Education is not a (positive) human right

Last updated on: March 17, 2017 at 11:51 am by Jane the Actuary

Education is not a (positive) human right 2017-03-17T11:51:22-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

from flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/wwworks/15344079560; by woodleywonderworks

Perhaps you remember this from history class in school: in the system of slavery as it existed in the American South, it was illegal to teach a slave to read or write.

The State systematically denied slaves the ability to gain an education, because they believed that the ability to read and write would enable slaves to fight against their oppression. It could be said that their human right to an education was being denied them, though it’s a trivial observation when their basic human right to liberty of person was denied.

But is there a universal human right to be provided with an education? A right to have someone else, with suitable qualifications, give you instruction, whether in basic literacy or numeracy, or multivariate calculus? And a right to be provided, by someone else, with the relevant supplies, and classroom space that’s heated as necessary, and desks and equipment? And a right to have one’s living expenses provided for, if an adult, while engaging in this process?

No.

To be sure, various state constitutions claim to be guaranteeing such a right, as do the constitutions of other countries. But what they are doing is not a matter of a pledge to respect universal human rights. What they are doing is creating an entitlement, defining an obligation of the state and committing themselves to meet this entitlement — no differently than the pledges of the old Soviet Union constitution to a “right” to work, to housing, to “rest and leisure” and so on, all of which were subject to the demands of the state. For instance, the “right to work” carried with it the explicit caveat that the right to choose one’s occupation was subject to the “needs of the state.” (This comes from an old, old blog post of mine, from shortly after I started blogging, and either the links didn’t convert to the Patheos system properly or I neglected to link.)

And I agree that it’s appropriate for the government to take on this obligation — though I would dispute claims that it is the federal government in particular that has the obligation to provide this education, or that the government has the obligation to ensure that, however much education any individual want, be made available to them. Not only are there practical reasons to provide a free public education — our entire society would suffer if children were dependent on their parents’ willingness to pay the needed sums of money or ability to find charitable schools– but it is simply part of what government is about, to provide for the common good.

But that’s not because it’s a “human right.”

“Human rights violators” are countries in which the government imprisons or otherwise punishes people for seeking to speak out, practice their religion, assemble together, publish and share written works, or even for being a family member of such a person. They are countries that actively oppress ethnic or religious minorities by denying access that they make available to others, restricting their ability to earn a living, taking away their rights to property, restricting their access to redress in the justice system, and through other means, including imprisonment, or indifference to others who attack them.

To declare education to be a “human right” means to call every state that provides its citizenry with a (perceived) inadequate level of education a “human rights violator.”

Now, you might say that I’m just quibbling, and that there is a general consensus that “human right” can also mean “thing which the State has the responsibility to provide for.” The state has the responsibility to ensure, insofar as it is possible, that its people do not starve, that they are not exposed to the elements due to lack of shelter, that they have provision for healthcare. In modern terminology, you might say, these are simply labelled as the “right to food, right to housing, right to healthcare” – the so-called “positive human rights” as distinguished from the traditional (negative) human rights which have to do with things the government may not do. No big deal.

But it does matter.

Even Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune columnist and single-payer supporter, gets it. His column today argues that, in the same way as basic education is a “right,” so, too, is healthcare — or, rather, that’s the claim implied in the headline, “If basic education is a ‘right,’ why not basic health care?” but the text itself is more moderate that that, writing that

That the U.S. is not among those countries [enshrining healthcare as a “constitutional right”] either shouldn’t prevent us from aiming to provide a basic level of health care for all.

Because there is civic and economic value in a healthy population.

Because we know that it requires far fewer resources in the long run when we catch and treat chronic conditions early.

Because we know that it’s a moral abomination that the unluckiest among us face bankruptcy, death or both when medically stricken.

And because we know that, to paraphrase UNESCO, good health is essential for the exercise of all other human rights. . . .

It may be, however, that fightin’ words are impeding that progress. Arguing for health care as a right seems to harden the resolve of those who get hung up on semantics.

Better to argue that expanding Medicare-like protections to everyone is a responsibility. Providing quality health care is an obligation to our fellow man. It’s a joint investment in our shared future, that, like our joint investment in education, will benefit us all.

Debates about “rights” take us to dead-ends. Debates about responsibilities of governments, and responsibilities of us all to our fellow man — these get us somewhere. How do we, as a society, collectively, act to ensure that people without means have their basic material needs met when they’re unable to do so for themselves? How do we, in general, balance the need for individual human responsibility, with the fact that it’s better for people to get their cavities filled than become toothless? How far do these responsibilities extend — to sameness of provision or the minimal meeting of needs?

And, beyond this, how should our economic system be structured, to give people the best chance of providing for their needs? It seems to me that focusing on “rights” of people to receive basic provision take us in the wrong direction on this question — because they presume direct state provision, in all cases, and disasters like Venezuela.

Image: children in a classroom. from flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/wwworks/15344079560; by woodleywonderworks; Creative Commons license.

Previous Post

March 16, 2017

What else we lose when we're "losing my religion"

Next Post

March 17, 2017 Do you celebrate St. Patrick's Day?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Peter Paul John the Baptist Jesus