The Right to Education; D. Wentz

Why, then, have I hesitated? Why have I, as one who stands to lose a substantial government subsidy, chosen to remain aloof and above the fray? The answers to such questions are many and varied. In part my action (or inaction) reflects a long develMr. Wentz is working toward a master's degree in pUblic policy analysis. 406 oped disgust at abuse of existing programs. Certainly, too, my stance reflects the belief that, in an age when both food stamps and entitle ments are facing the ax, no pro gram, least of all government aid to graduate students, should remain untouched. Significantly, however, my thoughts turn also to a more funda mental question-one concerning the very concept of government in a free society. I am prompted to wonder whether I, as my colleagues argue, somehow enjoy an intrinsic "right" to education. Does the American government "owe" me, in some prin cipled sense, unrestricted access to graduate loan assistance? Is it true that, as Norman Cousins noted: "It is no longer correct to regard higher education solely as a privilege. It is a basic right in today's world"?

My conscience thinks not, and deTHE "RIGHT" TO EDUCATION 407 spite the adverse effect on my pock etbook, therein lies my hesitation. For unlike national defense, police protection, and other aspects of life in society, education is not and never has been a purely "public" good. Though governments out of obliga tion and necessity may provide for defense and security, governments do not, therefore, owe me or anyone else funds for the pursuit of a master's or law degree. A Cousins-type argument for in tervention in the provision of edu cational services runs as follows. Governments, if viewed as distinct agents, may be defined in terms of their functions. An economist views Washington, then, as a factory for the production of "public" goods those services (such as national de fense, post offices, flood control, and so forth) provided for all citizens. The Problemof "Free Riders" Regulations, taxes, and other methods of economic intervention are levied by governments in response to situations in which universally desired goods are not produced by free operations of markets. Police of ficers and road fixtures, for example, are necessary everyday goods, but priv.ate systems may not provide them in amounts considered "opti mal" by many citizens.

Governments, it is argued, and not markets, then, ought properly to oversee the provision of public goods. Many services ~re nonexclusive in nature; once they are provided, it is difficult to prevent individuals from deriving benefits. An adequate de fense establishment protects every one in the country whether they like it or not. Markets in this instance are not efficient, and are thought to face peculiar allocational difficul ties, most notabllYthe so-called "free rider" problem.' Since market sys tems cannot compel payment for a collective good, ,there is no way to prevent a person from receiving the services of the good if he or she re fuses to pay for it. Organizations which provide benefits to, and confer obligations on, their members (such as governments., labor unions, and the like), then! resort to coercive methods for providing public goods. Workers in unionized plants, for ex ample, may attempt both to enjoy the benefits of unionization, and to avoid union membership and the subsequent payment of dues. To counter such temptations, many or ganizers insist op. "closed" or "union"

shops. Similarly, governments (as opposed to markets) are uniquely suited to eliminate free riders by mandating taxation. for the provi sion of public g%ds. The concept o,f government so de fined, it is easy' to see how Cousins and others viewjeducation as a right, and not a privilege. Education, they argue, is a public good; there are many ways in which all of society 408 THE FREEMAN July gains from the widest poSsible spread of education. Education may lead to universally recognized technical ad va-flees;the economic payoff to soci ety of investments in human capital is g.reat.- Further, education may m.ake democracy work "better," both by preparing an intelligent elector ate, and by creating citizens better trained and better able to cope with pressing social problems. Taken to gether; such benefits are nonexclu sive; individuals can not be pre vented from realizing the returns of overaUeducational improvements.

A government ought, then, in a nor mative sense, to provide for the ed u.cation of its citizens, in the same manner to which a government "'ought" to provide for a national de fense, or for any other public good. PerSOna:1Benefits What this argument fails to rec ognize, however, is that unlike the rewards of national defense and public safety programs, many bene fits of educational subsidies are pri vate, and not public in nature. Edu cated individuals earn higher incomes. They also may value their stay at a university because of cul tural or social reasons, or indeed be cause it delays the necessity of de cidIng what to do next. None of these benefits reflects significant exter nalities-citizens directly secure college degrees for themselves. In deed, since individuals can be exeluded from gaining these benefits (those who fail to pay tuition, fail to matriculate), the procurement of an educational service does not differ in a fundamental way from the pur chase of any other private good.

And is not the provision of private goods precisely the domain of the free market? It seems that education, correctly understood, is neither purely a pub lic nor a private good, but a mixture of both. One is left to debate, then, the extent to which this is true. If it were argued, for example, that ele mentary schools have important col lective aspects, then the govern .. ment, as a provider of public goods, might opt for subsidization. Alter nately, however, if the benefits of advanced degrees are especially pri vate, provisions for higher educa.; tion might be left to the free opera tion of the market. Unfortunately in practice it is difficult to draw such fine distinctions (particularly in light, for example, of recent success in the operation of private high schools), and so deter mining the correct amount of gov ernment support for education is a troublesome political issue. But this, of course, is precisely the point! For even if it is true that governments primarily are providers of public goods, since education in fact entails many elements which are private in nature, it does not follow that citi zens therefore enjoy a "right," in 1982 THE "RIGHT" TO EDUCATION 409 some absolute sense, to student aid.

Rather, the extent of educational as sistance is a matter of great contro versy, and is an argument in which there exist no foregone conclusions. The Members of the House Edu cation and Labor Committee may argue, for example, that it is inad visable to approve additional cuts in student aid programs, particularly those focused on assisting low and middle income college students. These very same members, how ever, might in fact conclude that ev idence of waste and fraud in the Rights for Robots gr~duate student loan program war rants its elimination. Significanay, whether either position is to "be adopted is a po~itical decision, and not one which turns on some quasi legal question ~fwhether anyope's "right" to educ~tion has be~n vio lated. Graduate stugents such as mys~lf do not, as sonl~ sugg_est, enjoy a "right" to education. The proper ex tent of government aid to students is a political question,and a point about which reasbnable men can, and fortunately do, disagree. tJ IDEAS ON UBERTY IN A SOCIETY of free men, each ~cting on his own rresponsibility, honesty is the best policy. But as we move furt:ber from th~ individualist position into compulsory associations, unions, districts, ~ounties, nations,and states, we tend to lose touch with that essentially personal quality honesty. Honesty may be described as a force governing dealings be tween individuals. When the transactions are between masses, they tend to become less honest; when between nationsi there is, indeed, little pretense of honesty about them. That simple circumstance arises not from evil intent but from the very nature of man'~ conduct.

All this concerns a philosophy; a point of vie'V from which to start. And if only individualism could get these foundations well laid in the minds of the people, we could then proceed witll our voluntary social services and other humanitari~n plans for the cOl;nfortof the less fortu nate minority. As it is-without these foundatiol).scharity, good feel ing, desire to help, sympathy, and many other virtues have been brushed aside. And in their place there has been set Up! the mean, unworthy, degrading, and destructive notion of rights for rotiots, which is mankind under complete government planning. SIR ERNEST BENN Hal Watkins THE JONESTOWN SYNDROME IN 1978 the world was shocked by the mass suicide of 900 people in a Guyana commune called Jonestown, named for their charismatic leader, Jim Jones. Information available to us indicates Jones seemed to have such power over the minds of the people that he was able to pressure them into taking their lives. Imme diately the question came to others of us: How in the world could a man gain that much control over the minds of men?