge of inculcating
impressionable youngsters with knowledge, values, morals, and (yes!)
religion.


     Bob Destro
     --------------------------------------------------------------------
     Robert A. Destro                                  Destro at law.cua.edu
     Columbus School of Law                                  202-319-5202
     The Catholic University of America                  fax:202-319-4498
     Washington, D.C. 20064-8005                   http://www.law.cua.edu