Parents v. schools
What to do when parents don’t want their children exposed to certain material?
Charles’ post yesterday raised some critical questions as to when “parents should have the power to ban school texts.” While there are obviously difficult cases, I think most people would balk at the idea of pulling Catcher in the Rye or The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn off of the shelves of school libraries. But, what about parents who don’t want the book removed from the library or classroom altogether, but instead simply object to their child having to read the work as part of a class assignment? How far should schools go to accommodate the wishes of the parents of individual students? Read more
Privatizing the public library
What’s the harm?
David Streitfeld at the NYT reports that Library Systems & Services (LSSSI), a for-profit corporation, has contracted to run the public libraries of numerous municipalities. Their reach is expanding rapidly, Streitfeld reports, and in terms of number of branches, they rank right behind Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago.
This raises interesting questions about the proper role of the free market in delivering what are perceived as social necessities, either to the healthy functioning of a democratic system as a whole or to individuals operating within such a society. If we assume that free public libraries are such a neccesity, I don’t see much cause for concern.
The general worries with privatizing public goods are (a) that certain people will be priced out, (b) that all people will be forced to pay more in general or to pay ”too much,” (c) that some goods are so important that no one should have to pay at all (this is a ridiculous argument, since the goods have to come from somewhere, and someone is paying for them, probably through taxes), (d) that, whereas governments don’t usually go out of business (and can deliver goods at a loss), companies do all the time, which would threaten the delivery of the good in question, and (e) that companies working from profit-maximizing motives won’t deliver the good as well, generously, or graciously as a government working with the public welfare in mind.
Worlds apart –why an open society may be better after all
On Monday, Han wrote about Thomas Friedman’s Op-Ed in the New York Times on the
“green economy,” contrasting the technocratic approach of China’s authoritarian rulers with the haphazard and undirected approach of the American political system. Han suggested that technocratic and authoritarian governments may have an advantage for costly but necessary endeavors.
There is certainly an allure of decisiveness and efficiency under technocratic rule. Thomas Friedman quotes the chairwoman of the Joint U.S.-China Collaboration on Clean Energy as saying that “There really is no debate about climate change in China.” But climate change is not the only issue on which public debate in China is absent.
In China, internet search terms such as “freedom,” “democracy,” and “demonstration” are blocked, as are some sites on health, education, news, entertainment, religion, pornography, Taiwan, and Tibet. Sometimes the bans extend to academic sites. In January of 2009, the Chinese government even censored Obama’s inauguration.
If technocrats are to monopolize decision-making, then they cannot be questioned or challenged meaningfully. This is worrisome, not only because the technocrats won’t get it right every time. John Stuart Mill once pointed out that the absence of debate leads to orthodoxy, rigidness, and most importantly stunted intellectual growth. Inertia and resistance to necessary change can plague authoritarian societies as much or more than democratic ones. Not only do liberty and political equality suffer, but so does the very development of societies and individuals.
Technocratic societies in the past have sometimes been able to make remarkable achievements in a brief time span. The Soviet Union not only launched Sputnik and led the world in rocketry but also aggressively promoted literacy and women’s rights. But these achievements did not last. Russia today is hardly a bastion of progressivism, prosperity, and innovation. Without intellectual diversity and debate, the promise of progress cannot be realized in the long run.
-Charles
Image by Flickr user sofafort used under a Creative Commons Attribution License
God Save the Queen (or President?)
Politics, religion, and “public reason”
Writing for The Washington Post, Damon Linker proposes a norm of questioning politicians about their religious beliefs.
Every religion is radically particular, with its own distinctive beliefs about God, human history and the world. These are specific, concrete claims — about the status of the religious community in relation to other groups and to the nation as a whole, about the character of political and divine authority, about the place of prophecy in religious and political life, about the scope of human knowledge, about the providential role of God in human history, and about the moral and legal status of sex. Depending on where believers come down on such issues, their faith may or may not clash with the requirements of democratic politics.
This is an interesting point I will not tackle directly. Instead, I want to examine a related question: if candidates are asked these questions, how should they respond? Or put another way, how can a religious candidate fail to pass this proposed religious test? Read more
Should identity and politics ever mix?
The BBC reports that France’s Senate has overwhelmingly approved banning Islamic full-body coverings. The heart of the issue is the integration of Muslim immigrants, who have been arriving in France and other European countries in large numbers for the last three decades but have often visibly failed to assimilate. Undoubtedly, the Paris riots of 2005 and the terror attacks in Madrid and London weigh heavily on the minds of French voters and parliamentarians.
France is not the only European country to move in this direction. Belgium and Spain are considering similar laws, and Switzerland recently outlawed minarets.
It is not surprising that secular Europeans react with visceral hostility and disgust to what they see as trappings of archaic, patriarchal and oppressive religiosity. The values that Muslim immigrants bring to Europe are often at odds with those of the modern Western human rights culture. But is it appropriate for the heavy hand of the law to secularize by force?
Forcible secularization as a form of social engineering has a mixed record. In Turkey, the fervently nationalist and secular governments since the time of Ataturk have outlawed headscarves and generally repressed religious expression. Islamic radicalism was forcibly stamped out (although the ruling AKP bills itself as a moderate Islamist party). But many rights that Americans would take for granted were trampled in the process. And religious identity politics in Turkey have by no means been resolved for good.
Banning articles of clothing might give the illusion of assimilation, while violating basic rights to religious expression. If Europeans want to address the challenges posed by immigrants from radically different cultures, they should probably think of other ways to bring their immigrants into the economic and social mainstream. Assimilation and religious freedom need not butt heads.
-Charles
Image by Flickr user BBC World Service used under a Creative Commons Attribution License
Primitivism is insane
And maybe wrong
The hostage taker at the Discovery Channel headquarters posted a diatribe condemning modern civilization. The hostage taker saw humans as “filthy” and “parasitic” and considered the environment the only important value. In a warped re-reading of Daniel Quinn’s My Ishmael, his manifesto urges human civilization to dismantle itself before it takes the environment down with it.
Not long ago, there was another madman who embraced the collapse of civilization. He was a brilliant Harvard mathematician who convinced himself that, in order to truly be free, humans must satisfy a “power process” of challenge-and-reward cycles by eschewing industrial technology and struggling to survive. He also thought mailing bombs to people was a good idea.
Jared Diamond’s book Collapse provides a saner discussion of the demise of human civilization. Diamond argues that the depletion of resources has historically doomed isolated civilizations and may doom the entire human race in the near future. The solutions he suggests challenge things we take for granted, such as rising living standards and reproductive freedom.
Moderate or “moderate” Islam?
Who’s liberal enough?
Ross Douthat writes a thoughtful piece at the NYT Blog on how to understand and engage with Muslim critics of radical Islamism. He rejects those Western thinkers who limit the category of “moderate Muslims” to those, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Irshad Manji, who endorse Western liberalism absolutely and without qualification. He writes:
This school of thought strikes me as misguided. Manji and Hirsi Ali are brave and admirable, but what they’re offering (Hirsi Ali especially) is ultimately a straightforward critique of Muslim traditions and belief, not a bridge between Islam and the liberal West that devout Muslims can cross with their religious faith intact. If such bridges are going to be built, much of the work will necessarily be done by figures who sometimes seem ambiguous and even two-faced, who have illiberal conversation partners and influences, and whose ideas are tailored to audiences in Cairo or Beirut or Baghdad as well as audiences in Europe and America. That’s how change — religious, ideological, whatever — nearly always works.
On the other side, Douthat is clear that making “these kind of distinctions doesn’t require us to suspend all judgment where would-be Islamic moderates are concerned” and that ” forays into more dubious territory should be greeted with swift pushback, rather than simply being accepted as a necessary part of the moderate Muslim package.”
I discussed similar issues here.
-Jake
Image by Flickr user Paul Lowry used under a Creative Commons Attribution License
It’s the economy, stupid
Equality butts heads with freedom
Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith write at Politico that a new debate about first principles and the role of government has replaced the social issues at stake during the “culture wars” of the last three decades.
This dispute over first principles is deeply entwined with questions of national identity and the appropriate role of the government in the economy.
On one extreme is a minimalist state, in which the government is responsible for little more than upholding the rule of law and providing for a common defense. On the other extreme is a socialist state in which the government manages all facets of economic activity.
Neither extreme applies to any industrialized country today. Rather, the modern world is populated by welfare states of various stripes.
Americans are stupid
You may not know this, but, earlier this year, President Obama signed into law the most sweeping overhaul of health care since the 1965 creation of Medicare. It’s the largest piece of social legislation in at least half a century.
I know, I know, I shouldn’t be treating you as if you have your head buried in the sand. Except you do.
According to a recently leaked presentation based on polling and focus groups about the law encourages Democrats to “Let voters know the healthcare [sic] law passed!”
They don’t know? Really?
This raises a depressing question: what’s the point of governing in the Republic of Ignorance?
Most major theories of government make some basic assumptions about human rationality. Some say people are perfectly rational beings capable of deciding their own good. Others take a more moderate stance, suggesting that people are often shaped by their environment and circumstances.
But few if any theories account for complete and total inability to notice life-changing events.
My tone may be humorous, but my humors are melancholy (the bodily ones, anyway).
It’s time to make a choice. Must we radically improve the capacity of our population to understand the basic knowledge it takes to function as a democracy? Or should we radically rethink democracy itself?
In either case, it may be time to do something radical.
-Sam
Image of a lemming used under a Creative Commons attribution license from Flickr user kgleditsch.
Free speech for the dumb?
Laura Schlessinger recently found herself embroiled in controversy after using racial epithets several times on her talk radio show. This incident has led Dr. Schlessinger to abandon her program, proclaiming “”I want my First Amendment rights back, which I can’t have on radio without the threat of attack on my advertisers and stations.”
Over at NPR, Linda Holmes argues that being economically pressured for her speech is not a violation of her First Amendment rights. As Holmes draws the distinction, the Constitution guarantees that speech will be “free from government interference,” not “free from consequences.”
The article brings up not only questions of free speech, but also questions about the respect owed to other ideals cherished in a liberal democracy.
-Han
Photo by Flickr user Ian Hayhurst used under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
Share us