School & Society: Ch. 2 Study Questions

1. Jefferson believed that three years of literacy instruction in elementary school would be valuable in safeguarding the liberties of the population. Today this seems to be far too little schooling for so important a task. To what degree do the dimensions of political-economic life during Jefferson's time make his belief in the power of basic literacy plausible?

The strongly agrarian nature of the society immediately comes to mind; as the text states, "About 94 percent of the population was classified as rural. Over 90 percent of the working population were engaged in agriculture..." What this means is that extensive compulsory education would have completely disrupted American life as it was around the turn of the 19th century. Whether the farming was for private subsistence or the public market, it was very labor-intensive and required the participation of able-bodied young people.

Therefore, big-R Republican considerations aside, more mandatory schooling would have certainly proven economically untenable. In Jefferson's strongly meritocratic system, this primary education was merely the first layer of the process, providing society access to the raw mass of up-and-coming democratic potential, undeveloped and uncategorized.

2. Jefferson's Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge tried to establish state funding for schooling in Virginia, but it sought to protect local control of schools. To what degree is such a combination - state funding and local control of schools - consistent with various dimensions of the classical liberal conception of freedom?

Government funding inescapably establishes accountability, almost to the extent of making funding synonymous with control. This is amply demonstrated by the many Federally-funded social programs of our day. Local control is a worthy goal of classical liberalism, but it must be pursued in a consistent manner. Federal funding should be removed from the equation and the tax structure revised so as to put the equivalent resources directly into the hands of local education boards.

Responsibility is freedom's requisite. You cannot have the cake without the calories.

3. In asserting that "the Christian cannot fail of being a Republican," did Benjamin Rush appear to be making a claim consistent with the several dimensions classical liberal thought described in this chapter? Explain.

This is not so much a philosophical, societal question as it is a religious and theological one. The context for debating the issue is all wrong. (1 Corinthians 2:13-14)

That said, I return to the original question and say "no". The absolute conclusion is unwarranted and does not carry the generosity that is so important in true democratic discussion. Plainly, this is Rush's opinion, and should be represented as such.

4. Was Rush's aspiration to "convert men to Republican machines" contradictory to classical liberal ideals of intellectual freedom? Further, was Rush's aim any different from Jefferson's in this regard? Explain your positions on both questions.

The use of the word "machines" is unfortunate; perhaps it carried fewer negative connotations in Rush's day - I don't know. In any event, this ideal sounds alarmingly absolutist and socialistic. It is only natural in a progressive environment to develop utopian aspirations; the problems arise when one begins to take shortcuts. Many men have at times become convinced that the ultimate truth has been revealed and the only thing standing in the way of utopia is their fellow men. Unfortunately, at this juncture, it often proves easier to kill than to convince.

Christianity is quite possibly the only ideological system in the world that insists on keeping its means consistent with its ends.

Jefferson's approach seems to be on the whole more generous, and I very much prefer Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" to Rush's similar but infinitely more dangerous endorsement of religious indoctrination of any sort: "Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mahomed inculcated upon our youth, than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles." The implication is that any religion will do, but it is a necessary ingredient for a productive republic. On purely empirical grounds, a glance at the Arab world dispels this notion handily.

5. Jefferson claimed that the Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge would help locate the "natural aristocracy" of society: those with the virtue and talent to lead in a republican form of government. To what degree do you think his plan, if passed, would have adequately rewarded virtue and talent? What were the limitations of the plan in terms of social class, race, and gender?

Virtue and talent likely require less assistance toward being appropriately rewarded than is commonly believed. Many brilliant scientists have labored in apathetic, ungrateful, and even hostile environments with stunning results. There are universal laws that govern the recognition of genius. (Prov. 22:29) Of course, a free and forward society ought to do all it can to encourage this process, and Jefferson's attempt, while not exactly exhaustive, is admirable.

Jefferson's complimentarian perspective on the gender question, (which, in fairness, was hardly a "question" in his day,) is of course radically unpopular in modern society but actually aligns rather well with the Biblical view.

The provision in the Bill for the annual selection of "the boy of best genius in the school, of those whose parents are too poor to give them further education, and to send him forward to one of the grammar schools [at public expense]" is at least a first blow to the arbitrary privileges of position.

The racial implications of Jefferson's plan had less to do with his personal views; they relied more on the overall opinion and structure of society.

6. In your experience, are today's schools successful in locating those students with the most "virtue and talent"? Do they successfully locate a natural aristocracy in today's society, or do "wealth, birth, or other accidental condition or circumstance," as Jefferson said, play a significant role? Explain.

Again, lacking firsthand knowledge, I must turn to other sources for hard evidence. A cursory glance at a few of our recent Presidents reveals a wide array of circumstances; from George W. Bush, whose father was a president, to Ronald Reagan, whose father was "a problem drinker and sporadically unemployed." This leads me to conclude that the present system is still nurturing a natural aristocracy from a variety of backgrounds. Of course, there will always be random obstructions and tailwinds along the way; that is just the nature of the game.

7. This chapter raises the possibility that Jefferson's inadequate regard for women, Native Americans, and African-Americans in his educational thinking was rooted not just in his own personal prejudices, but in the liberal ideology of his time. Which dimensions of classical liberalism seem to have justified, to classical liberals, the subordination of women, African-Americans, and Native Americans? Explain.

It must be recognized that it was a quantum leap to move from a selective, genetic aristocracy to an openly egalitarian one. Reform is incremental, and in this respect I have little criticism for Jeffersonian ideology.

We now see much more than Jefferson and his classical liberal colleagues did, but largely because we are standing on their shoulders.

The classical liberals seemed to justify their prejudices on empirical observation, which is rational enough. Their emphasis on Reason and Natural Law caused them to regard these societal categories as inferior. Of course, this perspective resulted in untold injustice, but other factors, such as the raw greed of the southern middle and upper classes, must share the collective blame.