Bill,
I think that one has to read it very liberally is the
key. It is not straight forward like the federal role
in commerce and capital. In fact, I believe many New
Deal programs and the 1960's increasing role in
education was argued on such premises. It was not the
federal goverments "authentic" role in these domains,
but rather their analogy to the federal goverments
role in regulating commerce and capital.
I think Jesse Jackson Jr.'s approach to "rewriting"
the consitution is right on. Note your quote on
"general welfare" in contrast to "specific" welfare.
Specific welfare's such as the right to healthcare,
housing, jobs, education etc.
There of course is the age old liberatarian argument
of the relationship between the federal goverments
role in education and Dewey's thoughts on democracy. I
think this tension is felt all over the country with
implementing the LACBA (Leave All Children Behind Act)
and local values about education.
--- Bill Barowy <wbarowy@attbi.com> wrote:
> [This posting apparently did not go through
> yesterday, hence my earlier test.
> Could not be sure until the archives proved so this
> morning. Here's a second
> try.]
>
>
> Concerning the role of the Federal Government in
> Education, and whether it
> should be considered "interfering" or "doing it's
> job", I think a little
> historical analysis might help. (CHAT to the
> beckoning?) In its preamble,
> the US Constitution establishes the object to
> "promote the general Welfare,
> and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
> and our Posterity". If we
> interpret this statement inclusively and liberally ,
> the US gov role in
> education appears secured, "our Posterity" arguably
> encompassing our
> children.
>
> Dewey in "Democracy and Education" does argue so:
>
> "Upon the educational side, we note first that the
> realization of a form of
> social life in which interests are mutually
> interpenetrating, and where
> progress, or readjustment, is an important
> consideration, makes a democratic
> community more interested than other communities
> have cause to be in
> deliberate and systematic education. The devotion
> of democracy to education
> is a familiar fact. ... A democracy is more than a
> form of government; it is
> primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint
> communicated experience.
> The extension in space of the number of individuals
> who participate in an
> interest so that each has to refer his own action to
> that of others, and to
> consider the action of others to give point and
> direction to his own, is
> equivalent to the breaking down of those barriers of
> class, race, and
> national territory which kept men from perceiving
> the full import of their
> activity. ... A society which is mobile, which is
> full of channels for the
> distribution of a change occurring anywhere, must
> see to it that its members
> are educated to personal initiative and
> adaptability" (p. 87-88)
>
> There is more to read before, after, and in between
> what's quoted , which I
> find fascinating in its considerations of education
> and democracy.
> Personally, within any given duration I might not
> agree with the means and
> ways with which the Federal Government invests
> itself in education, but in
> understanding democracy at a fundamental level I
> *cannot* hold this
> investment itself to be invalid.
>
> Oh yeah, on a similar note -- we will have some
> opportunity soon to review a
> second draft constitution for CHSIG, which has gone
> through a first draft and
> commentary by some SIG officers past and present.
> It'll appear some time in
> the next week or so on a web site and perhaps also
> in email for discussion by
> the membership. Stay tuned. I'm open to
> suggestions for this process.
>
> --
> -----------------
> bb
>
=====
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST