(no subject)

[DonaldH675@aol.com]

Douglas Jones writes:

>I've always been perplexed about mixing these sorts of assertions about
>pluralism and tolerance in with discussions about public schools. We
>can't really pretend anymore that these things mix. A levy, for example,
>now involves coercing people who don't share your ideology to fund it.
>Genuine pluralists -- people sincerely concerned about tolerance --
>wouldn't dream of forcing opponents to pay for a worldview they don't
>share. 

Perhaps the confusion arises from the definition of pluralism or tolerance 
one uses?  
I've always considered that public schools are funded by tax dollars for the 
same reason that the national highway system is funded by them:  a broad and 
compelling national stake in an educated citizenry coupled with a recognition 
that local business cannot reliably meet that need.  People who can't drive 
aren't exempted from highway taxes.

To acknowledge that public schools can be improved is not quite the same 
thing as concluding that they serve no one.   And to compare students of 
private schools, whether of the religious or merely exclusive variety, to 
their public school compeers neglects an obvious difference:  it is the glory 
as well as the burden of the public school to accept all comers, not merely 
those whose parents can pay the financial or doctrinal fees.

Of course, for those genuinely convinced of the evil of public schools, there 
is always the course of action undertaken by many of my Quaker 
co-religionists.  They annually refuse to pay that portion of their taxes 
which goes to fund national defense, informing the authorities and donating 
that sum of money to peace work.  Then they wait to go to jail.  

Melynda Huskey