Candidates’ Mailing Addresses

So I’m sending a copy of the letter, “Church/State Separation Endorsed by Colorado Voters,” to candidates at the national and state level. Since I’m looking up the addresses, I’d thought I’d pass them along (even though only some of them will be relevant to most voters).

Of course, the 2008 elections are still more than a year away. But I wanted to introduce the letter early in the political season. There’s not much activity in the state legislative races at this point, but next year I’ll mail a copy of the letter to those candidates, too.


It turns out that there are a ridiculous number of people who think they’re running for president. The number just for Republicans approaches 100. So I’m going to send the letter only to candidates who are leading. I’m working from Vote Smart.

Rudolph W. Giuliani
1585 Broadway
New York, NY 10036

Mike Huckabee
Carter Wamp
Post Office Box 2008
Little Rock, AR 72203

John McCain
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Mitt Romney
585 Commercial Street
Boston, MA 02109

Fred Thompson
Friends of Fred Thompson
Incorporated Post Office Box 128349
Nashville, TN 37212-8349

Joe Biden
201 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Hillary Clinton
476 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

John Edwards
1201 Old Greensboro Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516

Barack Obama
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Bill Richardson
490 Old Santa Fe Trail Room 400
Santa Fe, NM 87501

U.S. Senate for Colorado

Bob Schaffer (I couldn’t easily find a mailing address.)

Mark Udall
8690 Wolff Court, #200
Westminster, CO 80031

U.S. Congress for Colorado’s Second District

(The following two candidates are Democrats, as Democrats always win this Boulder-centered race.)

Joan Fitz-Gerald
9975 Wadsworth Parkway – Unit K2 #401
Westminster, CO 80021-6814

Jared Polis
PO Box 4572
Boulder, CO 80306

Colorado Republicans and Democrats

Republican Party of Colorado
5950 S. Willow Drive, Suite 220
Greenwood Village, CO 80111

Democratic Party of Colorado
777 Santa Fe Drive
Denver, CO 80204

Church/State Separation Endorsed by Colorado Voters

Church/State Separation Endorsed by Colorado Voters

The signatories offer the following announcement as a non-exclusive letter to the editor.

As advocates of individual rights and free markets, we are deeply concerned about attacks on economic liberty and property rights. However, we also believe that the greater modern threat to individual rights is the attempt by some religious groups to make politics conform to their faith.

In coming election cycles, we will vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state. We ask that candidates declare whether they:

1. Endorse the separation of church and state.

2. Oppose the spending of tax dollars on programs with religious affiliations, such as “faith-based” welfare.

3. Oppose the spending of tax dollars to teach creationism and/or intelligent design as science.

4. Oppose efforts to restrict the legal right of adult women to obtain an abortion.

5. Oppose bans on embryonic stem-cell research.

Ari Armstrong, Westminster
Tom Hall, Louisville
Diana Hsieh, Sedalia
Paul Hsieh, Sedalia
Mike Williams, Denver
Leonard Peikoff, Colorado Springs
Richard Watts, Hayden
Cara Thompson, Denver
Hannah Krening, Larkspur
Erika Hanson Brown, Denver
Bill Faulkner, Broomfield
Cameron Craig, Denver
Bryan Armentrout, Erie

Version for Individual Voters

Note: Voters have permission to reproduce and distribute the following declaration. The document may be signed by individual voters and sent to the candidates for whom they will have an opportunity to vote. The names and addresses of candidates generally can be found through regional newspapers and Secretaries of State.

Dear Candidate,

I hereby add my name to the following declaration:

As an advocate of individual rights and free markets, I am deeply concerned about attacks on economic liberty and property rights. However, I also believe that the greater modern threat to individual rights is the attempt by some religious groups to make politics conform to their faith.

In coming election cycles, I will vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state, whether on his or her web page or in direct correspondence. I ask that candidates declare whether they:

1. Endorse the separation of church and state.

2. Oppose the spending of tax dollars on programs with religious affiliations, such as “faith-based” welfare.

3. Oppose the spending of tax dollars to teach creationism and/or intelligent design as science.

4. Oppose efforts to restrict the legal right of adult women to obtain an abortion.

5. Oppose bans on embryonic stem-cell research.


Subverting Free Speech in the Name of Free Speech

A few days ago I wrote the entry, “McSwane Is No Defender of Free Speech.” J. David McSwane, editor of Colorado State University’s Rocky Mountain Collegian, published what I described as “a four-word, nonsensical, profane utterance in place of an actual editorial” — “Taser this? F– Bush,” spelling out the F-bomb. (I’ve seen the punctuation between “this” and “F—” published three ways — a question mark, ellipses, and a dash — but that’s an irrelevant detail.)

Unfortunately, various journalists and commentators continue to completely misunderstand the concept of free speech. Indeed, by setting up a false conception of “free speech,” they are actively undermining real free speech.

Free speech, as I wrote in greater detail previously, means that you are free to say and write what you want, with your own resources, without suffering any force or threat of force from the government.

Free speech implies that you are free to start a newspaper and establish policy for that newspaper. It means that you are free to hire and fire writers at your discretion. If you are forcibly prevented from hiring and firing writers at your discretion, then your rights of free speech are being violated. If you choose to fire a writer, then you are certainly NOT violating the free-speech rights of that writer, who may continue to say and write whatever he or she wishes, only not with your resources.

There are three complications.

First, generally newspapers are owned by corporations. This just means that policy is set according to the legally established governors of the corporation (the voting stock holders acting through a management team).

Second, typically newspapers hire writers according to a contract. Most assuredly, newspapers do NOT offer contracts that allow writers to write whatever they want. If writers violate the terms of their contracts, then they may be fired before the contract (otherwise) expires.

Third, college newspapers are affiliated with tax-funded institutions, a condition that, as I discussed previously, generates all sorts of intractable problems, as the tax-funded advocacy of any idea automatically violates somebody’s rights of free speech. Nevertheless, as I also discussed, this issue is irrelevant in the case of McSwane, because McSwane failed to uphold the clear, published policies of the paper that are in accordance with normal standards of professional journalism. The tax funding of colleges does not imply that all standards fly out the window.

With that context established, I’ll take a look at a new article that was brought to my attention by a reader.

UCLA’s Daily Bruin published an article on the matter today (October 8). The story is by Jessica Roy:

Since it ran, the [four-word] message has sparked a nationwide dialogue about freedom of speech and the rights of college newspapers.

“Even though I think that it was in bad taste, it’s certainly their right to go ahead and express whatever views it is that they have,” said Arthur Lechtholz-Zey, chief executive officer of L.O.G.I.C. (Liberty, Objectivity, Greed, Individualism and Capitalism), a UCLA student group associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, which promotes objectivism and the value of philosophy in general.

“Certainly I don’t think anybody should be punished for this,” he added.

The Board of Student Communications at Colorado State is an independent group that oversees the newspaper, which relies on advertising rather than student fees for its funding. …

But Ryan Dunn, a third-year law student at UCLA, said he believes the paper overstepped the boundaries of freedom of speech and the press.

“I think there’s obviously a limit (to freedom of speech). They need to be aware of what their words can cause,” Dunn said. …

Lechtholz-Zey said advertisers were well within their own freedom of speech rights to cancel any affiliation with the paper. …

What the article reveals is that these American college students have no idea what is the significance or meaning of the First Amendment or the right of free speech.

It is debatable whether the CSU paper is truly “independent” or a part of the tax-funded institution. However, if it is “independent,” then any possible First Amendment concern about firing McSwane evaporates.

I was most disappointed to read the comments of Lechtholz-Zey; Objectivists should know better. Lechtholz-Zey makes two errors. First, he confuses the paper’s right to publish what it wants with the paper’s right to fire McSwane. Second, he conflates getting fired with government-backed punishment. Only the latter actually violates First Amendment rights. At least Lechtholz-Zey gets it right when discussing the rights of advertisers.

But Dunn’s comments are far worse. Dunn first suggests that firing McSwane would have somehow violated his rights of free speech. It would not have done so. More seriously, Dunn outright endorses the limitation of free speech. The right of free speech is absolute — within its context. For example, prohibiting somebody from yelling “fire!” in a theater, when there is no fire, is no limitation of that person’s rights of free speech. The person has no such right. Instead, the prohibition protects the theater owners’ rights of property and expression. When people start talking about limiting free speech, then actual abuses of free speech are just around the corner.

What is frightening is that many of tomorrow’s journalists and lawyers — the people who should be most concerned with defending the First Amendment and the right of free speech — have no idea of what rights are.

How to Access Dental Care Without Insurance

Chris J. Wiant, M.P.H., Ph.D., wrote the following comments for the October 7 Rocky Mountain News:

While 770,000 Coloradans are without health insurance, twice that number of citizens do not have dental insurance and, therefore, lack access for preventive and restorative services. They must wait until their dental problem becomes a medical emergency before they are likely to get service. …

Therefore, it is my hope that Colorado’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform takes seriously the need to include dental care as part of an overall strategy in fixing our health-care system in Colorado.

Wiant’s assertion is false. It is simply not true that people who lack dental insurance therefore “lack access for preventive and restorative services.” They have all kinds of access. Since Chris J. Wiant, M.P.H., Ph.D., is apparently ignorant of this fact, I’ll describe how people may access dental care.

Step One: Locate a phone book.

Step Two: Look up “dentist” in the phone book. It’s under “D.”

Step Three: Using a telephone, call a dentist in the phone book.

Step Four: Make an appointment to see the dentist.

Step Five: Go to see the dentist at the appointed time.

Step Six: Pay the bill.

As an alternative to the first two steps, look on-line — I found 2,080 dentists listed through DexKnows — or ask friends for a referral (which is what my wife and I did).

My wife and I do not have dental insurance. Indeed, we have never used our high-deductible insurance to cover any medical cost. We pay all of our medical and dental costs out of pocket (or out of our Health Savings Account, which is an extension of our “pocket”). And we like it that way.

My wife and I have both been very proactive in seeking out (and purchasing) “preventive and restorative” dental services. For example, just within the last few weeks, I had my first cavity filled (which was tiny because I went in as soon as I noticed it), and my wife had a filling replaced. Months ago I had a cracked molar repaired. We both get regular check-ups and cleanings.

Our dentist does an outstanding job. He is worth every cent that we’ve ever paid him — and much, much more. We get a spectacular value for our money with him, and I am proud to pay him for the services that he renders. Now that’s “access.”

We don’t need Chris J. Wiant, M.P.H., Ph.D., to force us to purchase dental insurance that we neither want nor need. And that’s really what he’s saying here. It is now common knowledge that the 208 Commission has endorsed an “individual mandate” for Colorado, meaning that the Commission wants to force people to buy “insurance” that’s approved by politicians and bureaucrats (as opposed to, say, removing the political impediments that make insurance too expensive for some people to purchase).

But Wiant is concerned with the fraction of people lacking dental insurance who have trouble with Step Six. But they don’t need “insurance” (i.e., government-managed, pre-paid care that others are forced to fund) in order to have “access.” Those without funds to pay for dental services can and should set up payment plans or turn to voluntary charity.

Wiant’s article is indicative of what we can look for if the political takeover of medicine advances. Special interests will continually lobby to have their favored services included in the politically-enforced mix. As people “access” more of the “free” (or nearly free) services, the result will be price controls and rationing. Real “access” will be reduced.

By the way, “Chris J. Wiant, M.P.H., Ph.D., is president and CEO of the Caring for Colorado Foundation.” And what manner of group is that? According to its web page:

In November of 1999, Anthem Insurance, a for-profit company, purchased Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado, which had non-profit status. This sale yielded proceeds of $155 million. As mandated by Colorado state law, the profit from the sale was dedicated to benefit the health of the people of Colorado. Caring for Colorado Foundation, a non-profit 501(c)(4), tax-exempt Foundation, was endowed to fulfill this responsibilty (sic).

Let us leave aside the absurdity of state laws stacked on federal tax codes micromanaging mergers. Chris J. Wiant, M.P.H., Ph.D., is, by advocating more political control of medicine, actively undermining ” the health of the people of Colorado.”

Human Health as a Pretext for Animal Rights

The ad from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) featuring Alicia Silverstone is an amazingly effective piece of propaganda that has earned enormous unpaid publicity. Featuring a nude but strategically concealed Silverstone emerging from a pool, the ad promotes a vegetarian diet. Silverstone says, “I feel so much better and have so much more energy. It’s so amazing.” The ad features the web page,, which is run by PETA. So the hook is human health. But the motive is animal “rights.”

But this is odd. Why doesn’t PETA just make its case directly? The fact is that PETA would advocate a vegan diet even it were demonstrably less healthy for humans. PETA’s main web page proclaims:

Animals Are Not Ours to Eat
Animals Are Not Ours to Wear
Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On
Animals Are Not Ours to Use for Entertainment
Animals Are Not Ours to Abuse in Any Way

If animals indeed have such rights, then human health is irrelevant. By way of comparison, did anti-slavery writers of the 1800s argue that the reason to end slavery is to make life better off for slave holders? No. They argued that people have rights, and slave holding is morally wrong. Whether the abolition of slavery hurt or helped particular slave owners was mostly beside the point.

On PETA’s page, Silverstone is a little more explicit about her motives:

Like most people, I wasn’t always a vegetarian, but I’ve always loved animals. If you ever have a chance to meet a cow, pig, turkey, or goat, you will see that they are just as cute and funny as your dogs and cats and that they, too, want to live and feel love. They don’t like pain. Now when I see a steak, it makes me feel sad and sick because right away, I see my dog or the amazing cows I met at a sanctuary.

Then she goes on to discuss her health.

But even this discussion is too limited. If animals have rights, then why is Silverstone featuring only cute, fuzzy animals like cows? Why not rats? According to PETA’s doctrine, setting a trap to kill a rat in the basement is just as immoral as eating a steak. By PETA’s own standards, Silverstone is unfairly discriminating against less-popular animals.

So here is my theory. The folks at PETA are caught up in the post-modernist notion that language is a tool used for social control and manipulation, not a means of communicating objective truth.

Here’s one of the lines from

Eating Chickens Is Bad for Your Health
According to a major 2006 Harvard study of 135,000 people, people who frequently ate grilled skinless chicken had a 52 percent higher chance of developing bladder cancer compared to people who didn’t.

But is the problem the chicken, or is it the grilling? Grilling anything creates carcinogens. So I suspect that throwing a tofu dog on the grill is just as harmful.

Recently I wrote about the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a group associated with PETA. Here’s what a September 4 news release from the group claims:

Prostate Cancer Survival Improves with Low-Fat Vegan Diet, New Study Shows

Levels of Hormones That Feed Tumors Are Lower in Men Who Consume Less Fat and More Fiber

WASHINGTON—Men who increase consumption of cancer-fighting vegetarian foods and avoid foods that feed tumor growth, such as dairy products and meat, may significantly increase chances of living longer after prostate cancer diagnosis, say the authors of a new review in September’s Nutrition Reviews.

According to lead author Susan Berkow, Ph.D., C.N.S., and her colleagues, high-fat, low-fiber diets raise circulating testosterone, estradiol, and insulin levels, which in turn may fuel prostate cancer cell growth. Among men with the highest intake of saturated fat, the risk of dying from prostate cancer is three times higher than among men with the lowest intake, the authors found. …

The 76 published studies analyzed for the current review include the groundbreaking work by Dr. Dean Ornish that shows serum from patients following a low-fat vegan diet inhibits the growth of cultured prostate cancer cells eight times more than serum from a standard diet group. Several studies, including Dr Ornish’s, found that patients on a low-fat, plant-based diet experience a significant decrease in PSA levels, a marker for prostate cancer progression.

For a copy of the new study or an interview with one of the authors, journalists can contact Jeanne S. McVey at 202-686-2210, ext. 316, or

I requested “a copy of the new study” on the evening of October 4 but have yet to hear back. But, even without a copy of the full study it my hands, it’s obvious that the release is manipulative.

Is a low-fat, high-fiber diet the same thing as a vegan diet? Obviously not. For example, one can purchase fat-free milk. According to, a 71-gram serving of skinless chicken breast contains 0.2 grams of saturated fat.

Does Dr. Dean Ornish promote a vegan diet, as the news release implies? No, he does not. Instead, Ornish says, “Fish oil provides omega-3 fatty acids that are protective to the heart and have other significant benefits as well.” Obviously, fish oil, which, it turns out, comes from fish, is not vegan.

Ornish continues: “The problem is that most doctors and dieticians recommend a 30% fat American Heart Association-type diet. In other words, less red meat, more fish and chicken, etc. This diet may be enough to prevent heart disease in some, but it’s not sufficient to reverse it in most people.” Ornish indeed recommends a low-fat, high-fiber diet, but he does not recommend a vegan diet.

In describing Ornish’s diet, Anne Pearce writes:

Guidelines for both versions of Ornish’s diet emphasize reducing your intake of high fat, high animal protein foods, such as red meat, pork, bacon, ice cream, etc., and increasing your consumption of complex carbohydrates, including fruits, vegetables, and whole grains in their natural forms, legumes, nonfat dairy, soy products, and egg whites. …

You may include moderate amounts of fish, skinless chicken, avocados, nuts, and seeds. However, if you are working toward losing weight and sustaining a healthier, target weight, these allowances could also be sources of unwanted calories and fat.

Apparently, some animal-rights activists do not believe that they can bring mainstream America over to their cause through honest argument.

Schwartz Advocates Free Market in Medicine

Brian Schwartz continues to speak out as voice for liberty and free markets in medicine.

David Montero quotes Schwartz in an October 5 article for the Rocky Mountain News.The subject is a meeting of October 4 sponsored by the 208 Healthcare Commission.

Montero closes his article:

And at least one speaker, Brian Schwartz, proposed getting government out of health care entirely – calling Medicaid a “failure” and an example of why single-payer won’t work. Instead, he advocated the free-market system.

“Should we have single-payer food and housing?” he asked. “Didn’t we settle that with Soviet Russia and North Korea? Why is health care different?”

Congratulations to Brian! And thank you for speaking out at a meeting stacked with advocates of political force in medicine.

McSwane Is No Defender of Free Speech

It would be pleasant if more journalists actually understood the concept of free speech. J. David McSwane, the editor of Colorado State University’s Rocky Mountain Collegian, obviously does not understand it.

As a late October 4 article by Erika Gonzalez in the Rocky Mountain News reviews, McSwane published an “editorial” on September 21 that stated “Taser this? F– Bush,” ” with the expletive spelled out,” Gonzalez notes. (While I reserve the right to publish swear words, I choose not to do so as a general matter of policy, which is not to say that I’ll never make an exception.) That’s it — just four words.

If the story were only about a dumb college kid or swearing about Bush, I wouldn’t care. (I’ve sworn about Bush plenty of times myself, though not in print.) But the important part of the story is much more important, as it gets to the heart of the First Amendment.

Gonzalez’s story notes that a CSU board allowed McSwane to keep his job as editor. Here are the two relevant paragraphs from the article:

Although the board said it considered the opinion expressed in the editorial protected by the First Amendment, it also acknowledged the impact the piece has had. …

“We did not do this to capture headlines,” McSwane said last week. “We did this to spark a discussion about free speech”.

Of course the editorial is protected by the First Amendment. Nobody is questioning that. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether McSwane should have been fired for publishing it.

If McSwane cares to check, here’s what the First Amendment actually states: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” A document by Cornell further explains:

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. … Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.

Article II, Section 10, of Colorado’s Constitution reiterates this protection:

No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty; and in all suits and prosecutions for libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.

Has Congress passed a law censoring McSwane? Has any law been passed regarding the matter? Has any level of any government taken any action whatsoever regarding what McSwane can say or write?


In fact, no one is trying to prevent McSwane from saying anything whatsoever. If he wants, he can start his own newspaper called Taser This? F– Bush, “with the expletive spelled out.” He can start a “F– Bush” blog. He can run off flyers proclaiming “F– Bush” and distribute them to willing takers (provided that he does not violate property rights in doing so). McSwane is perfectly free to wander the the sidewalks endlessly repeating “F– Bush” if he wishes.

But whether any particular newspaper chooses to hire McSwane is simply not a matter of free speech or the First Amendment. There’s just no connection. The fact that many professional journalists have failed to point out this simple fact does not change it.

Ayn Rand explains the matter with characteristic clarity:

Freedom of speech means freedom from interference, suppression or punitive action by the government — and nothing else. It does not mean the right to demand the financial support or the material means to express your views at the expense of other men who may not wish to support you. Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen and not to support one’s own antagonists. A “right” does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort. Private citizens cannot [legally] use physical force or coercion; they cannot censor or suppress anyone’s views or publications. Only the government can do so. And censorship is a concept that pertains only to governmental action. (The Ayn Rand Lexicon, page 175)

For CSU’s board even to mention the First Amendment in the context of McSwane keeping his job is bizarre. Apparently that board understands the First Amendment as well as McSwane does, which is to say not very well. (I wonder whether McSwane cried “free speech!” when Imus got fired.)

There is only one way in which free speech is at issue. If the state-subsidized college’s newspaper is in any way subsidized by tax dollars, directly or indirectly, including related faculty salaries and costs of facilities, then McSwane’s editorial violated the rights of free speech of those who were forced to subsidize it against their will. But this problem is inherent in any spending of tax dollars to advocate any idea or expression whatsoever.

And, arguably, when school administrators accept tax dollars, they effectively become agents of the government. Agents of government-funded institutions are subject to Constitutional limitations. So if administrators of a tax-subsidized college try to limit a student’s expression using tax-subsidized facilities, that may indeed raise First Amendment concerns. But does that mean, for example, that a student could parade around in class screaming “F- Bush?” Obviously not. The problem with any tax-subsidized expression of ideas is that it necessarily violates somebody’s rights of free speech. Within the context of tax-subsidized speech, the problem is intractable. (An article by David Hudson illustrates the difficulties of defining rights of expression in the context of tax-subsidized institutions.) The only solution — the only way to consistently protect free speech — is to stop funding schools via the forcible redistribution of resources. A fuller examination of this particular matter would take us rather far afield. For our purposes, I need merely point out that firing McSwane for publishing a four-word, nonsensical, profane utterance in place of an actual editorial would not pose any serious First Amendment challenge. Otherwise, one might as well argue that students have the protected right not to be “censored” with low marks if they squawk like chickens in response to oral examinations. I mean, let’s get serious.

It is no coincidence that some of the same people who invoke the First Amendment in cases where it doesn’t apply also advocate laws that clearly violate the First Amendment. (I am not writing of McSwane here, as I don’t know what his views are.) The “Fairness Doctrine,” more accurately called the Censorship Doctrine, is an obvious example. Campaign laws that outlaw select political speech are another.

But let us leave the matter of free speech and consider whether McSwane should have been fired. Part of me thinks that he’s just a stupid college kid who pulled off a stupid college prank and found himself in the national spotlight, so who cares. God knows I did far stupider things while in college. But, quite obviously, if he wrote such an editorial for any real newspaper in the country, he’d be immediately kicked out the door. I frankly don’t care whether he edits a podunk paper that hardly anybody reads. But if he imagines that his treatment at CSU is remotely similar to what he’ll face in the real world, then CSU is doing McSwane quite a disservice.

Here’s a fun side-note: I went to and searched for “f–” (“with the expletive spelled out”). I got 1,000 results. To read my own defense of the right to use the “f word,” see my article of 2003.

Doctors for Corporate Welfare

You wouldn’t hire an accountant to fix your pipes, and you wouldn’t hire a plumber to audit your financial records. When doctors start prescribing huge doses of corporate welfare, it’s clear that they’ve strayed rather far from their calling.

April Washington’s October 3 article for the Rocky Mountain News reports, “[A] commercial was created by the Physician Committee For Responsible Medicine [that] seeks to spotlight contributions from the agricultural industry’s political action committees.”

According to the article, Neal Barnard, president of the group, said, “Senators take millions from corporations that produce bacon, burgers, and other fatty foods. Then Congress buys up these unhealthy products and dumps them on our school lunch programs.” (See the group’s news release.)

The travesty! The injustice! The solution, then, is to roll back federal intrusion in our diet, right? Of course not.

Washington continues, “Between 1995 and 2004, more than $51 billion in federal agricultural subsidies went to producers of sugar, oil, meat, dairy, alcohol and feed crops to be used to fatten cows and other farm animals, according to the physicians group based in Washington, D.C. … The watchdog organization is urging Congress to overhaul the Farm Bill and shift more funding to producers of healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables to help combat childhood obesity.”

In other words, these doctors don’t have any problem with federal elites determining people’s diets; they just want to be the ones in control of the purse strings.

The group details the subsidies it doesn’t like on its web page. However, the federal government should not be in the business of subsidizing any agricultural crop or of buying food (excepting military use). The problem is not that the wrong elites are in charge; the problem is that elites are in charge. The money in question rightfully belongs to the people who earn it, and they have the right to decide what food to buy on a free market.

An “Animal Rights” Agenda

I began to suspect that the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has a broader agenda when I noticed that the group’s web page states, “We promote alternatives to animal research.” The group’s archive of news releases includes the following entries:

The Secret to Long-Term Weight Loss Might Be a Vegan Diet, Research Finds: New Study in Obesity Shows a Vegan Diet with Social Support Helps People Lose More Weight Over Two-Year Period than Conventional Low-Fat Diet
(Sept. 10, 2007)

Prostate Cancer Survival Improves with a Low-Fat Vegan Diet, New Study Shows: Levels of Hormones that Feed Tumors Are Lower in Men Who Consume Less Fat and More Fiber
(Sept. 4, 2007)

Nesquik Commercial Voted Most Deceptive Ad in Online “Badvertisements” Poll: Voters Weight In on Dairy Commercials’ Faulty Health and Beauty Claims
(Aug. 16, 2007) …

Doctors Sue University of California Over Animal Welfare Act Violations: Dog and Monkey Experiments at U.C., San Francisco, Under Fire
(July 31, 2007) …

Residents Sue City of Chandler Over Covance Animal-Testing Facility: Seven Local Plaintiffs and Physicians Group Accuse City Officials of Improper Collaboration with Covance, Violating State Open Meetings Act, Failing to Give Proper Notice of Hearings, and Violating City Zoning Ordinance
(July 3, 2007)

Are you seeing any patterns here? PCRM is not exclusively an “animal rights” group, but it certainly is an “animal rights” group.

A quick Google of the group came up with Wikipedia’s entry, which in turn pointed me to an article published August 1, 2004, by The Observer. That publication states:

Beauty and the beasts

Jamie Doward and Mark Townsend
Sunday August 1, 2004

Kevin Jonas understands the media. As well he should. Over the years the president of Shac USA, the American wing of the militant group campaigning to close down Britain’s Huntingdon Life Sciences, has had a good tutor.

As Jonas, 26, himself pointed out at an animal rights conference in Washington recently: ‘I come from the school of thought and from essentially the school of training of Peta – People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.’ …

With such deep pockets Peta is able to disburse millions of dollars every year across a global network of interest groups, including the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), which opposes animal experiments on scientific grounds and whose members (95 per cent of whom do not have medical degrees) have well documented links with Shac and other militant animal rights groups.

Over the years Peta has given more than $1.3m to the organisation whose research is regularly cited by Shac supporters as scientific proof that animal testing does not work. In 2001 Neil Barnard, the group’s president, joined Shac’s Jonas to co-sign hundreds of letters sent to the bosses of companies involved with Huntingdon, urging them to break their links with the firm.

(The Observer apparently misspells the name “Neil Barnard,” while April Washington spells it “Neal Bernard.” According to PCRM’s web page, the correct spelling is “Neal Barnard.”)

The left-wing SourceWatch also notes the relationship between PETA and PCRM, though SourceWatch downplays the connection:

PCRM does partner with PETA on some issues of common interest, including a campaign to reduce animal use in toxicity testing. However, PCRM has not received any monies from PETA or the PETA Foundation since 2001, and such funding has never been a significant part of PCRM’s budget.

When Fat is Good

As an aside, the PCRM doctors ought not bash “fatty foods.” Okay, they obviously mean foods with high levels of saturated fat. However, the amount of saturated fat in a burger depends on the quality of meat and the method of preparation. Besides, eating even bacon and burgers in moderation can be consistent with a basically healthy diet. And, as I learned, it’s unhealthy to eat too little fat, though unsaturated fat generally is better. For example, almonds are half fat by weight, and they’re listed among WebMD’s “25 Heart-Healthy Foods.” If you eat too little fat, you may suffer severe health problems or death.

Here’s what the Mayo Clinic has to say about fat:

Your body needs fat to function properly. Besides being an energy source, fat is a nutrient used in the production of cell membranes, as well as in several hormone-like compounds called eicosanoids. These compounds help regulate blood pressure, heart rate, blood vessel constriction, blood clotting and the nervous system. In addition, dietary fat carries fat-soluble vitamins — vitamins A, D, E and K — from your food into your body. Fat also helps maintain healthy hair and skin, protects vital organs, keeps your body insulated, and provides a sense of fullness after meals.

But too much fat can be harmful. Eating large amounts of high-fat foods adds excess calories, which can lead to weight gain and obesity. Obesity is a risk factor for several diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, cancer, gallstones, sleep apnea and osteoarthritis. And too much of certain types of fats — such as saturated fat or trans fat — can increase your blood cholesterol levels and your risk of coronary artery disease.

The Coalition to "Do Something"

Chris Barge’s story for today’s Rocky Mountain News states:

Calling itself “Partnership for a Healthy Colorado,” the group emphasized that reform is needed because the cost of caring for the uninsured and underinsured is passed on to Colorado’s insured majority.

The group acknowledged that it had not arrived at any agreement on a proposal for reform, or how to pay for it.

But there was agreement that something must be done. …

“The members of this partnership are diverse and we don’t always agree on everything,” said Amy Fletcher, associate director of the Business Health Forum. “But we’re here to say that, when it comes to health care, something must be done in Colorado.”

Something, anything must be done — except to actually figure out what’s wrong with medical policy and fix it. Various members of the “new” coalition, including the Service Employees International Union, the Colorado State Association of Health Underwriters, and the Colorado Medical Society, have already advocated more political control of medicine.

Yet political controls of medicine — tax distortions that entrench expensive, non-portable, employer-paid insurance, massive tax spending, and reams of federal and state mandates — are what have caused prices to skyrocket and quality to suffer.

In addition, the claim that “the cost of caring for the uninsured and underinsured is passed on to Colorado’s insured majority,” when taken as a broad assertion, is simply a lie. When my wife and I were uninsured, we paid for all of our own medical expenses out of pocket. The article’s claim insults those who pay their own way.

To the extent that the the statement is true, it is true only because politicians have mandated treatment, forced insurance companies to guarantee coverage, subsidized costs, and made insurance so expensive that many workers cannot afford it. But will the “new” coalition advocate the repeal of the political controls that have caused the problem? Obviously not. Instead, I predict, it will urge politicians to force people to buy insurance. Because, in the eyes of such reformers, the solution for failed political controls is more political controls.

Separation of School and State Alliance Conference 1998

This archival article originally was published by the Colorado Freedom Report. Converted articles may be edited and differently formatted from the originals. This article was converted to on July 18, 2018. The publication date reflects the approximate initial publication date. Please see the notes on the archives. See also the relaunched Colorado Freedom Report.


I went to “SepCon,” the conference of The Separation of School and State Alliance held November ’98 in Colorado Springs, feeling a little nervous that I wouldn’t quite fit in with the program. Alliance founder Marshall Fritz, himself a dedicated Catholic, framed the topic of this year’s conference as “Do ‘public schools’ undermine your religious beliefs so much that you should remove your children?” To those who, like me, don’t consider themselves adherents of any particular religion, this question seems beside the point when it comes to the politics of government schools.

While I never quite got over feeling that some sessions of the conference were off the mark, and while I heard ideas from some of the more conservative of the theists that, frankly, frighten me, I also learned to appreciate the diversity of knowledge and opinion that Fritz managed to assemble, and I gained a fairly good understanding of his strategy. I examine the relationship of religion to Fritz’s organization, along with the question of whether his strategies for Separation will work, in a later section.

A question central to the conference was whether Christian parents ought to send their children to Christian schools. Many at the conference stated that a particularly Christian education is indeed appropriate or even a moral imperative. Others disagreed with the notion that education should take a particular religious slant. What argument, then, might those who don’t want a religious education find compelling in the issue of separating schools from the State?

Critics of Separation see religious education as a bad idea, and they want the State to require citizens to pay for non-religious education for those who want it. Fritz invited several such critics—others showed up of their own accord—and libertarians involved with the issue of education would do well to pay attention to the criticisms and consider them thoughtfully. The critics earn their own section in the present series of articles.

The libertarians found plenty to argue about among themselves, though. In particular, school vouchers and tax-credits found both ardent support and vehement opposition.

The final section of the series focuses on the closing speech given by John Taylor Gatto, who suggested that the purpose of government schools during this century has been to churn out masses of “mindless consumers.” Gatto, a fascinating and awe-inspiring man, raised a host of pivotal issues in his talk.

The closing dinner, however, was almost surreal. (It probably didn’t help my emotional state that I was quite exhausted by this time, having been sick before the conference and busy throughout it.) The dinner ran painfully behind schedule with a botched awards ceremony and a long, pointless prelude. (Oh, and Fritz canceled the 1999 SepCon for fear of “Y2K” problems.) Gatto began about an hour late, about 9:45, and the advanced hour may have combined with exhaustion after re-writing his speech — lost with luggage by his air service — to render the speaker incapable of concluding his presentation. Gatto had to sit and then lie down as Fritz read the conclusion while offering a veiled exorcism in the process. It was certainly the most bizarre and frightening conclusion to any conference I’ve yet attended. Fortunately, Gatto was not seriously ill, and the audience got to hear a most provocative talk.

In all, I found the conference exhilarating and thought-provoking. My discussions with the scholarly theists gave me a fresh perspective on a wide number of issues. The supporters of government schools raised thoughtful objections, and at least pointed out the types of arguments libertarians need to make more effectively. I met new friends from Colorado and around the country. Even though SepCon may not be held in Colorado again, I would recommend future conferences to libertarians interested in education.

You the reader are welcome to move on to the discussion in the following set of articles. [Note: What originally appeared as distinct web pages now appear as sections in this unified document.] Each part can be read as a self-contained unit. Taken together, the pieces will offer a fairly comprehensive view of SepCon ’98 and of the Separation issue generally.

Religion, Separation, and Fritz’s Strategies

Marshall Fritz, head of the Alliance, holds that all aspects of life should be directed toward a Christian purpose. Judging from the time I’ve spent around him, he tends not to be particularly subtle or reserved about this point. It was not surprising to me, then, that he chose to give the ’98 SepCon a more religious bent. SepCon was held in Colorado Springs largely because the town is a haven for conservative Christians like those at Focus on the Family. In fact, participants at the conference were invited to tour the facilities of that organization.

Fritz embraces the cooperation of those of all intellectual stripes, though. He is by no means shy about voicing his opinion, but he is also respectful of alternate views and always ready to engage in sincere debate.

One panel early in the conference included a Jew, Yarden Weidenfeld; a Christian, R.C. Sproul, Jr.; and a Muslim, Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad; all of whom argued for getting the government out of education. I was struck not only by the significance of the historical succession, but also by the overwhelming sense of benevolence and camaraderie among the participants.

Walter Olson in the November ’98 Reason Magazine takes Fritz to task for inviting Christian Reconstructionists to his conferences. (Through a series of quotes from the sect’s members, Olson notes that some people in the Reconstructionist movement have called for the political suppression of non-Christian religions and for public executions for a wide variety of “sins,” including homosexuality and blasphemy.) However, Fritz has also invited atheists, pantheists, and supporters of State education, including Bill Spady of Outcome Based Education fame.

While such Reconstructionists as R.J. Rushdoony have signed Fritz’s “Proclamation for the Separation of School and State,” so have such relative main-streamers as new Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, CATO’s David Boaz, and George H. Smith. (Interestingly, Fritz claims early influence on the Separation issue from Smith, who is a social-liberal libertarian, an admirer of Ayn Rand, and the author of Atheism: The Case Against God.) Still, in reference to the Reconstructionists, we must weigh Olson’s reservation: “How serious do differences have to become before it becomes inappropriate to overlook them in an otherwise good cause?”

In a quote collected by Olson I simply must reproduce here, Gary North, a Reconstructionist and Editor of Remnant Review, a newsletter which worries about “Y2K” and global economic meltdown, actually calls for his future theocracy to forcibly restrict freedom in education (and everything else):

So let us be blunt about it… We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.

So much for liberty. However, Reverend Ellsworth McIntyre, an admitted Reconstructionist, the owner of several private schools, and the author of How To Become a Millionaire in Christian Education (a title purposely intended to strike some Christians as peculiar), told me at SepCon ’98 that North is not representative of the Reconstructionist movement, saying, “Gary’s a controversial guy.” According to McIntyre, the Reconstructionist movement “takes no direct political advocacy views.” While this is anything but a firm denial of the beliefs North expresses, it also suggests that Reconstructionists aren’t necessarily homogeneous in their thinking.

SepCon certainly was not overwhelmed by conservative Christian theism. Some sessions dealt with issues like evolution and the Bible “as literature,” but most covered issues of interest to a broader audience. Subjects included accreditation, Constitutionality, vouchers, and history.

Two of my favorite lectures covered the history of philosophy, presented by Christians but from an academic perspective. Charles MacKenzie, former President of Grove City College (which spent millions in court fighting Federal intrusions), gave a talk on Rousseau, while Vincent Fitzpatrick discussed the works of Paul Quay, a recent philosopher of Catholic persuasion.

So what is the significance of the religious bent of SepCon ’98? In my view, the strong religious emphasis poses at least a couple of serious problems. First, it tends to lead the casual outsider to associate the Separation movement, which is much broader than Fritz’s organization, with conservative Christianity. (I almost wrote, “fundamentalist Christianity,” but Fritz explained to me that “fundamentalism” refers only to a narrow range of conservative, highly devoted Christians.) I saw this confusion with the supporters of government schools Fritz invited. This doesn’t help to ward off stereotypes of libertarians as “right-wing.” Of course, Fritz is under no obligation to run an “umbrella” group, but it does worry me that the “alliance” aspect of his organization is weighted toward Christian theists.

A second problem with the religious emphasis of SepCon ’98 is that people both supportive and dismissive of private education tend to think only of particularly Christian reasons for getting the government out of education. Personally, I’m not greatly offended by “sex education,” and I want evolution taught in the classrooms (not as dogma, but as testable science). “Creation science” strikes me as oxymoronic. Over and over various speakers decried the “humanism” in today’s government schools, but that to my mind is not an issue of concern. I want Separation of school and State, but in order to root out Statist indoctrination and inept bureaucracy so children will have the opportunity to learn to their full potential. It strikes me that the arguments which appeal to me have a better chance of appealing to the broader population.

For some at Fritz’s conference, the goal is not so much free-market education as Christian education. The free-market part of it is only an after-thought. This may be cause to worry. It is, after all, the Protestants who first supported government education, to suppress the Catholicism of immigrants. (Fritz, himself a Catholic among a majority of Protestants, did not stress this point.) To the extent that Gary North’s ideas resonate with others, the fact the hard-core Christians seem unlikely to regain cultural dominance is reason to cheer.

Some of the Christians at the conference made caricatures of their opponents, thereby making it easy for the main-stream to caricature the market education movement, or at least the Christian wing of the movement. On several occasions and from several speakers, I heard the view that Christianity stands on one side of the cultural divide, while a package of atheism, relativism, Marxism, “secular-humanism,” Post Modernism, and hedonism stands on the other. This view is a gross over-simplification. Earlier in the summer, I had heard a lecture from an atheistic, libertarian, humanistic, ethically principled Objectivist philosopher who criticized essentially the same list of Post Modern thinkers as did the Christian David Noebel at SepCon.

Even though the religious bent of Fritz’s organization creates some difficulties, Christians and those in other religions obviously have a stake in Separation. Fritz actively seeks the support and participation of all groups, but for strategic reasons he is pursuing the Christians with particular vigor.

Fritz sees the various Christian groups as particularly alienated from the present system of government schools. Issues of evolution, sex education, and non- or anti-Christian teaching render Christians more susceptible than most to the notion of Separation. Not only that, but Christians are fairly well organized, making the task of “spreading the word” easier. In Fritz’s words, “When you go fishing, go where the water is.”

According to Fritz’s theory, which I find basically compelling, our task in getting the government out of education is to attract those parents “at the margins” of Separation who are nearly ready to place their children in private education. Once the number of students in private education increases, a new group of parents will be closer to “the margin.” At some point, a “critical mass” will be reached, and the government control of schools will come tumbling down like the walls of Berlin.

Fritz, then, is banking on there being enough Christians currently “at the margins” to lead to this “critical mass.” This is where I fear the theory may fall apart.

I can think of several possible ways the idea might fail, in terms of getting the government out of education. First, the Christians could gain such political momentum that they would simply push their will onto the government schools. Former Congressman William Dannemeyer advocated just this approach at the conference. Second, the State-education establishment might get wise and put enough Christian stuff back into government schools to lure back the Christians. “Well, I guess we can teach Creation along with evolution. I suppose we can have silent prayers in school.” I fear that if the focus is on Christian rather than libertarian goals, just this end might result.

Fritz has been careful to talk about the “sin of over-rendering:” the surrender of one’s parental responsibility to the State. Fritz argues that parents should turn neither the responsibility of controlling the curriculum nor the responsibility of financing education over to the government. I like Fritz’s argument, and I hope it “sticks” among Christians. If it does, this will prevent Christians from being lured back to “Christian-friendly” government schools. However, Christians have not traditionally been overly hesitant about enforcing their version of “responsibility” on others; hopefully conservative, non-libertarian Christians will remain a small enough minority that they won’t be able to theocratize the State.

A third potential problem with Fritz’s strategy is that the general culture might become so alienated from the Christian schools that they look on private education with increasing disdain. This might prevent the attainment of “critical mass.” Fritz told me bluntly that his religious focus may well alienate some non-Christians. On the other hand, perhaps the religious schools will focus on solid, universal education rather than on religious dogma, so that even the private Christian schools will appeal to the non-theistic masses. This seems to me a likely outcome — today’s Christian schools frequently do a good job of educating their students.

I should note in closing this section that the focus of SepCon varies year to year. While Fritz will always invite many religious speakers, the future emphasis may well shift to more “secular” concerns.

Political Vs. Cultural Separation

One of the prominent themes at the 1998 Separation of School and State Alliance Conference in Colorado Springs was that Christian parents should offer their children a Christian education. Similarly, Yarden Weidenfeld argued that Jewish children need a Jewish education.

These theists argue that life cannot be “compartmentalized.” That is, one cannot learn about “the world” part of the time and “religion” the rest of the time. Rather, all of one’s life should center around God. As Marshall Fritz has put it, religion should be central in “Monday school” as well as in “Sunday school.”

Fritz, then, argues for the voluntary cultural separation of children by “world views,” as well as for the Separation of School and State. However, he certainly does not want a general cultural separation. Indeed, Fritz’s SepCon was a model of open acceptance, cooperation among diverse people, and rational tolerance, where people of many philosophical persuasions and ethnic backgrounds gathered to discuss ideas. Fritz commented to me that there are “age-appropriate times for growth.” In his opinion, a young child should not be subjected to “world views” which would radically undermine those of the parents.

I disagree with Fritz as to the extent children should be separated by “world views.” In a discussion on the Alliance e-mail list, I noted that learning the Pythagorean theorem doesn’t require any particular religious background. Megan Day, a SepCon participant skeptical of the entire endeavor, made a similar point with the fact “two plus two equals four,” which also seems to fit fairly well with most religious beliefs.

Fritz has responded that the reason one learns that “two plus two equals four” is religious in nature. What if a student asks, “Why does two plus two equal four,” or “Why should we learn that two plus two equals four?” These questions obviously require a more philosophical answer. R.C. Sproul, Jr. added in casual discussion that some Post Moderns would indeed doubt the truth even of such a simple theorem from addition, and he certainly would not want the Post Modern “world view” taught to his children.

Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, President of the Islamic Minaret of Freedom Institute, though not opposed to separating children by religious affiliation, also saw value in intellectual diversity. In Ahmad’s view, voluntary “affirmative action” might even be a useful way to draw more diversity to a school to benefit the children’s education. “Not everybody believes what we believe,” said Ahmad. If children are segregated by religion, they should at least “be taught about other ways of life,” Ahmad noted. Others’ beliefs should be presented accurately so children will not learn to doubt their teachers. About the virtues of open discussion, Ahmad said that “if one’s ideas are true, they should withstand debate.”

John and Carol Geltemeyer, SepCon participants from Colorado Springs and Libertarian Party activists, saw potential problems with Christian education. John said, “Christian education is still instilling a student-teacher dependency,” like today’s government schools. In other words, the danger is in students learning to accept others’ opinions rather than to think clearly for themselves. As Carol put it, “If we teach students to accept our indoctrination, we teach them to accept the indoctrination of others.” Of course, with practically every “world view” comes the danger of indoctrinating rather than teaching. It is a tendency that everyone must guard against.

Obviously, parents must have some fundamental agreements with a potential teacher of their children. As Fritz put it, “you’d be crazy” to send a child to a Nazi training camp. If a teacher suggests that “two plus two doesn’t equal four,” I’ll most likely keep my child out of that school. In one of his sessions, Professor Charles MacKenzie suggested that a healthy Christianity balances reason with faith. Such Christians, I suspect, should be comfortable sending their children to school with the children of those of us who reject religion but who respect a basic rationality.

As to Fritz’s question, “What should a teacher tell a student who asks why two plus two equals four or why we should learn it,” I would respond that a teacher is quite capable of explaining alternate answers to that question (without implying “relativism”) or simply referring the question to the parents. Beyond that, a teacher can offer some universal answers to the questions, acceptable to those of most philosophical persuasions.

In the end, I agree with Leonard Peikoff, an Objectivist philosopher, that if children are taught to employ sound, critical reasoning, their thinking will tend to be self-corrective, even if they are initially taught incorrect content. If children are taught to read, write, calculate, and think for themselves, instead of subjected to indoctrination, I believe that intellectual diversity in education will prove highly beneficial to education itself.

Critics of Separation

On the first afternoon of SepCon ’98 (Thursday, November 12), opponents and supporters of separating schools from the State shared a panel discussion which became rather heated when the audience started asking questions.

Ron Nash of the Reformed Theological Seminary started the session with the claim that the Christian “world view” is incompatible with the “world view” found within the government schools. Yarden Weidenfeld later expressed a similar opinion about the Jewish world view. “Judaism is all-encompassing,” Weidenfeld noted.

Nash discussed some aspects of modern government schools which would shock most theists and upset many atheists as well. Nash quoted one school text that flagrantly supports casual, non-committal sex. Many of Nash’s arguments were broader yet: he claimed that government schools have rendered many of their students functionally and culturally illiterate. Unfortunately, these broader arguments were largely lost as the discussion progressed.

Many of the problems with the session arose from the way the topic was framed: “Are ‘public’ schools undermining most religious families?” With supporters and opponents of government schools on the panel, the debate naturally moved away from this narrow topic to the broader issue of whether government schooling is a good idea. Unfortunately, with the blending of these two issues, much of the discussion found little direction. As I’ve noted in a previous section, the issue of whether government schools undermine religion is irrelevant to the broader population that simply doesn’t care. The universal arguments relevant to government schools per se were largely drowned out.

Jane Urschel, a member of the Colorado Association of School Boards, followed Nash and Weidenfeld with the point that school boards are at least somewhat responsive to the needs of parents. Thus, the “horror stories” cited by Nash shouldn’t be taken as representative of government schools. Jane Behnke, Director of the Colorado Education Association (the regional branch of the NEA), made a similar point, noting that she is unaware of such “horrors” in Colorado. In fairness, I should note that I was not exposed to such “horrors” in the government school I attended in Palisade, Colorado, where I graduated in 1990.

The broader point, however, was never made: even though school boards and the political process make government schools somewhat responsive to parents, a free market is completely and immediately responsive to the needs of parents and students. To draw an analogy, if we had to go through a political “grocery board” to improve our grocery service, we could probably make some headway. The political process, though, is a complete waste of time and only moderately successful, relative to the market.

Urschel next offered the worn cliché: “Public [i.e., government] education is the cornerstone of democracy.” This, of course, immediately drew gasps and “tsks” from the audience.

The comment, and the reaction which followed, revealed a serious flaw in the structure of the panel. Fritz perhaps erred by placing government school bureaucrats on a panel with scholars in front of a well-informed audience. It was fairly clear from the discussion that Urschel knew little of the history of government education and had spent little time mulling over the subtleties and paradoxes of the ambitious term, “democracy.” None of this was Urschel’s fault; she was a pleasant woman and indeed quite generous to join the panel as a replacement speaker at the last moment. A far more fruitful and less uncomfortable panel would have matched the libertarian scholars with Statist scholars. Not only would the discussion have been less upsetting to the guests, but the libertarians in the audience would not have gained a false sense of superiority. I know there are apologists of government schools who could keep pace with any libertarian.

At any rate, the discussion, whatever its problems, raised several pivotal issues. Perhaps Ahmad framed the issue of “democracy” most cogently later in the session. Many mean by democracy simply the rule of law, including the protection of minorities’ rights. In this sense, “democracy” is taken to mean what others might take “republic” to mean—a system of individual rights, strictly limited government, and self-sovereignty.

On the other hand, noted Ahmad, “democracy” can also mean “majority rule,” the system where the majority presumes to decide what is morally right. This is the meaning Cathy Duffy (Citizen’s Scholarship Fund, Los Angeles) attributed to the term when she blasted “democracy” as a bad system of government. Schools, then, Duffy argued, should not be the “bedrock” of democracy, but rather the bedrock of the republican form of government established by the American forefathers. Duffy’s use of the terms is closer to the historical use.

Urschel clearly intended the term “democracy” to mean majority rule rather than individual rights or the rule of law. Within the State, claimed Urschel, we need to “balance the needs of the one with the needs of the many.” Or, to put the idea in a slightly less sympathetic way, we can’t let individual rights stand in the way of the power of the State. To drive her point home, Urschel noted, “We belong to a form of government bigger than us all.” Well, this is not the government of John Locke or Thomas Jefferson, for whom proper government existed only to protect the rights of the individual. Unfortunately, Urschel’s words are fairly accurate today.

(Here’s a question for you trivia buffs. Who said, “It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation?” The answer is found below.)

Urschel is also stunningly accurate, though quite by accident, in her evaluation of government schools: they are indeed the “bedrock of democracy” in its majority rule sense. Modern democracy is characterized by class warfare; pervasive, mutual looting (with tax rates around half of GDP); and rule by special interests. These are indeed precisely the characteristics of modern government schools.

This brings us to another point raised by Behnke: “[Government] schools are reflective of what society wants and what our country is.” In other words, if government schools are bad, they are bad because of the influences of the culture generally. This is at odds with the point made earlier by Urschel, that government schools perpetuate modern democracy. Nash concluded by siding with Urschel, arguing that schools do indeed change society. Which side of the argument is right? Both are. Surely causality runs in both directions. Schools are the way they are because of the culture in which they are built, and schools also contribute to the nature of that culture.

A full awareness of the concept of “reciprocal causality,” as Chris Matthew Sciabarra (author of Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical) has called it, sheds light on the movement for getting the government out of education. By working toward a greater cultural acceptance of market education, we help to change the structure of the schools. By changing the structure of the schools, we build a healthier culture.

Behnke continued her presentation by arguing against “segregation” in education. On this point, I heartily agree with Behnke. I do not believe that getting the government out of education will result in segregated education; the value of learning from people of different backgrounds is simply too great for diversity not to thrive in the market. Indeed, I believe that market education will overturn the segregation of modern government schools. The government schools segregate students by strict classifications of age, learning “ability,” geographical boundaries, alleged psychological problems, and so forth. These counter-productive segregatory practices will tend to break down in market education.

Behnke’s final point was that, while government schools earlier in the century may have manifested the “command-and-control” model, today’s government schools are focusing on critical thinking. But are they? Nash made a fairly good case that today’s government schools are turning out many students who can barely write, who learn inadequate math skills, and who know little about U.S. or world history. This discussion, the real meat of the issue, was underdeveloped by both sides.

Both supporters and opponents of government schools need to realize that the issue of efficacy is by nature relativistic: libertarians need only prove that market education will work better than government education. Libertarians don’t have to argue that government education is completely terrible. Nor do we need to claim that market education would work perfectly. Instead, our argument is that, as good as government education may be, market education would be much better yet.

Megan Day, an activist in a Colorado Springs political group who came to SepCon as an observer, brought up in casual discussion a point which would seem to counter Nash’s criticisms of government schools: probably the vast majority of the SepCon participants were educated in government schools. In other words, if libertarians are so smart, it would seem we got that way because of our government education.

This is on the surface a troublesome catch-22. If I, having gone through government schools, say that government schools are bad, then I am also saying I am intelligent enough to understand that government schools are bad, which seems to imply that the government schools did a rather good job with me. The inescapable conclusion: government schools are good. (Day herself did not draw out this argument; I built it from one of her casual remarks.)

However, this argument is easily refuted by the reality of education. Before the mid-1800’s, most people were educated in market schools. Many – perhaps most – of the most successful people in history had little or no formal education whatsoever.

Many of today’s libertarians also prove the argument wrong. I, for instance, gained practically all of my education outside the government schools I attended. Primarily, I educated myself as a child by spending thousands of hours reading hundreds of books of my own choice, entirely outside the confines of school. Through my extensive reading, mostly of sci-fi and adventure stories, I developed my vocabulary, I implicitly learned the rules of grammar, and I spent days on end contemplating new and strange ideas. Before that, I remember learning how to read – on my mother’s lap.

I did learn something in the government schools I attended, to be sure. I learned a bit about the branches of the US government and a smidgen of world history and geography. In high school, one of my teachers – Carolyn Martinez – made an extraordinary impact on my life by giving me a “C” on a book report, thereby encouraging me to actually exert some effort writing my subsequent papers. Virginia Settle taught me a bit about the formal structure of grammar, and more importantly she took me and a few other students on an international adventure (outside the structure of the government system). My journalism teacher was excellent – the majority of my teachers were at least competent. On the other hand, a great deal of my “seat time” was a waste.

When I think of how my physics teacher, an affable man and an effective teacher, was pressured out of my high school because of disagreements with the administration, I wonder when our teachers will come to demand the freedoms, and the added responsibilities, of a market system of education.

At any rate, I can accurately say that I am primarily self-educated. I am certainly not alone. John Geltemeyer (a Libertarian Party activist from the Springs) noted, “I was self-taught. I didn’t learn in [government] schools; I slept through school. Then I read the encyclopedia at home.”

Day raised other, more formal points against separating schools from the State. Day noted that, without tax funding, people would be denied the choice of pursuing an education through the government. This is on one level an obvious point, but it also raises a more subtle difficulty, which is how the poorer members of society would fare in the market system. Unfortunately, this issue was addressed barely if at all during the conference, though it is pivotal in the cultural move to market education.

Libertarians argue, I believe correctly, that scaled tuition and private charity will, in a market system of education, afford everyone a better education than they now receive. This is an empirical point, however, which requires extensive research into the history of charity generally and the history of education charity in particular, as well as into present economic conditions. Yet, as I commented to Day, the mere fact that she and so many other people are so concerned about the poor getting a good education is a fairly good indication that “we” will provide for the poor in a market system.

One continuing concern I have is with the term “public education,” which Day and practically everyone else used throughout the conference. There is nothing particularly “public” about government education; indeed, the government schools remain largely isolated from the public’s input and the public’s interests. Market schools are much more responsive to the needs of the “public,” just as market grocery stores are much more responsive to the needs of America’s public than were State-grocery stores to the needs of the (formerly) Soviet public.

Though the habit of thinking of “public education” is deeply ingrained, intellectual clarity is imperative, so one must draw a consistent distinction between “government education” and “market education.” (I have also used “private education,” but the term “market” is more accurate.)

Day was very receptive to some of the libertarian arguments. She was “very surprised,” for instance, to hear theists like R.C. Sproul, Jr. condemn the enforcement of prayer in government schools. Sproul, along common libertarian lines, argued that religions should not be able to forcibly collect tax dollars to subsidize religious practices. Of course, the parallel argument which would tend to counter Day’s support of government schools is that such schools today force religious people to subsidize anti-religious practices and beliefs.

The final critic of Separation at SepCon ’98 was Bill Spady, father of “Outcome Based Education.” The main reason Spady gave against separating schools from the state is that “we have too much separation now;” we should be trying to bring people together in our culture. This is a confusion of categories, however; libertarians want to get the government out of education, partly in order to create more social harmony and peaceful interaction.

Spady’s more substantive comments dealt with issues of pedagogy, which in turn have political implications. Spady begins with a profound and, to my mind, obviously true proposition: “There is more to learning than knowledge.” In fact, gaining knowledge might be considered only a tiny part of learning. We aren’t merely storage bins for facts; rather, we are emotive, relational, purposeful beings. An intelligent person who can’t control his or her emotions may be dangerous. A person unable to develop healthy interpersonal relationships is not a complete person. A person unable to set and pursue goals leads an empty life.

Spady’s next turn, however, proves highly troublesome. Because we are emotive, relational, and purposeful beings, as well as intellectual beings, reasons Spady, we should therefore create a system of formal education which requires the exhibition of general “competencies” which extend far beyond intellectual skills into the realm of political attitudes and social behaviors.

Spady’s system, then, is mis-named. All types and styles of education are aimed toward “outcomes,” so “Outcome Based Education” fails to distinguish Spady’s system from any other. A better name for Spady’s ideas might be, “whole-person education.”

While I agree with Spady that a rich education develops the whole of a human being, I disagree with Spady that the education system should be concerned with formallypromoting and evaluating “competencies” in the arenas of emotion, relationships, and purposes.

The central argument against Spady’s education system is that it places an instructor in the position of mandating certain behaviors for students. The mandated behaviors are not only those necessary to maintain peace and good order in the classroom; Spady would have schools “teach” students how to build relationships, how to be a good citizen, and so forth. Even the most righteous teacher would be likely to use such a system for questionable purposes, and less scrupulous instructors could easily pervert the system. (To name an extreme example, German leaders of the 1930s were fairly good at inducing particular behavioral “outcomes” among “their” youth.)

My home-town school district came very close to adopting Spady’s plan several years ago. The “outcomes” specified included particular political beliefs and particular cultural attitudes. It was quite frightening. I asked Spady, “How much do you feel OBE was taken away from you?” He replied, “Tons.” In his view, his ideas were being perverted by those who didn’t properly understand them. “It was out of control,” lamented Spady. However, in my view the perversion of the system is inevitable. Once we give any group the authority to instill particular behaviors, behaviors required for “graduation” from school, the group in charge will mandate the behaviors they happen to prefer. Domination of the spirit is the necessary “outcome.”

How, then, should formal education should relate to the “whole person?” First, educators must recognize that each person is ultimately responsible for his or her own personal development. Obviously, parents have certain rights and obligations to keep their children from acting in harmful ways and sometimes to get them to act in helpful ways. Adults have the right and responsibility to protect individual rights. However, it is never appropriate to compel others to adopt particular political, social, or emotive attitudes or behaviors. How, then, do we influence others’ behavior? Via the tradition of rational persuasion.

Even though the person is more than the intellect, the individual can use the intellect to develop other aspects of the self. For example, I can study psychology to better understand and guide my feelings. I can study history and political economy to build reasonable political beliefs and practices. The appropriate way to influence the behavior of others is by persuading them, rationally, to develop certain aspects of themselves.

This issue is central to the entire libertarian project. Proponents of the State view human beings as fundamentally flawed, as incapable of raising themselves to enlightenment and goodness. People won’t give charity of their own accord; they must be forced to do it. People won’t provide a good education for their children on their own; they must be forced to do it. Children won’t learn how to develop civility, personal relationships, and emotional control through rational persuasion; they must be forced to do it.

Libertarians believe that each individual human being is capable of reaching goodness. People can be left free to grow, but they can be forced only to obey—and wither.

(Trivia Answer: Adolph Hitler, Bückeburg, October 7, 1933.)

Vouchers, Tax-Credits, and Separation

Milton Friedman is primarily responsible for the contemporary movement vying for school vouchers, an idea Friedman discusses in Free to Choose. The basic idea has been around much longer, of course: Thomas Paine discussed subsidizing poorer students’ education with tax money. Education tax credits are the recent variation of the voucher proposal.

Colorado voters recently struck down by a wide margin an education tax credit ballot initiative, just as they denied a voucher proposal years ago. Marshall Fritz, founder of the Separation of School and State Alliance, would breathe a sigh of relief at the rejection of such measures. Fritz strongly opposes vouchers and tax credits because they make schools more heavily dependent on the government, thereby increasing government control of schools. On this issue, I agree with Fritz completely.

Of course, the November vote doesn’t stop the state legislature from considering different ways of funneling tax dollars to otherwise private schools. In the 1998 session, state legislators, led by a broad coalition that includes Representative Penn Pfiffner, considered allowing people to funnel their tax dollars to K-12 scholarships for use by practically any school in Colorado. This proposal is the brain-child of Martin Angell, founder of the Every Church a School Foundation, who debated his idea with Fritz at SepCon ’98.

The so-called “school choice” ideas are revised with each new legislative proposal and can vary extensively in their details. However, the proposals can be separated into three broad classes: vouchers, tax credits for families, and tax credits for scholarship donors. Vouchers and family credits compete for attention, but either of these could be implemented along with donor credits, though I have not yet heard of any efforts to combine any two of these proposals. We will here examine each of the three variants.

With vouchers, long supported by newly elected US Congressman Tom Tancredo, the government subsidizes students’ education directly by issuing a “voucher” to each family with students. The voucher represents a certain number of tax dollars and can be redeemed only by the school that receives the voucher from the family. In the typical voucher proposal, every K-12 student receives a voucher of equivalent value. Usually, the value of the voucher is set significantly below the current per-student costs of government education (often at around half of that value). Conceivably, though, vouchers could be issued only to students of families below a certain income level. Families may supplement the voucher with personal funds for more expensive schools.

The problems with vouchers are two-fold. First, they make even more people dependent on the government for education. Currently, around 10% to 15% of the US population does not rely on government at all for K-12 education. Vouchers would tend to make practically everyone dependent on the government for education. Dependency in turn creates two problems: it reduces a person’s level of responsibility, and it creates more and larger special-interest groups to vie for control of government resources.

The second main problem with vouchers is that they invite more government regulations of education. True, proponents of vouchers rail against government intrusion, and they typically even write explicit language into the legislation to prevent increased government controls. However, government regulations always follow government dollars, and no amount of semantic cunning will prevent it. (He who pays the piper calls the tune.) As Charles MacKenzie noted in one of his SepCon sessions, the US Congress once promised, in law, that they would not become involved with regulating education. Why the supporters of vouchers trust politicians to make good on any of their promises is beyond me, given politicians’ history of upholding, say, the Constitution.

Vouchers have come under increasing criticism from a wide range of libertarians. Jacob “Bumper” Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation, Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Douglas Dewey of the Children’s Scholarship Fund, and others have joined in the libertarian critique of the voucher proposals.

Largely in response to the libertarian criticism, the voucher advocates modified their proposals into “tax credit” initiatives. Under these new proposals, tax credits would be issued to families with children in private schools or homeschools. Family tax credits are more versatile in that they can easily be offered to select students — for instance, the Colorado initiative would have given tax credits first to students from the worst government schools. Because tax credits are given retroactively and selectively, they are also more flexible for the government’s budget.

Some proponents of family tax credits claim the credits do not create more dependency on government, but only reduce a family’s tax burden. Steve Schuck, President of Coloradans for School Choice and the major backer of the 1998 tax credit initiative, suffers no such illusions. As literature from Schuck’s organization states, “If eligible taxpayers owe less in Colorado taxes than the amount of the credit, they receive a check from the state to cover the balance of the tax refund.” Of course, on the flip side of the coin, families who pay higher taxes will not be fully reimbursed, and the broader population without school-age children must of course continue to pay the full burden.

Schuck, however, erroneously imagines that family tax credits can subsidize private schools without increasing the level of state regulation. The thinking is, because the tax subsidies would go indirectly to the schools through the families, the legislature wouldn’t directly regulate the schools. This is wishful thinking. Everyone will realize that the schools are indeed receiving a tax subsidy.

But the text of the proposed tax credit law even states, “[N]either the state nor any subdivision thereof shall use this section to increase its regulatory role over the education of children in non-public schools beyond that exercised on January 1, 1998.” Of course, this text would not prevent the legislature from increasing regulatory burdens because of the tax subsidies, without technically using this section of the law for the purpose. In other words, the text of the proposal is a dream come true for lawyers and politicians.

Family tax credits, then, do not solve the problems of government dependency and government regulation. What about donor tax credits, which offer tax credits only to those who contribute to scholarship foundations? Angell’s proposal is, I must admit, the most clever and least objectionable of the education tax subsidy proposals. Significantly, Angell’s plan does not permit a credit greater than an individual’s tax burden. It also limits the amount of the tax credit. In the Colorado version the credit cannot exceed $500 of one’s state income tax.

Fritz offered some devastating arguments against the donor tax credit in his debate with Angell. As Fritz showed, the donor tax credit still perpetuates both dependency on government and the danger of more regulations.

Angell does not believe that donor tax credits will create more dependency. Angell calls his proposal a system of “private, voluntary funding.” However, this characterization is deceptive, as Fritz pointed out. The plan still relies on government to redistribute income by force. Fritz drew the analogy of a mugger who gave his loot to a good cause: would the mugging thereby be justified? This is the situation the Angell plan would create. The state would in effect be demanding: “Give me your money, or give it to the scholarship fund.” There is nothing “voluntary” about it. And, of course, the plan makes the recipients of the money dependent upon government force.

Angell is also overlooking the obvious danger that the government will simply raise taxes to compensate for the revenue lost to the scholarship funds. Colorado has some restraints on increasing taxes, but these restraints can be over-ridden fairly easily, and other states have much weaker restraints.

Angell fired back at Fritz that Fritz’s organization benefits from “tax-exempt status” as a non-profit. However, as Fritz noted, donations to a non-profit are not credited by the government; they are merely counted as write-offs which reduce an individual’s tax burden by only a small fraction of the donation to the non-profit. Non-profits, while not necessarily a good idea, do not for the most part depend on the forcible redistribution of wealth.

Fritz presented a clear, simple analogy relevant to the entire libertarian critique of the state. Sex, noted Fritz, is inherently a beautiful thing (he referred to it as the “marriage act” so as not to offend the more sensitive ears). However, forced sex, though it might look the same and have the same physical results, is obviously not the same act as voluntary sex. “Rape,” forced sex, is a perversion of sex and an atrocity, and it is anything but a “blessing” to either party, as Fritz put it, simply because it is forced. Similarly, charity is inherently a beautiful act. Forced charity is something altogether different.

All the advocates of education tax subsidies at SepCon exhorted “us” to “do something” about the deteriorated condition of American education. Fritz’s plan, to draw people into market education one family at a time, is seen as too distant, too difficult. If only we could hurry up the process by political means! Unfortunately, the attitude that we can fix everything with government is what got us into our present messes. As Fritz pointed out, if our goal is a market system of education in which no family is dependent on the government, making more people dependent on government via education tax subsidies is hardly a step in the right direction.

Mass-Producing Children

A Review of John Gatto’s Presentation

John Gatto would be an impressive speaker even for someone who doesn’t understand the language, I suspect. His large, commanding form and his somber yet urgent yet also compassionate voice nearly mesmerizes. Gatto’s insights into the history of our culture, however, are what prove riveting.

Gatto’s theme for his closing talk was simple: government schools exist to create mindless consumers.

Government schools create mindless consumerism in three broad ways. First, they perpetuate unecessary industries which feeds on the government system. The drug industry puts out ritalin to tranquilize behavioral problems. School psychologists, the schools which train the psychologists and the teachers, the local politicians, and the bureaucrats all profit from the system.

More importantly from the perspective of the students, schools train children for “whimsical purchasing” of useless and even harmful material products. Schools contract with cola companies to sell and advertise pop in the schools. Businesses provide propaganda materials to students as if it were “course work.” One example given by Gatto was a coloring and language book put out by a butter company and used in government school. The book asks the child to color two pictures of an adult man, representative of the child’s father. One father “got his butter,” the other did not. The book asks the child to color the buttered father with healthy skin tones and eye colors, while it asks the child to color the father who hadn’t eaten butter in grotesque colors, with green hair, black teeth, and so forth.

The deeper criticism, though, is that children are trained in government schools (and the private schools which emulate them) to mindlessly perform meaningless tasks in order to hold a steady job and buy useless products.

The historical background Gatto provides is powerful enough to make even the severe skeptics pause. According to the history cited by Gatto, government schools were quite purposefully directed toward the end of “dumbing us down” (which is the title of Gatto’s book) and creating a compliant, robotic work force.

In the late 1800s, reported Gatto, the young US Department of Education said that the “general ability to read” was creating problems for maintaining a “controllable work force.” In 1888, the US Senate wrote, “We believe that education is the principal source of discontent” among the work force.

According to Gatto, such US business leaders as Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan saw education as the enemy of the “Empire of Management.” Smitten with the ideas of social-Darwinism, which held that some “strains” of people are inherently superior to others, these leaders promoted a government school system which would keep the “genetic dead-ends” in their place and in which children would be, in the words of a commentator of the time, “manufactured like nails.”

In Fritz’s March 1997 Education Liberator, Edwood Cubberly said, “Our schools are, in a sense, factories, in which the raw materials, children, are to be shaped and fashioned into products to meet the various demands of life.” Edward Ross wrote about earlier government schools, “The role of the schoolmaster is to collect little plastic lumps of human dough from private households and shape them on the social kneading board according to the specifications laid down.”

Gatto’s presentation suggests that the unnaturally compartmentalized subjects of government schools, the well-regulated bell ringing, the anti-conceptual “learning” techniques like “look-say” reading and “new math,” the teacher-controlled classrooms, the compelled and continual submissiveness of the students, the constant tone of commands – all these are a part of a system aimed to create a compliant, rather than an educated, populace.

I found Gatto’s presentation compelling. Notably, for much of Gatto’s lecture, I felt like I could just as well have been sitting in at a socialist conference rather than a libertarian one. Socialists, too, decry the corruptive influence of “big business” and the infatuation with useless material goods. How do Gatto’s remarks mesh with libertarian theory?

Libertarians must admit to themselves that freedom, though a necessary condition for a healthy culture, is certainly not a sufficient one. Libertarians cannot simply argue that the State is the cause of everything wrong with culture, because this omits consideration of what caused and perpetuates the State, which is the same culture.

In terms of education, even a market system is susceptible to corruption. However, the market cannot entrench corruption the way a government system can (and has). Once the government system had created a bureaucracy and a host of other special interest groups dependent on the forced transfer of tax dollars, the structure became very rigid and difficult to change. Also, with the top-down, centrally controlled government, the system is monolithic and unresponsive to grass roots needs.

Government education did not begin in the early 1850s on the models of scientific management and social-Darwinism. Back then, the goals were the less lofty ones of suppressing religious minorities. However, with the structure in place, the social engineers had little trouble seizing control of the levers of power later in the century. The general observation that power tends to corrupt is an important part of the libertarian critique of the State.

On the other hand, it’s not as if the entire education establishment moved with one will. Most of the teachers, though affected by political pull, didn’t alter their teaching styles or methods of interacting with the students, just because a few important men wanted them to train up a generation of obedient worker-soldiers. Similarly, many teachers in today’s government schools continue to do an excellent job, despite the political nonsense going on around them

Today, just about everyone has given up the utopian vision of creating a malleable labor force through social engineering. The information age has smashed all conception of a bee-hive society. People—all people—need to think for themselves again, and this fact is abundantly evident. The rulers of the government schools are no longer driven by a desire to re-shape society according to their plans. Now, they would be very happy to get the public to stop complaining, to raise their students’ SAT scores, and to get subversives like me to shut up about it already. The current problems with the government system arise from the legions of paper pushing bureaucrats and the continual fads that sweep through the schools every other year or so, tearing away at what little remains of a sound pedagogy with every cycle. There is no coherent evil plan; there is no coherent plan for anything. There are just plans—plans and tons of plans that no one even cares about anymore.

Gatto, then, describes only one part of the education elephant. Today’s children are not purposely trained to be “mindless consumers,” though they may learn the attitude from the mindless school systems of which they are a part. If some students learn to go through life just accepting, just “getting along,” just following through with meaningless activities, perhaps they are learning this behavior from the adults around them. But not all young people follow this course: my younger brother nearly flunked out of high school, and in a quite conscientious manner. I used to get on him for his low grades, but now I respect him for keeping his soul intact. He is now quite happy, financially responsible, and a complete success by his own standards. I earned high grades in high school, but I made my own paths doing so.

If Gatto captured only part of the story of education, he also touched on only one aspect of “consumerism.” I wish that Gatto would draw a clearer distinction between “mindless consumerism” and “mindful consumerism.” My Randian sentiments lead me to romanticize productive work a bit, and rightly so, I believe. Just like education, production and consumption can be either authentic or heartless. Endless products make a real, positive difference in the quality and length of human life. Wealth enables us to pursue art, literature, and intellectual discussion more fully. (The computer on which I am presently typing comes immediately to mind.) While too many people of all ages lose their minds in front of the television, others use technology as a tool, as part of a full, thoughtful life.

Despite the limitations of his talk, Gatto perhaps as much as any other person has caused people to think about fundamental issues in education and about the very idea of “school.” If a revolution in education succeeds, it will do so largely because of Gatto’s work.