[Vision2020] Support the School Levy!

[Christopher Witmer]

Joe Campbell's arguments in favor of the school levy
manifest a great deal of confusion and illogical thinking.
I'm not directly affected by the levy so I won't presume
to tell people how they should vote on Tuesday, but I want
to address some of Mr. Campbell's more egregious errors.

First we need to note Mr. Campbell's abuse of the notions
of things that are volitional (the real of choice) verus
things that are obligatory (the realm of duty), and the
concept of taking responsibility for one's choices. 

He starts off by asserting that "The state has an
obligation to provide an education for everyone –
Gabe
’s kids and mine."

Right off the bat, this statement is immediately subject
to strong disagreement on constitutional grounds, because
the education of children cannot avoid the promotion of a
particular religious perspective to the exclusion of
contrary religious perspectives. This is true in all
subjects, but it is especially obvious in the creation vs.
evolution controversy and in instruction with regard to
sexual morality. If we are to have a publicly funded
education system, then a system of vouchers is the only
method that passes constitutional muster because it alone
does not involve the imposition of a particular religious
perspective to the exclusion of others. There are valid
constitutional grounds for opposing even vouchers, but if
you take the position that the State has an obligation to
provide an education for everyone, the only approach
reconcilable with the Constitution is that of vouchers.
Under the current system, even people who strongly oppose
the religious content of public schooling are being forced
to subsidize the promotion of belief systems inimical to
their personal beliefs.

The next erroneous assertion Mr. Campbell makes is, "The
funding of public education is a social good, like the
funding of the military or the funding of highways. We all
benefit if everyone has a quality education." This too is
patently false. To correct it, the first thing we need to
do is remove the word "public" from his statement. The
funding of education is a social good, but that funding
does not need to come from the government. (It is simply a
fact that a good education does not need to cost a lot of
money, and in fact too much money can end up seriously
interfering with the provision of a good education by
encouraging involvement in all sorts of extraneous "bells
and whistles" that are very much secondary to education. I
strongly suspect, as an outside observer, that the very
best thing that could happen to public schooling in Moscow
at the present time would be for the school district to be
forced to go on a severe austerity budget. I recently went
on a diet and lost 25 lbs, and I feel better than I have
in years. I'm much healthier on less, and I dare say that
in general, most public school districts in the USA would
be healthier on less too. What doctor, when a bloated,
overweight patient comes to him complaining of constant
lethargy, tells the patient that he needs to eat more? But
I digress.)

The military recognizes "Conscientious Objector" status,
but regardless of their views on war, people are still
forced to pay taxes to support the military. Pacifists are
forced to support through their taxes what they view to be
the murder of innocent people. In their view, funding of
the military is not a social good but rather a social
evil. I'm no pacifist but I am strongly opposed to the war
in Iraq and to America's huge permanent military
installations around the world and to America's military
interventionism all over the world, so I would have to say
that with America's current military policy the funding of
the current military is a social evil. The funding of
highways I have much less argument with at a personal
level; however, arguably even highways could be built and
maintained entirely by the private sector. Anyway, you
don't need to agree with me about our military or the
highways to see the point I'm making about education.
There is no disputing that EDUCATION is a social good;
however, it is very much open to dispute that the PUBLIC
FUNDING of education is a social good. I think a much
stronger case could be made for the position that in the
long run the public funding of education has actually done
society far more harm than good, and society would be much
better off if there was no public funding of education at
all. The education would still get done even without
public funding, and the education would be of much better
quality as a result. Moreover, the whole system would much
more reconcilable with our Constitution. (Note that our
nation's founders in their wisdom did not make any
provision for public funding of education, even though
they easily could have if they had wanted to.)

Mr. Campbell says, "Even if I walk to work I still have to
pay for the highways. I don
’t get to ride the tanks but I still have to support the
military. I have to support the military whether I like
the current war or not." This analogy is totally
inappropriate. Parents who homeschool and who use private
schools are -- to use Mr. Campbell's analogy correctly --
are actively participating in the construction of the
highways and actively participating in the defense of the
nation. If anything, these parents deserve not to be taxed
again on top of their current contribution, but rather to
be reimbursed by the State for their services. I'm not
saying the State should reimburse them, but it would be
fairer than making them pay twice. If you really wanted to
be fair in passing the levy for MSD, turn around and on a
pari passu, pro rata basis, pay the same amount per
student to the homeschooling and private schooling
families that MSD gets. Note well that every single family
would come out far ahead of the game financially because
they are able to provide their kids with much better
educations for far less money. The difference between what
they spend and what MSD wants is, to put it succinctly,
money that is being spend unnecessarily. It's waste.

Mr. Campbell says, "By living in Moscow, I have to pay a
state income tax whereas if I lived in Pullman I would
not. That is my choice and I have to pay because of it. To
make that choice and then complain about the additional
payment is silly." Just look at the Statist hubris
expressed in this statement of his. What ever happened to
accountability? Essentially he is just saying, "If you're
going to live in Moscow, just shut up and pay what you're
told to pay without demanding accountability, and if you
don't like it, you are always free to move." The taxpayers
have a right to know exactly how their money is being
spent. Apparently the MSD has been extremely reticent to
provide such accountability to the taxpayers. If the sort
of logic expressed by Mr. Campbell is representative of
the mindset of the thinking going on in the MSD, the best
thing that could happen to education on Moscow on Tuesday
is for the voters to send that levy down in flames. Until
there is a significant attitudinal adjustment on the part
of the people who are intent on spending that money,
giving them the money that they are requesting would be a
big mistake. True, I'm just an outside observer, but it
sure seems to me that Moscow could be doing MUCH better on
much less money. I look forward to seeing the results of
the vote on Tuesday.

Chris Witmer
Tokyo
 
Vote AGAINST the school levy on November 13, 2007!