What I would like to do in class tomorrow is for me to respond to your questions and comments on my forthcoming article.
Do you agree that the government school monopoly is coercive and results in a captive audience for strictly secular educative speech chosen by government officials (and other educational elites, such as teachers unions and advocacy groups)? If not, in what way is it neutral with respect to the content and viewpoints of educative speech?
If it is coercive, is such coercion consistent with the right of parents to control the education and upbringing of their children? Is it consistent with the doctrine of content and viewpoint neutrality under the Free Speech Clause? Of religious neutrality under the Establishment Clause? With equal citizenship of religious families?
Suppose the public school curriculum was based upon religious understandings of the good life (like the curriculum, say, of Lincoln Christian School)? How would secular families feel about having to pay to avoid the religious curriculum in the public schools? Would they agree that "if you don't like the public schools, you are free to pay to educate your children at private secular schools" was a reasonable accommodation of their educative rights?
Although the focus of my article is on free speech and religious liberty, school choice is perhaps even more important to communities of color trapped in poorly performing inner city public schools. The rich can move to a city or town with great public schools. The rich can also afford to pay for private education for their children. Did President Obama's children attend DC public schools? What about President Trump's son? School choice gives working class and non-affluent families the same choices already enjoyed by the wealthy and the affluent.
This issue is red hot right now, including in Nebraska. So let's talk about it.
