The Anointed and The Benighted

I have been following several interesting discussion about the right of parents to educate their children within their own world-views, and the obligation of the state not to interfere in the parent-child relationship. One of the discussions is here, at the Illinois Review. Another discussion was precipitated by Dana's musings about how the view of abuse has become less than strictly defined, over at Principled Discovery. In that blog entry, Dana also features an excerpt of a piece from Black Sun Journal, which equates the religious education of children by their parents with child abuse.

At the same time, I have been preparing a presentation for my Trends and Issues in Special Education course that discusses what happens when an ideological divide takes the place of reasoned arguments in a field. In this case, the issue that precipitated the divide is the Regular Education Initiative, which has been advocated with nearly religious fervor by a certain small group of Post-Modernist thinkers. In preparation for that presentation I have been reading, among others, Thomas Sowell's 1995 book, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as the Basis for Social Policy, which is part of his Conflict of Visions series.

In this book, Sowell characterizes what happens when a field or an issue moves from rational, evidence-based discussion to the brink of an ideological divide. Essentially, he says that the this movement creates an "us" and "them" mentality, in which one side claims 'the Vision of the Anointed.' This vision is comprised of "the perceptions, beliefs and assumptions of an elite intelligentsia, whose revelations prevail over others in the determination of policy." The other side, which often persists in an attempt at rational discussion long past useful resolution, gets cast with having the "Vision of the Benighted." The perceptions, beliefs and assumptions of the hapless Benighted group are cast as being "at best, perceptions, more often, stereotypes, and more bluntly, false consciousness."

Sowell goes on to say that those who hold the Vision of the Anointed, take it upon themselves to characterize those they deem "them" to be not only factually wrong, but morally inferior. Because the Anointed ascribe to themselves only the best of motives, they do not feel the need to define their terms or to present logical arguments or empirical evidence for their rightness. They are right because they are the caring and compassionate few, the Ones Who Know What is Best for Us All, and if only we would let them get on with the business deciding momentous questions on the basis of their Vision, we'd all be led to the Promised Land. Sowell says it better than I:

"(The Vision of the Anointed confers) a special state of grace for those who believe it. Those who accept this vision are deemed to be not merely factually correct, but morally on a higher plane. Put differently, those who disagree with the prevailing vision are seen as being not merely in error, but in sin. For those who hold this vision of the world, the anointed and the benighted do not argue on the same moral plane or play by the same cold rules of logic and evidence. The benighted are to made "aware," to have their "consciousness rasied," and the wistful hope is held out that they will "grow." Should the benighted prove recalcitrant, however, then their "mean-spiritedness" must be fought and the "real reasons" behind their arguments and actions exposed."

Sowell calls the vision of the anointed a "vision of differential rectitude." (Emphasis in the original). I call it a quasi-religious world view of the elect and the damned, in which the elect do not recognize any obligation to be tolerant towards those who disagree with them, but rather feel compelled to use the coercive power of the state to bring the Benighted damned to salvation.

Compared those who hold the Vision of the Anointed, the Jehovah's Witness at the door is just a walk in park. The Witness after all can only try to persuade you, and you can tell him to leave and he will do it. At worst, you will have to recycle the Watchtower pamplet.

Let's just take a look at two quotations from Black Sun Journal with the above metaphor for the ideological divide in mind. In this case, it is homeschoolers, and particularly those who are teaching their children their own religious world view, who have been cast into the Vision of the Benighted. The Black Sun author clearly sees herself as The Anointed.

Quote I: Home schooling is a discretionary option for parents, the quality of which can vary widely. Because of this inconsistency, it may not be in the best interest of children, who often have no choice about their participation. Society at large has a duty to protect the minds as well as the bodies of vulnerable children from abuse by authority figures. In most cases, home schooling parents have a strong religious agenda, and therefore on First Amendment grounds such education does not meet the standards for a generalized public subsidy. A case can also be made that to the extent home schooling attempts to undermine the principles of consensus science, not only should it be denied government support, it should also be expressly prohibited. (Emphasis added).

Digression: By the way, as a working scientist, I am very troubled by the phrase "consensus science." In science, ideas are not developed by consensus, but by rigorous experimental design, which is regularly reviewed and criticized by colleagues. Argument and challenge are ideally the order of the day. "Consensus science" is an oxymoron.

Another Digression: I am also puzzled by the reference to the First Amendment. The First Amendment describes a limit on government interference into the religious lives of the people. It does not prescribe that the government coerce secularism in the private lives of individuals, which is what our Anointed One is calling for, in saying "...it should be expressly prohibited."

Quote II: It is for this reason that I consider religious education to be a serious form of child abuse. No matter what kind of beliefs they might hold about underage sexuality, we don’t allow parents to sexually abuse their children because we understand that they don’t own their children’s bodies. Likewise we should understand just as clearly that no matter what their religions might demand they teach, parents do not own their kids’ minds. Society has a profound interest in the truthful education and proper formation of its future citizens. Therefore it should be expressly against the law to teach children a curriculum that so blatantly and directly contradicts science–even and especially in private. Such curricula should be treated like child pornography. Because miseducation is at least as damaging to children as sexual abuse. We’re talking about the malformation of the brain a child will possess for life. It goes without saying that it does not matter whether it is conducted in the home or in a private group setting, it should absolutely, positively never receive any government subsidy or funding. (Emphasis Added).

Digression: Malformation of the brain? I am a neuroscientist, and I can tell you that teaching specific ideas does not create malformation of the brain. Brain problems are more likely to occur in children who are not brought up in loving families with strong attachment to parents. I would worry much more about the Brave New World quality of child rearing at the hands of the state that this author implies.

Another Digression: Also note the statement "especially in private." Privacy and private life are the result of liberty and capitalism. No such distinction as that between private life and public life exists under any form of Fascism.

Still Another Digression: This is the second time this Anointed One has mentioned government funding. Just for the record, although I have not conducted a scientific poll, my experience of homeschoolers is that we pay our taxes for public schools we do not use, and in general, we are opposed to government subsidies because they would inevitably lead to Pols (as we called them in Chicago: Royko used to say they were incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time) sticking their noses into our private lives.

I think the tone and the assertions of knowledge without evidence alone tells us that this is definitely a person with The Vision of the Anointed. I noticed in the discussion at Black Sun, and the discussion with another Anointed person over at the Illinios review, that homeschoolers, in general, try to stay with the argument from reason. Out of esteem for our fellows, we tend to think of them as operating on the same moral plane as ourselves, and do not realize that we have been cast into The Vision of the Benighted. I believe that we must start attacking their ideas on the highest level, as ideas.

For example, notice that our Black Sun Messiah asserts: "Society at large has a duty to protect..." (Quote I) and "Society has a profound interest..." (Quote II). We, taking the argument to the rational grounds of give and take of empirical evidence, generally think of society as a group of people who have a multitude of differing interests, and a few common interests. But here, Society, with a capital "S" actually stands for the Anointed, the differentially Righteous, who by the grace of their rectitude and possession of the moral high ground, should have the power to direct our lives. Even more so, Society here stands for the coercive power of the state.

These are not ideas that are compatible with a government that is limited to Constitutionally defined concerns. It is not an idea compatible with a government confined by the Rule of Law. These ideas promote the view of a government that respects some persons over others, and in which the Elect would get to work their will upon the rest of us, whether we like it or not. Such ideas must be challenged not only at the level of point-by-point discussion of the facts, for the Anointed do not need empirical data, they are in a particular state of grace. Rather, they ought to be challenged on the level of the ideas themselves.

I do have a question for the Anointed of the Black Sun: You presume to impose the tyranny of your wishes upon others, to forbid them from teaching their children religion. But you are not in the majority. You wish to remove the guaranties of the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, because you believe they allow the Benighted to pass on their Benightedness. And yet, you, as an atheist, are undoubtedly in the minority. Once the protections of the rights of individuals are removed, at your behest, what will stop the Christian majority from making it illegal for you to teach that atheism to your children?

What will you do when the shoe is on the other foot?

Creeping Fascism: Are We Servants of the State?

I admit it. Late May and early June is usually a time of the year in which I actually avoid deep thinking, prefering to celebrate the end of the semester by reading thrillers and working in my yard. And still the world of homeschooling turns, even though I am preoccupied with watching the sunset and sunrise from my little piece of paradise.

So today, I finally feel compelled to discuss some issues that have been developed on other blogs and tie together some ideas that have been rumbling around in my head for a while--even as I watched wonderful sunrises and sunsets from my front porch.

In Connecticut, their version of Child Protective Services (DFS) has been enlisted by certain school districts to force parents who wish to homeschool their children to keep the kids in school. Judy Aron over at Consent of the Governed has blogged extensively about what is happening there. I am linking to her first recent post on the issue here, but you should look also at today's post, as well as one about the press conference, which can be viewed here. It is well worth viewing.

There is no question that the school districts that have reported these parents to DFS for "education neglect" have abused their power. What is very interesting is that in the cases discussed during the press conference (linked above), the parents were removing their children as a last resort after reasonable attempts to work with the schools to get their children a public education. In these cases, another issue stands out--the children had health problems that should have resulted in some form of an individual educational plan--either an IEP (under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) or a 504 Plan (under Americans with Disabilities Act). The IDEA in particular mandates that the schools must work as a team with parents/family in order to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to a child with a disability. In the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, Congress found that " strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home" can make "the education of children with disabilities...more effective." (IDEA 2004 601.c5B). It is also stated in the law that all members of an IEP team must agree to educational interventions. And yet, in the Connecticut cases, parents were dictated to, bullied and threatened with loss of their children if they did not comply with unilateral plans put forth by the school districts involved.

These abuses most likely have a number of causes, including money--because school districts get federal money for each child with disabilities educated under IDEA, and they can use this money in their general funds--that is they do not have to show that the money goes specifically for special education. Although this is a loophole that taxpayers ought to be concerned about, I believe there is a more insidious idea being promulgated here. This is the idea that the state has a kind of ownership of the child and merely contracts to the parents the duties of raising the child as a servant of the state. This is not an American value. Neither is it a democratic ideal; it is, rather, a fascist concept. The Constitution of the United States clearly demonstrates that a government governs at the pleasure of the citzenry. Government is the servant of the citizen, not the master. Citizens are not the servants of the state, rather they direct their government to do certain, constitutionally defined jobs in order to protect their liberties and live their lives.

The abuse of power represented by the actions of the Connecticut school districts and the DFS--which apparently is allowed to ignore certain basic constitutional rights of the accused--appears to stem from the idea that a petty bureaucrat or school official knows better than we do what is best for ourselves and our children. That these people are often more poorly educated and have less information than the parents they are harrassing would be laughable if they did not have so much power to disrupt lives and waste public resources doing so.

Another example of this "creeping fascism," has been making the rounds of the homeschooling blogosphere recently. I found out about it at this post on Corn and Oil. (By the way, Susan, I hail from your part of the world and went to school with your state congressman, Bill Brady. Don't know why, but I have been unable to comment on your blog because the registration never goes through). In a forthcoming article for California Law Review, professor Kim Yuracko of Northwestern University, essentially argues that the state has the constitutional power to dictate the ideas that parents teach their children in the course of homeschooling them. The article is called Illiberal Education which can be accessed by clicking on the link. Home Education Magazine has posted the abstract, commentary and links to other analysis here.

Although acknowledging that homeschooling is a "diverse" phenomenon, Yuracko incorrectly states that it is controlled by fundamentalist Christians who want to isolate their children from "secular influences and liberal values" (Yuracko, 2007, abstract). How, well, illiberal of Yuracko. The paper is poorly written and has numerous factual errors with regard to the diversity and philosophy of homeschooling. It also uses numerous logical fallacies in the pursuit of the argument. It is the central point, however, that demonstrates another example of fascistic thinking that I want to address.

Yuracko argues that education is essentially a "public function" that states delegate to parents and that parental power over their children's education is therefore limited. This law professor has it exactly backwards. The state may have an "interest" in the education of future citizens, but by sending their children to public schools, parents are delegating their responsibility to educate their children to the state. Not the other way 'round. Our children are not servants of the state. In a Constitutional Republic, such as the United States, the state is our servant.

In reading the entire article, it is clear that Yuracko would like to have the power of the state to limit the freedom of certain classes of parents (namely fundamentalist Christians) to pass their own beliefs and values on to their children. Rather, Yuracko would like force her own values on all of us. This would be a violation of our liberties under the United States Constitution. It also smacks of an incredible amount of elitist chutzpah on the part of a law professor.

It should be clear to anyone who has taken more than a cursory look at my blog that I am not a fundamentalist Christian. In fact, I strongly disagree with many of their ideas and beliefs. I am not a political conservative, either. Rather, I'd like to see the words "conservative" and "liberal" banned from polite discourse so that citizens could talk to each other on the level of issues rather than shout at each other from ideological positions. I do, however, remember the words of Martin Niemoller:

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
(New England Holocaust Memorial Version)

Either the rights of citizens belong to all of us, or they will belong to no one.
Disagreement is protected and even encouraged in our American values. Supression is not.

Maybe someone like Yuracko is afraid of homeschooling and homeschoolers precisely because most of us have made a choice to teach our children their rights as citizens of the United States.

And, no, I don't do the Pledge of Allegiance with my son in our homeschool. Rather, every day we stand before the flag of the United States and recite the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (From Findlaw).

My son is not a servant of the state. He does not owe allegiance to a specific government, office, or person. He owes allegiance to an idea. The idea that "governments are instituted among (human beings) at the consent of the governed." The idea that the government exists to serve the citizens. If he chooses to run for office or serve in the military as an officer--and himself becomes a servant of the citizens, then he will take an oath of fealty. Not to a government, flag, office or person. Rather, he will take an oath to "protect and defend the constitution of the United States." To protect and defend an idea. The idea of liberty.