[DEFEATED] Choice in Education

[Christian Democrats]

TLDR: Families have the right to opt out of state schooling and choose private, or independent, education instead.

Most Honorable Delegate:

Our nation recently submitted a World Assembly proposal, titled Choice in Education, which would protect the fundamental right of families to choose private/independent schools for their children or to homeschool their children, subject to reasonable governmental regulations. We hope that you will read our proposal Choice in Education, approve it, and vote for it when it reaches the floor.

Freedom of choice in education is an important, well-established human right, recognized throughout the real world. For example, the United Nations (1966) has affirmed "the liberty of parents . . . to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities." In the European Union, the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2000) protects "the right of parents to ensure the education and teaching of their children in conformity with their religious, philosophical and pedagogical convictions." In the United States, the Supreme Court has recognized freedom of choice in education in several landmark decisions, including Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), Farrington v. Tokushige (1927), and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972).

Choice in Education would not require public funding for private schools, it would not prevent the government from regulating the curricula of private schools, and it would not forbid the enforcement of standardized testing requirements. National governments would retain the power to (re)enroll children in state/public schools if such children were failing to make reasonable academic progress.

If you have any questions about Choice in Education, please reply to this telegram.

Thank you for your time,

Christian Democrats
11x World Assembly Author

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
Choice in Education
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that education -- like speech, association, religion, or marriage -- is a civil right; that civil rights necessarily imply choice in their exercise; and, therefore, that people should enjoy freedom of choice in education, just as they enjoy freedom of choice in speech, association, religion, or marriage,

Further recognizing that parents have a natural right and duty to direct the upbringing and provide for the welfare of their children, free of arbitrary interference, and that the role of the state in childrearing should be subsidiary to that of the family,

Understanding that the diversification of education is beneficial to society because it helps to combat the pernicious effects of intellectual and cultural homogenization and to promote the circulation of a diversity of perspectives in national life, thus enhancing opportunities for people to discover truth and achieve happiness,

Further understanding that non-state schooling can serve as a praiseworthy supplement or a necessary alternative to state schooling in nations where state schools are controlled by totalitarian interests that try to indoctrinate children with illiberal or immoral values, where state schools are overwhelmed, or where state schools are unable to meet the needs of certain minority communities,

Seeking to strengthen freedom of choice in the exercise of civil rights, to reduce coercive monopoly in the provision of necessary services, and to assist all children in developing their minds and actualizing their potentials,

1. Defines, for this resolution, the following terms:

1. State school: a primary or secondary school that is owned or operated by the government;
   
2. Non-state school: a primary or secondary school that is owned and operated by the private sector;
   
3. Homeschooling: the condition of receiving primary or secondary education in one's home under the direction of one's parent or legal guardian, another adult relative, or a private tutor;

2. Affirms that parents and legal guardians have a right, at their own expense, to remove their children from state schools or to keep their children out of state schools and, instead, to have their children homeschooled or educated in non-state schools;

3. Further affirms that people have a right, at their own expense, to establish and maintain non-state schools;

4. Permits the government to impose reasonable regulations, such as curricular requirements, standardized testing requirements, and financial disclosure requirements, on non-state schooling and on homeschooling;

5. Forbids unreasonable regulations on non-state schooling and on homeschooling -- for example, regulations that impose curricular requirements on non-state or homeschooled students that unduly exceed or differ from the curricular requirements imposed on state-schooled peers; regulations that inhibit religious affiliation or prohibit religious instruction; regulations that require religious, moral, political, or economic indoctrination; and regulations that prohibit instruction in foreign or native languages; and

6. Allows the government, with due process of law, to mandate that a parent or legal guardian (re)enroll a child in a state school if the child is not making reasonable academic progress in a non-state school or homeschool, compared to the progress of state-schooled peers.

[Tinfect]

Acknowledging the natural liberty of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, free of arbitrary and capricious external interference,

"Only to such an extent that it does not inhibit the development of the child."

Recognizing that variety in primary and secondary schooling is beneficial to society at large because it helps to combat the pernicious effects of intellectual and cultural homogenization and to promote the development and circulation of a diversity of perspectives in political and civic life, thus enhancing opportunities for people to discover truth and achieve happiness,

"The Imperium objects to the idea that increased standards of intelligence and the natural emergence widely-held cultural norms are in any way harmful to a society."

[The rest of the Draft]

"The mandates of this legislation are categorically unacceptable. The Imperium will not have the World Assembly dictate our educational system further than it already has. Nor we will allow this reprehensible legislation to inhibit the education and progress of the Imperial Citizenry. The Imperial Educational System has proven itself to be the single most effective method of development for the Imperial Citizenry, and we will not allow inferior systems, private interests, or foolish primitivists to obstruct the development of the Imperial Citizenry."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"The mandates of this legislation are categorically unacceptable. The Imperium will not have the World Assembly dictate our educational system further than it already has. Nor we will allow this reprehensible legislation to inhibit the education and progress of the Imperial Citizenry. The Imperial Educational System has proven itself to be the single most effective method of development for the Imperial Citizenry, and we will not allow inferior systems, private interests, or foolish primitivists to obstruct the development of the Imperial Citizenry."

PARSONS: Yep, pretty much that. We are entirely in agreement with Markov.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Sleep didn't happen, again, so I'm more a zombie than not, but for other debaters who might be more awake, linking here the 3 "education" resolutions that may be necessary to be looked through. And please don't make me having to link to obvious things that sill need to be taken into account, like CoCR.

GAR #80, A Promotion of Basic Education
GAR #159, Promotion of Intl Education
GAR #369, Reproductive Education Act

Oh, and so that Bears Armed doesn't need to say it, what about the kind of teaching that's not a school, but not homeschooling either, such as what might happen in a tribe, where an Elder or a Wise One or somesuch-titled person teaches the children of that tribe/village/other community?

[Umeria]

Homeschooling: the condition of receiving primary or secondary education in one's home under the supervision of one's parent, another relative, or a private tutor;

What about when a parent gives permission to another parent to school their child along with the schooling parent's child? Or any other group/neighborhood homeschooling plan?

Affirms that all parents and legal guardians have a fundamental right to remove their children from state schools or to keep their children out of state schools and, instead, to have their children educated in non-state schools or to have their children homeschooled;

Carlyle: Wait a minute. What about in nations where all industry is state-owned? The requirement that a parent must be able to sent their kid to a non-state school, coupled with your definition of a non-state school as being operated by the private sector, means that there must be a private sector for the right to be fulfilled. This is in effect an ideological ban, as it prohibits communism(or whatever political ideology makes all industry state-owned). Also, the wording of this clause makes it seem as if parents have two separate rights: the right to remove their children from state schooling, and the right to give their children homeschooling or non-state schooling. This would make it possible for parents to opt their child out of state education without putting them in a replacement education. And does the parent have a right to remove their child from a non-state school?

Further affirms that people have a fundamental right to establish non-state schools;

So, the principal of a state school could use the resources of that school to establish a non-state school for the students they like, and give them a better education while draining supplies off of the students they don't like.

Also, does the child have a say in any of this? Many children, especially those in secondary school, are mature enough to make their own decisions about their form of education.

...I don't see how Umeria could be anything but opposed to this proposal.

[Christian Democrats]

Acknowledging the natural liberty of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, free of arbitrary and capricious external interference,

"Only to such an extent that it does not inhibit the development of the child."

It's not arbitrary or capricious for the government to make and enforce laws against child neglect.

"The mandates of this legislation are categorically unacceptable. The Imperium will not have the World Assembly dictate our educational system further than it already has. Nor we will allow this reprehensible legislation to inhibit the education and progress of the Imperial Citizenry. The Imperial Educational System has proven itself to be the single most effective method of development for the Imperial Citizenry, and we will not allow inferior systems, private interests, or foolish primitivists to obstruct the development of the Imperial Citizenry."

If your nation's public education system is, in fact, effective, families will, of course, choose it, especially if it's free of charge.

OOC: Sleep didn't happen, again, so I'm more a zombie than not, but for other debaters who might be more awake, linking here the 3 "education" resolutions that may be necessary to be looked through. And please don't make me having to link to obvious things that sill need to be taken into account, like CoCR.

GAR #80, A Promotion of Basic Education
GAR #159, Promotion of Intl Education
GAR #369, Reproductive Education Act

Resolution 80 creates a positive right to education "through some sort of variation of edification." It does not specify public schooling, private schooling, or homeschooling. Resolution 159 deals with tertiary education. Resolution 369 sets a curricular requirement. It mandates that all school systems, public or private, provide a "reproductive education course" to pubescent students.

We don't see any conflicts or overlap with existing resolutions.

Oh, and so that Bears Armed doesn't need to say it, what about the kind of teaching that's not a school, but not homeschooling either, such as what might happen in a tribe, where an Elder or a Wise One or somesuch-titled person teaches the children of that tribe/village/other community?

This proposal would not have any impact on extracurricular learning. Its scope is limited to primary and secondary schooling.

[Araraukar]

This proposal would not have any impact on extracurricular learning. Its scope is limited to primary and secondary schooling.

OOC: It's not extracurricular if it's the tribal version of homeschooling. It lies somewhere between "school" and "homeschooling".

[Tinfect]

If your nation's public education system is, in fact, effective, families will, of course, choose it, especially if it's free of charge.

"Ambassador, the Imperium will not place something so critical as education in the field of market mechanics. In any case, you appear to have disregarded a portion of my statement. Private interests intent on misleading the Imperial Citizenry, and Primitivists that care more for their particular ideology than the development of their child, cannot be allowed to operate.

This legislation would be nothing but damaging to any State that wishes to ensure the progress of its people."

[Christian Democrats]

Homeschooling: the condition of receiving primary or secondary education in one's home under the supervision of one's parent, another relative, or a private tutor;

What about when a parent gives permission to another parent to school their child along with the schooling parent's child? Or any other group/neighborhood homeschooling plan?

If multiple children from different families are being educated outside their homes by a private person, I'd call that a private school.

Affirms that all parents and legal guardians have a fundamental right to remove their children from state schools or to keep their children out of state schools and, instead, to have their children educated in non-state schools or to have their children homeschooled;

Carlyle: Wait a minute. What about in nations where all industry is state-owned? The requirement that a parent must be able to sent their kid to a non-state school, coupled with your definition of a non-state school as being operated by the private sector, means that there must be a private sector for the right to be fulfilled. This is in effect an ideological ban, as it prohibits communism(or whatever political ideology makes all industry state-owned).

And this Assembly's ban on racism, its ban on genocide, its impediments to unjust war, its provision for conscientious objection, and its due process requirements are effectively a ban on Nazism. What's your point?

Also, the wording of this clause makes it seem as if parents have two separate rights: the right to remove their children from state schooling, and the right to give their children homeschooling or non-state schooling. This would make it possible for parents to opt their child out of state education without putting them in a replacement education.

The word "right" is singular in this proposal. Moreover, the word "instead," by definition, means "as an alternative or substitute" (OED).

If I said, for example, that all citizens drafted have the right (singular) to opt out of military service and, instead, to perform community service, I think it would be clear what I mean, especially if there were definitions for "military service" and "community service."

Add to that fact that Section 6 of this proposal says the following:

Allows the government, with due process of law, to mandate that a parent or legal guardian (re)enroll a child in a state school if the child is not being adequately educated or is not making reasonable academic progress in a non-state school or homeschool compared to the education being received by state-schooled peers.

It should be abundantly clear that this proposal would not give parents a right to violate compulsory education laws.

And does the parent have a right to remove their child from a non-state school?

That's implied, but I'm not going to wander into that territory because nations have different laws concerning compulsory education. Perhaps, a nation's state schools, for instance, allow children to enroll only at the beginning of each semester or quarter. Maybe, therefore, it's impossible for a parent to pull his child out of a non-state school until the child is reenrolled in state schooling several months later.

Further affirms that people have a fundamental right to establish non-state schools;

So, the principal of a state school could use the resources of that school to establish a non-state school for the students they like, and give them a better education while draining supplies off of the students they don't like.

Does the right to travel imply a right to commit grand theft auto or to hijack an airplane?

Also, does the child have a say in any of this? Many children, especially those in secondary school, are mature enough to make their own decisions about their form of education.

A child, by definition, is somebody who is considered legally incompetent to manage his own affairs. A parent or legal guardian, by definition, is somebody who is responsible for a child subject to necessary regulations. If a person is competent to make his own decisions, then the government should grant him adulthood either due to his age or through a process of emancipation.

This proposal talks about parents and children, but it lets individual nations use their own definitions for these terms.

This proposal would not have any impact on extracurricular learning. Its scope is limited to primary and secondary schooling.

OOC: It's not extracurricular if it's the tribal version of homeschooling. It lies somewhere between "school" and "homeschooling".

If it's effectively private schooling or homeschooling (i.e., primary or secondary education apart from the government), it's protected by this proposal subject to "reasonable regulations" that the government might choose to impose.

If your nation's public education system is, in fact, effective, families will, of course, choose it, especially if it's free of charge.

"Ambassador, the Imperium will not place something so critical as education in the field of market mechanics. In any case, you appear to have disregarded a portion of my statement. Private interests intent on misleading the Imperial Citizenry, and Primitivists that care more for their particular ideology than the development of their child, cannot be allowed to operate.

This legislation would be nothing but damaging to any State that wishes to ensure the progress of its people."

We'll have to agree to disagree. A parent is better positioned than a government to make decisions concerning a child's upbringing. Thus, the government has no legitimate authority to interpose except for compelling reasons, namely abuse or neglect.

[Tinfect]

And this Assembly's ban on racism, its ban on genocide, its impediments to unjust war, its provision for conscientious objection, and its due process requirements are effectively a ban on Nazism. What's your point?

"Ah, Ambassador, so your Government would have no concern over the legality of legislation that mandates that specific industries must be controlled solely by the state? Or do you merely believe that ideologies apart from your own are not worth consideration?"

We'll have to agree to disagree. A parent is better positioned than a government to make decisions concerning a child's upbringing. Thus, the government has no legitimate authority to interpose except for compelling reasons, namely abuse or neglect.

"Ambassador, your complete dismissal of valid argumentation is disappointing. In any case, stating a falsehood does not make it true, Ambassador. A parent is by no means superior for the development of a child than personnel specifically trained for that purpose; to state otherwise is simply untrue.
Further, the State has not simply the authority, but the obligation to ensure the development of its Citizenry. Those that are not qualified to involve themselves in educational practices, should not, and must not, be allowed to interfere in the process. Such a thing would only harm the education of the Child. Nor are private interests even remotely qualified to be anywhere near the process; their presence would warp the education, giving way for misinformation and ideology to taint the system. Such a thing is absolutely unacceptable."

[Christian Democrats]

And this Assembly's ban on racism, its ban on genocide, its impediments to unjust war, its provision for conscientious objection, and its due process requirements are effectively a ban on Nazism. What's your point?

"Ah, Ambassador, so your Government would have no concern over the legality of legislation that mandates that specific industries must be controlled solely by the state? Or do you merely believe that ideologies apart from your own are not worth consideration?"

According to the current GA Rules, Ambassador, "Proposals cannot wholly outlaw, whether through direct or indirect language, religious, political or economic ideologies. However, proposals can target specific practices, such as slavery" (emphasis added). This proposal would target the specific practice of banning private schooling and homeschooling, so it's perfectly legal.

If this proposal is passed, then nations will have either public and private schooling or just private schooling with necessary support to fulfill other international legal obligations. It's clear to us that denying citizens the freedom to establish private schools is just as oppressive as denying citizens the freedom to establish homes, private associations, or houses of worship -- rights necessary for civilized living.

We'll have to agree to disagree. A parent is better positioned than a government to make decisions concerning a child's upbringing. Thus, the government has no legitimate authority to interpose except for compelling reasons, namely abuse or neglect.

"Ambassador, your complete dismissal of valid argumentation is disappointing. In any case, stating a falsehood does not make it true, Ambassador. A parent is by no means superior for the development of a child than personnel specifically trained for that purpose; to state otherwise is simply untrue.

There was a twentieth-century American judge who addressed this matter quite nicely. Allow us to quote him:

The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925).

We agree with his opinion and assert further that all governments, period, should respect the natural rights of parents. After all, parents are, with God, the creators of their children or, in cases of adoption, their lawful substitutes. Also, they live with their children every day. Parents, therefore, are in a superior position to assess and meet the needs of their children, at least better than gray-faced bureaucrats.

Further, the State has not simply the authority, but the obligation to ensure the development of its Citizenry. Those that are not qualified to involve themselves in educational practices, should not, and must not, be allowed to interfere in the process. Such a thing would only harm the education of the Child.

The state has the authority to supervise the development of its citizens, and Section 6 of this proposal would respect that authority by permitting the state forcibly to reenroll children in public schools if they are "not making reasonable academic progress" in their private schools or homeschools. If their intellectual progress is adequate, then the state has no power to interfere.

Nor are private interests even remotely qualified to be anywhere near the process; their presence would warp the education, giving way for misinformation and ideology to taint the system. Such a thing is absolutely unacceptable."

What's absolutely unacceptable is your delegation's failure to recognize that private interests should guide private persons. Man is not an ant in an anthill but rather an autonomous being made in the image of an autonomous Creator.

[Calladan]

5. Forbids unreasonable regulations on non-state schooling and on homeschooling, including (but not limited to) regulations that impose curricular requirements on non-state or homeschooled students that unduly exceed or differ from the curricular requirements imposed on state-schooled peers; regulations that inhibit religious affiliation or instruction; regulations that require religious, moral, political, or economic indoctrination; and regulations that prohibit instruction in foreign or native languages;

Is there the chance that this could lead to (for want of a better phrase) wildly racist or bigoted schools springing up? If non-state/home schools are allowed to teach children free of "moral or political indoctrination" then what is to stop the organisers of those schools teaching a curriculum that says "Bigtopians are all stupid and we should kill them on sight" or "Worshippers of any other god than Zorp (all hail Zorp) are heretics who must die in the cleansing fires"?

My government has no issue with wide-ranging curriculums, however it is not going to allow centres of hate and bigotry and so forth to spring up in Calladan.

[Wallenburg]

"While Wallenburg certainly appreciates the option to seek out private education, I hardly think it necessary to deny member states the right to establish monopolies on education. Certain economic models depend heavily on state-run schooling, and I fear that this proposal does not accommodate for economic ideologies differing from the author's own. I'm afraid I must oppose this proposal in its current state."

[Christian Democrats]

5. Forbids unreasonable regulations on non-state schooling and on homeschooling, including (but not limited to) regulations that impose curricular requirements on non-state or homeschooled students that unduly exceed or differ from the curricular requirements imposed on state-schooled peers; regulations that inhibit religious affiliation or instruction; regulations that require religious, moral, political, or economic indoctrination; and regulations that prohibit instruction in foreign or native languages;

Is there the chance that this could lead to (for want of a better phrase) wildly racist or bigoted schools springing up? If non-state/home schools are allowed to teach children free of "moral or political indoctrination" then what is to stop the organisers of those schools teaching a curriculum that says "Bigtopians are all stupid and we should kill them on sight" or "Worshippers of any other god than Zorp (all hail Zorp) are heretics who must die in the cleansing fires"?

No, Resolution 35 requires member states to prohibit "unreasonable discrimination" in education. Even without this resolution, we believe that bans on the indoctrination of violence would be reasonable (see Section 4).

Note that Section 5 bans regulations that require indoctrination; it does not ban regulations that prohibit indoctrination.

Besides, parents could teach their children to kill all heretics even if their children were enrolled in state schools.

"While Wallenburg certainly appreciates the option to seek out private education, I hardly think it necessary to deny member states the right to establish monopolies on education. Certain economic models depend heavily on state-run schooling, and I fear that this proposal does not accommodate for economic ideologies differing from the author's own. I'm afraid I must oppose this proposal in its current state."

Certain social models demand a state-run church and the prohibition of alternative houses of worship. A state monopoly on education is like a state monopoly on religion; it's repugnant to liberty. Is there a form in which you'd endorse this proposal?

[Linux and the X]

Acknowledging the natural liberty of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, free of arbitrary and capricious external interference,

CHALESET, REPRESENTATIVE INTERNATIONALE of the HAPPILY DEPRESSED HACKERS of LINUX AND THE X
ACKNOWLEDGING that this is a load of fucking bullshit
1. OPPOSES this thrice-damned tripe; and
2. DECLARES that fire's too good for it.

[Tinfect]

If this proposal is passed, then nations will have either public and private schooling or just private schooling with necessary support to fulfill other international legal obligations. It's clear to us that denying citizens the freedom to establish private schools is just as oppressive as denying citizens the freedom to establish homes, private associations, or houses of worship -- rights necessary for civilized living.

"Ambassador, that is a complete and utter falsehood. Absolutely none of those rights are comparable to the supposed 'right' to establish a place of private 'education."

There was a twentieth-century American judge who addressed this matter quite nicely. Allow us to quote him:

"By Imperial reckoning, this 'twentieth century', was over 800 years ago. During that time, it was believed that if one were to take to the stars, they would be smote by the Gods; we see little reason to take the opinion of such an era seriously. In any case, we assuming you reference a period in your own system of timekeeping, in which case the Imperium fails to see how the opinion of any foreigner who is, presumably, in the past, and had absolutely no knowledge of the Imperium, is relevant in the slightest."

The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925).

"As suspected, this statement holds relevance only in the laws of a foreign nation. And in any case, its latter section is simply naive. We suspect that the speaker had little knowledge of the damage that can be done to the development of a child when the parents have other goals."

We agree with his opinion and assert further that all governments, period, should respect the natural rights of parents.

"Beyond the simple fact that there are no such 'Natural' rights, we fail to see how it is the supposed 'right' of the parent to inhibit the development of a child."

After all, parents are, with God, the creators of their children or, in cases of adoption, their lawful substitutes.

"Ambassador, your preferred theology has no meaning to the Imperium. In any case, a creator has no inherent right to control their creation, Ambassador. Such a thing is dangerous precedent. In any case, the fact that a child is not legally competent is not sufficient grounds for a parent to inhibit their development."

Also, they live with their children every day.

"Irrelevant."

Parents, therefore, are in a superior position to assess and meet the needs of their children, at least better than gray-faced bureaucrats.

"Again, stating a falsehood does not make it true, Ambassador. A trained educator is far superior than a mere parent regarding the intellectual development of a child."

The state has the authority to supervise the development of its citizens, and Section 6 of this proposal would respect that authority by permitting the state forcibly to reenroll children in public schools if they are "not making reasonable academic progress" in their private schools or homeschools. If their intellectual progress is adequate, then the state has no power to interfere.

"Ambassador, allow me to reiterate the fact that you have clearly failed to comprehend. The Influence of improperly trained personnel, that may hold some other goal in a higher position than the intellectual development of a child, would be solely damaging to the education. Regardless of whether the child can pass a test at the end of the day, the influence of an educator with an ulterior motive will have damaged the development of the child. Through the sole usage of Imperial Educational Facilities we can ensure that such a thing does not happen."

What's absolutely unacceptable is your delegation's failure to recognize that private interests should guide private persons.

"Ambassador, the fact that the Imperium expects its citizens to act beyond childish, primitive, self-interest is not a failing."

Man is not an ant in an anthill but rather an autonomous being made in the image of an autonomous Creator.

"An individual is very much the former, Ambassador. A single person is nothing, having no power to advance, having no ability to progress beyond a pathetic existence of simple survival. Only through the construction of a society and greater civilization involving multiple, countless individuals, can Progress be achieved. Though each one is its own entity, they each serve as a piece of a greater whole, working towards the advancement of all involved."

[Wallenburg]

Certain social models demand a state-run church and the prohibition of alternative houses of worship. A state monopoly on education is like a state monopoly on religion; it's repugnant to liberty. Is there a form in which you'd endorse this proposal?

"Ambassador, prohibiting certain religious groups from exercising their right to worship in public is in no way similar to prohibiting privately owned educational services, or prohibiting families from using them. One is an issue of self-expression and tolerance. The other is one of markets and government ownership of major industries.

"I'm afraid that, even setting my personal beliefs on private industry aside, nothing short of effectively removing either clause two or three will be sufficient to win over my delegation."

[Christian Democrats]

Certain social models demand a state-run church and the prohibition of alternative houses of worship. A state monopoly on education is like a state monopoly on religion; it's repugnant to liberty. Is there a form in which you'd endorse this proposal?

"Ambassador, prohibiting certain religious groups from exercising their right to worship in public is in no way similar to prohibiting privately owned educational services, or prohibiting families from using them. One is an issue of self-expression and tolerance. The other is one of markets and government ownership of major industries.

Education is hardly an industry, and we're surprised that you fail to see the connection between education and expression.

[Wallenburg]

Education is hardly an industry, and we're surprised that you fail to see the connection between education and expression.

"We fail to see a connection for the simple reason that there is none. Nobody's freedom of self-expression is violated by a state monopoly on education."

[Tinfect]

Education is hardly an industry,

"That is correct, Ambassador. Thus, we question why you seek to make it so, through forcing all Member-States to allow private industries to establish 'Educational' Facilities."

[Christian Democrats]

Education is hardly an industry, and we're surprised that you fail to see the connection between education and expression.

"We fail to see a connection for the simple reason that there is none. Nobody's freedom of self-expression is violated by a state monopoly on education."

Nobody's freedom to express himself is violated by a state monopoly on the means by which he learns to express himself, really?

Education is hardly an industry,

"That is correct, Ambassador. Thus, we question why you seek to make it so, through forcing all Member-States to allow private industries to establish 'Educational' Facilities."

"Industry is the production of goods or related services within an economy" (Wikipedia). Education, in contrast, is about the production of persons. It is far more important, far too important for a government monopoly. As John Stuart Mill puts it (On Liberty, ch. 5):

All that has been said of the importance of individuality of character, and diversity in opinions and modes of conduct, involves, as of the same unspeakable importance, diversity of education. A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation, in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body. An education established and controlled by the State, should only exist, if it exist at all, as one among many competing experiments, carried on for the purpose of example and stimulus, to keep the others up to a certain standard of excellence.

[Wallenburg]

"We fail to see a connection for the simple reason that there is none. Nobody's freedom of self-expression is violated by a state monopoly on education."

Nobody's freedom to express himself is violated by a state monopoly on the means by which he learns to express himself, really?

"No, it is not. Unless that state education system does absolutely nothing to actually educate people."

"Industry is the production of goods or related services within an economy" (Wikipedia). Education, in contrast, is about the production of persons. It is far more important, far too important for a government monopoly.

OOC: Unless everything I've learned about sexual reproduction is a lie, education does not produce people.

[Tinfect]

"Industry is the production of goods or related services within an economy" (Wikipedia). Education, in contrast, is about the production of persons. It is far more important, far too important for a government monopoly. As John Stuart Mill puts it (On Liberty, ch. 5):

All that has been said of the importance of individuality of character, and diversity in opinions and modes of conduct, involves, as of the same unspeakable importance, diversity of education. A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation, in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body. An education established and controlled by the State, should only exist, if it exist at all, as one among many competing experiments, carried on for the purpose of example and stimulus, to keep the others up to a certain standard of excellence.

"Ambassador, the Imperium would argue that the State is the only entity qualified to administrate Education. It is far too critical to a Civilization to allow Primitivists and private interests to influence such, as their influence can be solely damaging to an education; you have made absolutely no attempt to refute this fact.

In any case, as for the inane quotation you have provided, we, again, fail to see how the opinion of a foreigner who clearly holds to childish, nearly anarchistic beliefs, is in any way relevant. The writer assumes that all States are necessarily corrupt, something that is simply untrue, and that, somehow, allowing private interests, primitivists, and other such fools, to interfere with the development of a child would be superior. Again, Ambassador, stating a falsehood does not make it true, the Imperium can provide over four-hundred years of evidence to the exact contrary of his claims; the Imperium utilizes its Educational System solely in that role, not as any means to enforce, or promote a particular viewpoint. An Educational Facility not under the control of the Imperium would surely not maintain such ethics within its curriculum, and the Imperium sees no reason to allow such things."

[Bears Armed]

Is there the chance that this could lead to (for want of a better phrase) wildly racist or bigoted schools springing up? If non-state/home schools are allowed to teach children free of "moral or political indoctrination" then what is to stop the organisers of those schools teaching a curriculum that says "Bigtopians are all stupid and we should kill them on sight" or "Worshippers of any other god than Zorp (all hail Zorp) are heretics who must die in the cleansing fires"?

"What is there to keep governments from instructing 'state' schools to teach such doctrines, anyhows?"

[Calladan]

Besides, parents could teach their children to kill all heretics even if their children were enrolled in state schools.

Which is where my government believes that school has a role to play in reversing such indoctrination.

However if the parent is also the sole guardian of the child's education, then what is to prevent the said parent from doing nothing to counter the "personal" commentary they are providing?