Today a internet friend of mine (Dr. R. C. Sproul Jr.) is debating Dr. Robert Reich in London on the issue of homeschooling, which Dr. Reich insists is “dangerous.” Now, it just so happens that the good Dr. Robert Reich and I crossed swords in Feb. of 2007. So, in honor of the Sproul vs. Reich London Debate I am going into the Iron / Acid archives and re-posting my exchange with the same Dr. Reich.”
February 2007 Article
Recently, I posted a quote from Dr. Robert Reich and analyzed it in my commentary. It seems that Dr. Reich is an Assistant Professor of Political Science, Ethics in Society, and, by courtesy, Education, at Stanford University. Somehow Dr. Reich read my piece critiquing his quote and was apparently a bit miffed. First, I had accidentally identified him as the former Labor Secretary in the Clinton administration. I hope Dr. Reich can forgive me for attributing his quote to a man with whom he shares a name. Second, in his e-mail to me Dr. Reich implied that I had failed to do the intellectually honest thing by not actually learning what his arguments are, and he complained directly that I had extrapolated what he considered ‘an entire worldview’ from a two- or three-sentence quote. Dr. Reich then generously sent me two short articles he wrote where he elaborated on his convictions of the ‘Civil Perils of Homeschooling’ and on ‘Why Homeschooling Should Be Regulated.’ After reading them, I am compelled to confess that I owe people an apology and that I was indeed intellectually dishonest.
So, in dust and ashes I do repent. I apologize that I misrepresented Dr. Reich. I am sorry that I under-emphasized the danger of this man’s thinking. With tears and sorrow I confess that I was intellectually dishonest by not being rigorous enough in my first analysis and for being far too generous about what Dr. Reich advocates. I trust people will be able to forgive me for not sounding clearly enough the warning against the extremes of his position. So, in order to set the record straight, allow me to try to atone for my error by examining more fulsomely some of the general Weltanschauung errors in Dr. Reich’s thinking, as well as some of his particular errors in respect to homeschooling.
This will be the first of a two-part response to Dr. Reich’s writings. In the opening salvo I will be exposing the inadequacy of Dr. Reich’s reasoning in response to his complaints concerning the over-customization of the education process, his concerns about the potential creation of civic troglodytes that the unregulated homeschooling process might produce, his protestations that the homeschooling process potentially deprives children of freedom, and his observation concerning the possible dangers that parent-controlled education creates. In part two, I will be giving you the analysis of Dr. Reich’s article by four homeschooling students with whom I have the privilege of interacting. I have asked them to use their own critical thinking skills in dissecting Dr. Reich’s approach.
First, Dr. Reich is concerned that homeschooling is an over-customization of the education process. Reich writes,
“Customization threatens to insulate students from exposure to diverse ideas and people and thereby to shield them from the vibrancy of pluralistic democracy.”
As I read this comment I can’t help but observe that our pluralistic democracy did fine for decades without the common school movement that the Unitarians eventually spawned in this nation as they foisted the Prussian school model on America’s children. Second, I also must conclude that the problem here for Dr. Reich isn’t customization but rather customization that isn’t the customization that Dr. Reich desires. Dr. Reich desires to customize education for ALL children in a particular way. We would observe that just because 20 million children receive the same customized education, that doesn’t make it any less customized. The problem for Dr. Reich is not that education is being customized but rather that it is not being mass customized. Third, the very reason that many parents teach their own children at home is so their children will be insulated from exposure to secular humanist ideas and people, and to shield them from the degeneracy of multiculturalism. Dr. Reich doesn’t seem to understand that education is a singularly religious exercise, and that Christians who are epistemologically self-conscious don’t want to turn their children over to people who are intent, whether consciously or not, on catechizing their children into a false religion. Fourth, Dr. Reich seems to understand that modern schools have been one of the institutions that have served as the great leveler for a nation’s citizenry. That is to say, somewhere on the edges of Reich’s consciousness there is an understanding floating around that education’s intent is not primarily to educate but to make good citizens. Reich comments on this,
Dr. Reich continues,
“…the point I am trying to make here is merely that the state has a legitimate interest in trying to convey some basic ideas about citizenship through schoolhouses.”
When this thought is stripped of its high-sounding sentiment, what is left is that Reich believes the state through the schoolhouse is responsible for bending our children in the direction that the state desires them to be bent. Surely we can see that our enemy, the state, in the name of ‘basic ideas about citizenship,’ can do all kinds of mischief and damage to our children.
Now, the problem the Christian has with this sui generis purpose of education is that the time has long passed since the Christian faith had any input on what constitutes a ‘good citizen.’ In short, epistemologically self-conscious Christians know that the standard that is being used to create a ‘good citizen’ in America’s schools is not one with which they want anything to do. Indeed, I would say we are not far from the time when a ‘good citizen’ translates into being a bad Christian.
Fifth, I can only guess at what Dr. Reich means by ‘vibrant pluralistic democracy.’ It would be easy enough to find in that phrase a euphemism for ‘multiculturalism,’ but let’s give the good Doctor the benefit of the doubt and contend that what he is getting at is a type of culture and society that existed in colonial America in 1789 where this was a nation with various stripes of Christians who were able to co-exist with one another. If that is what Dr. Reich means by ‘vibrant pluralistic democracy’ then I can only offer my opinion as someone close to the homeschool movement, as well as a Pastor who sees a good number of homeschool families, that Dr. Reich should not worry. Most of our homeschool meetings reflect the vibrant pluralistic democracy about which he is concerned.
If, on the other hand, Dr. Reich is defining ‘vibrant pluralistic democracy’ to mean multiculturalism, and if he is contending that we need to steep our children in that monoculture mindset that teaches that all faiths and cultures are worthy of equal esteem and respect, then we can only remain politely defiant to his solicitations. We freely admit that we are teaching our children the traditions of our Christian Fathers that is styled ‘Christianity.’ This faith that we teach, our Fathers received from the Lord Jesus Christ himself, and in teaching this faith we teach that this one true faith creates a culture that is to be preferred and pursued, by way of persuasion, over all other cultures, including – especially – the monoculture of multiculturalism.
At this point it is clearly seen that one of Dr. Reich’s main concerns is the civic peril he envisions when parents are in total control of their children’s education; but in the end, what this concern boils down to is that Dr. Reich is concerned (threatened?) by the change in society and culture that homeschooling might bring. Certainly, Christian children taught by epistemologically self-conscious Christian parents will likely lead to a re-definition of what ‘vibrant pluralistic democracy’ means, but then that is a conversation for the public square that is long past due. It is my opinion that Dr. Reich is trying to tilt that conversation in his direction by suggesting that home schools should be regulated. Whether that is his intent or not, it certainly will be the effect if his advice is heeded.
In rounding this section off, I need to add that most homeschooled children I know would run rings around their government schooled counterparts when it comes to competency in what used to be called ‘Civics,’ and ‘Citizenship.’ Would to God that government schooled children had a proper foundation in Constitutionalism, for if they did, the conversation for the public square that I mentioned in the previous paragraph would suddenly be tilted in my direction.
Now we turn to Dr. Reich’s next concern, which is that a totalized homeschool environment that is controlled by parents impinges upon the freedom of their children. The good Doctor says,
“Simply put, protecting the freedom of individuals is the main engine of diversity – diversity of religious belief, diversity of belief in general…. The liberal democratic state therefore ought to protect the interest of children in being free, or as I have put it elsewhere, in becoming autonomous adults.”
Beyond the implication that homeschooling adults don’t want to see their children become autonomous adults, there is plenty wrong with this tripe. First, the diversity that Reich makes mention of is a crock. American culture is every bit as homogenous as Japanese culture. If this culture was truly as diverse as Reich makes it out to be, it couldn’t function. If diversity were really what Reich is after then he would vociferously protect unregulated homeschooling since homeschooling creates the kind of diversity that doesn’t conform to our uniform culture of psuedo-diversity. Second, individuals never exist abstracted from some cultural or societal web. There is no such thing as individuals who are socially un-situated or culturally un-contexted. All individuals are colored, shaped, and influenced by some situated community. Hence, we must say that both the kind of non-communitized individualism and the kind of non-socially bonded freedom that Reich intimates is nonsense. So then the question comes down to what community is the best community for a child to thrive? Reich contends that the best community is the state, while the Christian, following God’s Word, contends that the best primary community for a child to thrive in is the family. Now Dr. Reich may take great umbrage at this characterization, but what else are we to conclude? His concern is that a child’s individuality and freedom will be taken from him in a totalized homeschooling situation as is understood when he says,
“Unregulated homeschooling opens up the possibility that children will never learn about or be exposed to competing or alternative ways of life…Parents can limit opportunities for social interaction, control the curriculum, and create a learning environment in which the values of the parents are replicated and reinforced in every possible way.”
Dr. Reich’s suggestion to rescue our poor children from this abuse is by bringing in the state to regulate the parents’ teaching. Read again what we previously quoted from Dr. Reich,
“The liberal Democratic state therefore ought to protect the interest of children in being free, or as I have put it elsewhere, in becoming autonomous adults.”
Now in fairness, Dr. Reich says that he wants to ‘prevent both governmental and parental despotism over children,’ but his observations and his solution presupposes that parents are more inclined to despotism over their seed then government would be over our children. Anybody who is familiar at all with either loving parents or government schools surely must realize what a leaky assumption that is.
Pursuing this ‘freedom argument’ Dr. Reich writes,
“…one of the most effective and least intrusive ways the state has of discharging the obligation to protect and promote prospective freedom of children – a freedom that they will exercise fully as adults – is to ensure that children receive an education that develops them into free or autonomous individuals, that is to say, persons who can decide for themselves how they wish to lead their lives and what sort of values they wish to endorse. Such an education, I believe, requires exposure to and engagement with value pluralism, the very social diversity that is produced in a liberal democratic state which protects individual freedom.”
Again, with this quote Dr. Reich lets his presuppositional slip show. Reich seems to be convinced that the result of parents homeschooling their children will be adults who will not be free or autonomous individuals. I can’t speak for the whole homeschooling community but I find this both condescending and personally insulting. Second, I must admit that I want my children to grow up to embrace my values. I would even go further by saying that it is my job as a parent to make sure they grow up embracing my values. This is a charge that God’s Word puts on me as a parent (Deuteronomy 6:4-7), and only a man influenced by a culture that thinks it can re-imagine itself with every generation, pursuing that agenda by cutting itself off from both its forebears and its progeny, would contend that there is something wrong with children who grow up to freely embrace their parents’ values because they were taught to do just that. Third, it is evident that for Reich the standard by which all things must be measured is ‘value pluralism.’ Beyond the disputation that such a notion is possible, this is a standard to which no biblical Christian can subscribe. Christians do not value ‘value pluralism.’ Finally, for the biblical Christian the whole notion of freedom is circumscribed by biblical categories. For the biblical Christian man can never be free in any sense unless he is the bondservant of Jesus Christ. Consequently, the freedom that Dr. Reich is calling for is just bondage by another name. I am fairly certain that Dr. Reich isn’t going to agree with that premise, and so it is clear the Grand Canyon separates our understandings.
And that brings us to the worldview issues that I promised to deal with at the beginning of this paper. Superficially and quickly speaking, worldviews are composed of the approach to six different issues: Theology, Ontology, Anthropology, Epistemology, Axiology, and Teleology. Now that I have read Dr. Reich’s fuller works, I would say that for all practical purposes, his theology is a kind of Statist approach. I say this because God’s Word has clearly given the responsibility of education to parents. Parents may decide to delegate this responsibility, but it remains their responsibility. Dr. Reich, contending with God, wants the State to be involved in education, yet not only does the Scripture not teach that the State’s sphere of sovereignty extends to the education of children, our Constitution likewise clearly prohibits the federal state from being involved in this area by saying that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.’ Dr. Reich would be hard pressed to show where, either in the Scriptures or in the Constitution, provision is made for the state to usurp to itself the sovereignty that belongs to the spheres of the family and the church. Because Dr. Reich is teaching contrary to God’s Word in this area, I must conclude that the god in his worldview is not the God of the Bible. As it concerns anthropology, I would say that Dr. Reich’s worldview teaches that man’s nature is malleable and that education is the tool by which man can progress to full self-realization. Why else would he be so convinced of the need to get the state’s hands on our children? This would be contrary to the Christian worldview that teaches that man’s nature is fixed and sinful and that it can only be changed by a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and redemption. Children therefore must be taught to look for all the treasures of wisdom in Christ Jesus. As it concerns axiology, I would offer that Dr. Reich’s worldview is that the ultimate value is ‘value diversity,’ ‘liberal Democratic States’ with their rich diversity, and individual freedom and autonomy. This of course contrasts with the Christian worldview which teaches that the Christian’s ultimate value is God’s glory, and therefore every Christian, whether child or adult, should be taught to do all they do to the end of seeing God glorified. One implication of this is that in their education, children must be taught to see how the various disciplines only make sense and only reach their apex in wisdom when they seek to glorify our Creator and Redeemer. I will leave the other three worldview issues alone as Dr. Reich’s writing don’t give me solid ground to speak to his position, though given the evidence regarding the first three issues, his worldview is not compatible with a Christian’s understanding.
