<p>Neither, I was simply bored and wrote random nonsense...whether you took that valid or seriously was up to you. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
So in this way I view it as a mix between a right and a privilege, something that at least everyone or almost everyone should have a chance to and entitled to. There may be exceptions but then...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>An opt-in right ...? Kinda like the right to view public documents.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is hilarious that people are trying to repeat the Supreme Court's task (of interpreting the Constitution and precedent) on a discussion forum.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We do this in APDA all the time.</p>
<p>Well not really (we generally are into more laid-back cases), but generally we're looking past the oligarchy that is called the Supreme Court as the Supreme Court is not infallible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But one must be informed in order to be a true citizen (see Thomas Jefferson for this).
Today, only the quality of information provided in college education will create informed citizens.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Assumptions / Unsupported statements:</p>
<ol>
<li>Thomas Jefferson's word is basis for a law.</li>
<li>The law can and should require us to be "true citizens".</li>
<li>"But one must be informed in order to be a true citizen."</li>
<li>"Today, only the quality of information provided in college education will create informed citizens."</li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
Citizenship is a right (and a duty).
But one must be informed in order to be a true citizen (see Thomas Jefferson for this).
Today, only the quality of information provided in college education will create informed citizens.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Citizenship is not a right for everybody. Besides, while your "connect the dots" game is logical, it's too theoretical and unrealistic. You have the "right" to attend a college given that you have the money and that you have been accepted, but by no means do you have a right to college education just because "informed citizens" need college education. Otherwise, every single person in this country that has not received a college education should be given one because we obviously need more informed citizens.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thomas Jefferson's word is basis for a law.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, he outlined a principle. It's more reliable because he said it, but LOOK AT HIS REASONING. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"Today, only the quality of information provided in college education will create informed citizens."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I assert this on the basis of logic. </p>
<p>Do you think that PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR THE MASSES (as it stands today, and I do not refer to the quality of education provided at the prep schools and magnet high schools CC'ers go to) provides enough intellect to equip citizens for their duties? </p>
<p>
[quote]
The law can and should require us to be "true citizens".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>aaaiiiiink. </p>
<p>The law must provide to citizens the capability to carry out their duty. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"But one must be informed in order to be a true citizen."
[/quote]
see post 95.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Citizenship is not a right for everybody. Besides, while your "connect the dots" game is logical, it's too theoretical and unrealistic. You have the "right" to attend a college given that you have the money and that you have been accepted, but by no means do you have a right to college education just because "informed citizens" need college education. Otherwise, every single person in this country that has not received a college education should be given one because we obviously need more informed citizens.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Should be given access to one ... and it is not my game -- nay, the principles behind it were outlined by a very esteemed Founding Father.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Citizenship is not a right for everybody.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is a right for all those who are naturalised into the civic framework. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You have the "right" to attend a college given that you have the money and that you have been accepted
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Along these same lines, Miss Kathy, whose family has no money then, should not deserve access to first grade. </p>
<p>Why is primary and secondary education generally considered a right? But does its effects match up with the point of the right? Should the point of the right be adjusted, the items that satisfy that right, or the right itself?</p>
<p>
[quote]
but by no means do you have a right to college education just because "informed citizens" need college education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But assuming informed citizens need college education, and if you concede this point, it follows then that the State must provide means for citizens to become informed, rather than take away their rights (see again, the quotes in post 95).</p>
<p>anyway, even if you have the right to higher level education, that doesn't mean you have the right to the higher level institute of your choice... otherwise there would be like 100,000,000 people going to harvard. It's your responsibility to apply to schools you want to go and schools you think you'll get in, and if you get in none, that's no one's fault but yours. Besides there are always community colleges, so no one is stopping you from attaining a higher level education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
anyway, even if you have the right to higher level education, that doesn't mean you have the right to the higher level institute of your choice...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is not the intended implication. </p>
<p>What it does mean is that in order for schools to be labelled "higher level institutions" or educational institutions at all, at least ones ACCREDITED and CERTIFIED, then they must meet certain standards, yes, even in admissions.</p>
<p>For a good example of how a right to education was analogously implemented, see also: 14th Amendment, Brown v. Board of Education, and forced bussing.***</p>
<p>*** The thing that created most of CC'ers' beloved magnet schools. And many private schools (see massive resistance). Of course it's funny how sometimes we forget the roots of the current admissions culture ...</p>
<p>the reasoning is all nice and good, but is it a basis for the law? you've not backed up your claims, which so far remain as statements.</p>
<p>you forget that more than half of Americans don't have college education. should they lose their voting rights just because, according to you, they are not "true citizens" because they're not "informed" because they have no college education? if someone does not wish to seek college education, can the law haul him off to Harvard? does any of that make sense to you?</p>
<p>um okay. Let's take my highschool . I dunno, but it's quite a big public school, so I think it should meet your standards. However, they still can choose whoever they want to participate in the IB program. You have to apply first. So elite universities can be seen as completely IB without a regular course and thus everyone needs testing to get in.</p>
<p>it is not my game -- nay, the principles behind it were outlined by a very esteemed Founding Father.</p>
<p>All the quotes you have cited does not say a single thing about college education. It outlines the duties, rights of a citizen. It IS your game because you "connected the dots" to come up with this logic. </p>
<p>Along these same lines, Miss Kathy, whose family has no money then, should not deserve access to first grade.</p>
<p>You don't pay a tuition to go to elementary school. Now, if she didn't pay her taxes, according to your logic, she does not have the right to a first-grade education because "citizenship is a right and a duty" and she wasn't fulfilling her duty. </p>
<p>State must provide means for citizens to become informed, rather than take away their rights</p>
<p>Realize you said "means" and not "college education"</p>
<p>
[quote]
but is it a basis for the law?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Forced bussing was a law -- it used the Equal Protection Clause in order to enforce equal access to education. </p>
<p>Universal access to education is also outlined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.</p>
<p>
[quote]
should they lose their voting rights just because, according to you, they are not "true citizens" because they're not "informed" because they have no college education?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You clearly did not read what Jefferson said.
[quote]
you've not backed up your claims, which so far remain as statements.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You have not contested my claims with counterarguments. I have provided moral and logical reasoning for them. You know, APDA style. Didn't you participate in debate?</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, they still can choose whoever they want to participate in the IB program. You have to apply first. So elite universities can be seen as completely IB without a regular course and thus everyone needs testing to get in.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>However, their accreditation and certification is also controlled by an external authority which may revoke it if it detects any hanky-panky. The government may also revoke their funding. </p>
<p>The fact that you people continue to say, "haul people off to Harvard" clearly means you do not understand the implications of such a right. It is not asking for admissions to be abolished, but it provides a moral/legal framework for admissions to be regulated. (It also provides justification for such things as school vouchers and better preparation for elected [maybe not compulsory] admissions somewhere [of a certified standard].)</p>
<p>This might be true with a public uni, but not so with a private one. It's like my candy analogy. I have a piece of candy, does that mean I have to give it to person B because I gave it to person A if both of their fathers worked at the candy factory? No. If i own the candy, I choose who I give it to. Same with private colleges. They get to choose who ever they want, however they want.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Realize you said "means" and not "college education"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is no real feasible means today for that informedness except for the intellectual rigour provided by a college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All the quotes you have cited does not say a single thing about college education. It outlines the duties, rights of a citizen. It IS your game because you "connected the dots" to come up with this logic.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The foundations of my argument are not my "game". However, realise that public education did not really exist on a massive scale in Jefferson's time, and if he saw it today he would be in all likelihood be displeased. Thus, the primary and secondary education of today (for the masses! Not for the CC demographic) is not the kind informedness he was talking about.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You don't pay a tuition to go to elementary school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The State pays it for you. That is, it is a 100% subsidy. </p>
<p>If we enact school vouchers en masse, they will allow students to choose among a competitive market of schools.</p>
<p>However, realise that public education did not really exist on a massive scale in Jefferson's time, and if he saw it today he would be in all likelihood be displeased.</p>
<p>Are you Thomas Jefferson? </p>
<p>The State pays it for you</p>
<p>Exactly! that is why your "Miss Kathy" analogy does not work, because "primary education" is funded while a college education is NOT. That is more reason to say that a college education is not a right. Otherwise, it would be paid for, no?</p>
<p>
[quote]
This might be true with a public uni, but not so with a private one. It's like my candy analogy. I have a piece of candy, does that mean I have to give it to person B because I gave it to person A if both of their fathers worked at the candy factory? No. If i own the candy, I choose who I give it to. Same with private colleges. They get to choose who ever they want, however they want.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In a libertarian society there would be no distinction between public and private because private citizens would act in concert to regulate them (whether they did so consciously or not). The private/public distinction is irrelevant -- the only distinction is how they are funded, and whether they obey market forces. School vouchers will of course further close the gap.</p>
<p>Also, you never did address why then forced bussing was justified and universal access to education by all citizens is not, since forced bussing was an analogous situation.</p>
<p>But even if you do not consider a libertarian society to be the most just society, consider that a private uni still receives funding from some external source; it can be quickly cut if its economic patrons (like say the people who fund it) choose to withdraw from it. Private universities must still be recognised by higher authorities<a href="that%20may%20or%20may%20not%20be%20a%20State">/i</a>, who in turn recognise the right of equal access to education, who provide certification and accreditation for that school. In essence, private universities are still *regulated. They simply have less regulation than other schools: they have greater freedom to play with their curriculum and so forth. But they must still obey certain standards. They do not have the right to have an arbitrary admissions policy. </p>
<p>You THINK you have the right to discriminate against whoever you like. Think about what "right" really means. Consider the fact that no Ku Klux Klan group today can probably demonstrate in the streets without being mobbed. When a state prosecutes, it is often already enforcing a moral principle implicitly recognised by the social contract.</p>
<p>So in this case, we can establish that moral and legal rights HAVE jurisdiction, in one way or another, even upon private entities. </p>
<p>Now let's see what right of the "citizen's education" would do. It does not mean letting every single citizen attend Harvard, as that is not the requirement for an enlightened mind. But many community colleges may not provide that enlightenment either. Rather, it would authorise the State (or its equivalent) to use remedies like school vouchers, changing the way schools are funded, reprimanding (punishing) certain schools, a new policy in school creation, changing official syllabuses, changing various aspects of social policy, among many other possible remedies. </p>
<p>But I maintain that college education is still a right for the citizen. </p>
<p>Some of you need to think more creatively....</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you Thomas Jefferson?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are the people who debate "Founders' intent" also the Founders?</p>
<p>This question however is irrelevant. His argument that the people must be informed to a certain degree still stands. We can evaluate this argument further if you contest it, BUT "to a certain degree" meant a sufficiently intellectual education to allow citizens to effectively carry out their duties, from things like jury duty, to recognising the issues behind certain laws, and all the objections the Federalists had to mass rule. Informed citizens would also make full use of their potential (and thus the resources given to them as citizens), if you want to refer to his quotes on education and national prosperity...</p>
<p>
[quote]
because "primary education" is funded while a college education is NOT. That is more reason to say that a college education is not a right. Otherwise, it would be paid for, no?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Circular argument. We are not debating whether it is paid for -- we are debating whether it should be (in some form or means), in order to satisfy that right.</p>
<p>According to your logic, the Equal Protection Clause was not a right in the 1950s South. Because if it was a right, then schools wouldn't have been forcibly segregated in the south, right?</p>
<p>We are not debating whether it is paid for -- we are debating whether it should be (in some form or means), in order to satisfy that right.</p>
<p>Circular argument. Why, all of a sudden, are we on terms that college education is a right and that we are debating how to pay for college? I'm still debating that college education is not a right. And if you are not going to define your "form" and "means" to pay for college education, don't speculate. </p>
<p>*Equal Protection Clause *</p>
<p>I don't even know how this is relevant. Plus, you are pulling in another variable by including the "1950s South"</p>
<p>I am not speculating. I am defining the jurisdiction and scope of such a right. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Why, all of a sudden, are we on terms that college education is a right?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I meant to say that we are debating whether it should be a right, funding being one of its scopes. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't even know how this is relevant
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because it is an analogous situation? Enforcing a positive right that deals with universal access... </p>
<p>Libertarians of course generally seek to restructure positive rights in terms of negative rights if they can, but then I would have to start using social contract theory -- and we can hop on there if you want to. Or we can just look at it as a positive right. Technically, I do not believe in positive rights, but it's easier to talk about one positive right than a complex interaction of negative rights (much like a centripetal force isn't a force in the kinetic vector sense per se, but it's easier to talk about it as one force rather than a collection of force vectors interacting in a complex manner).</p>
<p>How should a college education be a right to every single citizen? How would it be fair for one hardworking student to have the same right as some pothead? College education is not a right, but a privilege. One must work for it. </p>
<p>However, I don't believe college is a privilege that can be completely taken away. Say, for example, that pothead gets clean five years down the road and works towards a college education. He should have the opportunity to earn it. However, because he did not take advantage of that opportunity earlier in his life, he should not have the right to get into an esteemed college, whereas the hard working student should. </p>
<p>No, colleges should not discriminate based on the student's parents, heritage, religion, etc. But being non-discriminate does not make it a right.</p>