You Can't Whitewash This

Capitol Chronicle - The costs of ignorance: Our failure to support public education undermines democracy

Last spring, Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, made clear where she stood on such socialistic notions as public education. "Where did this idea come from that everybody deserves free education, free medical care, free whatever?" she demanded in a legislative hearing. "It comes from Moscow, from Russia. It comes straight out of the pit of hell. And it's cleverly disguised as having a tender heart. It's not a tender heart. It's ripping the heart out of this country."

That would be resoundingly correct, Representative Riddle. It's too bad Michael King can't address this properly.

It's a shame that Riddle, who lists her occupation as "horse breeder," didn't study more broadly for her associate of arts degree at South Texas Junior College. Perhaps there or even in high school she might have run across that communist manifesto known as the Texas Constitution, in particular Article 7, Section 1: "A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools." I'm no expert on Texas history, but I'm fairly certain that the drafters of that document had spent little time in Moscow, and that indeed in political activism they preceded the Bolsheviks by a few decades.

Her direct wording isn't correct, but her implication is fucking obvious. The socialization of education and health care (not just of industry) is wrong.

The Texas founders clearly did understand, as our current political leadership has willfully forgotten, that a common public education (among many other shared community goods and burdens) is "essential" to a free republic not because it's compassionate, generous -- or even, God forbid, "tender-hearted" -- but because it is necessary to "the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people." General public ignorance might be considered tolerable in a society of lords and serfs -- or masters and slaves -- but to seriously attempt to maintain a republic of free citizens necessarily requires that those citizens have ready access to a common education and a common public culture.

Now this is curious. Does he mean to say that people would otherwise go uneducated by choice if we didn't have a publicly-funded system? I call bullshit. The value of an education is obvious; he's making that point himself. Since it is so valuable, especially to those who want to improve their lot in life, people will seek out ways to educate themselves. Their desire for or the wide benefits of that educational service, however, do not necessitate taking money from people in order to provide for others.

Is he saying without any hint of irony or sarcasm that a system based upon force and theft is in place to preserve our liberties and rights? Mr. King is choosing the Type M argument over the Type C argument with that lords & serfs and slaves & masters bit. Those words can be disposed of without consequence.

I find it remarkable Mr. King makes the implicit assertion that without public schools, we'd be unable to access and interact with a "common public culture." That level of ignorance is amazing. The only way to avoid that is if you make the choice to. Otherwise, humans being the creatures that we are, we will seek out relationships with others for many different reasons.

The Red Tide

These are principles once too obvious to reiterate, but the Legislature's continued determination to evade its constitutional obligation makes it clear that either, like Riddle, they find such bedrock American notions preposterously alien, or more simply, they no longer care to pick up the tab.

Why should I have to? Why should you have to? If you think people need help paying for their education, go right ahead and donate what you think you can afford. Start up a charity. Work for an educational foundation. But don't drag me into the equation, dammit. I'll choose whom to give to if I so desire.

What is true at the level of public schools is increasingly also true for higher education. Whatever else "tuition deregulation" may mean, it confirms the national trend of the last two decades to squeeze the financial life out of public institutions of all sorts in the name of that entitlement program for the rich known as "privatization."

People have even less of a right or duty to attend higher education! You should have learned all the basic skills necessary for living on your own by the time you've left high school. Everything beyond that I consider superfluous and dictated entirely by the levels of comfort, self-satisfaction, or other driving forces people employ when choosing their life's path.

Again with a Type M argument, this time utter crap on it's face. How is removing public funds from public institutions (and therefore requiring those who wish to use those services to pay for them somehow) an "entitlement" to anyone? Certainly not those who would pay for them; even Mr. King should be able to acknowledge that. Certainly not for those who would offer them; no one would be forced to use these services. But I doubt that kind of reasoning doesn't affect him that much.

The most striking statistic offered by UT administrators in defense of their current move to raise tuition, this year and next, is the diminishing level of state support. In the 1970s, more than 80% of UT's academic budget was underwritten by the state budget; currently, that percentage is less than 35% and sinking. UT, which will be raising its tuition roughly 26% over the next two semesters, is not alone. The University of Houston made a similar increase, A&M somewhat lower, and other schools right down to community colleges are following suit.

Good. Reduce those percentages until the universities are free from government influence and political meddling such influence involves.

Socialism for the Rich

If UT students have snapped to the larger implications of these fundamental changes in the American social contract, their slack attendance at the two public forums to discuss the tuition increases didn't reflect it. A few dozen students asked politely if the committee had considered various alternatives and what might happen to those students who can't afford the new costs, and the committee responded that indeed it had considered all available alternatives and that in any case, 28 cents of every new dollar would be set aside to partially defray the increase for low- and middle-income families. That is, of course, one more dreary consequence of privatization: Those of us who were once citizens of a democratic society with equal access to public institutions are now increasingly expected to pay disproportionately from our resources, and then line up to be supplicants to the magnanimity of our betters.

He's bitching about disproportionate costs...as opposed to those people who are taxed harder on the mere basis of earning more or not allowed to partake in the myriad sops to the poor and middle-class Democrats (and Republicans) whore themselves over. This won't fly with me.

And get a good look at his disdain for charity...even as he wishes for a greater amount of forced charity to take place. The option to choose lends the former system such a greater deal of moral weight that it would be silly to compare it to the latter.

One faculty member noted sourly that perhaps UT students should be at least as concerned about the school's financial condition and academic ranking as they undoubtedly are about the record of its football team.

Copyright © 1995-2003 Austin Chronicle Corp. All rights reserved.

Hey, I wish educational institutions would stop dicking around with sports and get back to educating people, especially if the People must foot some of the bills in maintaining those teams.

Some other posts I've written on this topic:

What Happens When You Invest in Government
Keeping the Government Outta Schools Has It's Benefits
Who Said Government-Backed Racism Is Dead?
The Solution is Obvious

Posted by Drizzten at October 23, 2003 02:12 AM