September 5, 2007

McGuinty's indefensible stance on schools

Hypocrisy, in Catholic doctrine, would surely count as a venial, rather than a mortal sin. So if all that could be said of Dalton McGuinty's stated opposition to public funding of religious schools was that it was hypocritical -- if one were confined to pointing out that he himself attended Catholic school, that his children did likewise, and that his wife teaches in the Catholic school system -- that would be galling, but not sufficient in itself to condemn it. A thing can be hypocritical, and still be right. ...

He might even be arguing against his own self-interest, which far from hypocritical, would be admirably public-minded. Catholic schools in Ontario are, after all, publicly funded -- the only faith to be thus favoured. If the Premier were so convinced of the evils of public funding of religious schools -- if, as he was saying the other day, it amounted to encouraging "children of different faiths to leave the publicly funded system and become sequestered and segregated in their own private schools" -- if he were so dedicated to the principle of separation of church and state as to demand that public funds be withdrawn from Catholic schools, then we should only applaud the sincerity of his conviction, the consistency of his position, and the rigour of his analysis.

But Mr. McGuinty is not saying that. Rather, the position he is attempting to defend is that public funding should be available to schools professing the Catholic faith, and no other. The opposition Conservatives' position, that funding should be available equally to all religious schools, is consistent, at least as between faiths -- though why religious schools should be preferred to secular is a question the Tories might wish to answer. But the Liberal position is simply incoherent.

The current situation in the province's schools, obnoxious as it may be to generally accepted notions of equality, has at least the virtue of being the status quo. If that is the position the Liberals wish to maintain, they had only to do nothing. Moreover, the Catholic school system's entitlement to public funds is guaranteed in the Constitution, part of the Confederation bargain (a reciprocal obligation was imposed on Quebec with regard to Protestant schools). So Mr. McGuinty, asked to respond to the Tory proposal, might have simply shrugged and said: "Not my policy." Or, seized of the unfairness of funding one religion over others, he might have followed Quebec's lead, and amended the Constitution to remove any reference to religious schools.

But Mr. McGuinty did not do that. Instead, in a calculatedly inflammatory move, he chose to make religious schools the central issue of the campaign. "I'm hoping to grab Ontarians by the earlobes," Mr. McGuinty told reporters, "and say, 'It's not just another election, it's not just business as usual. It's about the kind of Ontario you want.'" Then that business about students being "segregated," followed by a sweet-faced appeal to "bring our kids together, so that they grow together and learn from one another."

So the Premier cannot disavow the passions he might thus have ignited: That was his intent -- to "grab Ontarians by the earlobes," to warn them of … what? What dark fears does he wish to arouse? Or to be specific, why does he believe other religions would "segregate" their kids, when that has not been the case with the Catholic schools?

I don't want to say this is an entirely illegitimate concern. There are zealots out there who would teach intolerance of other faiths given half a chance, and I won't pretend they are evenly distributed across the population. But is it so beyond human ingenuity to guard against this -- to insist, as the Tories propose, that public funding be conditional on teaching a common curriculum, using accredited teachers, and so forth? Or if it is, then why permit these schools to exist at all?

But wait a minute. Wasn't the Premier right, as I wrote at the time, to decide against allowing sharia courts to operate within Ontario's legal system? Isn't this just the same issue? No, and the differences in the two cases illustrate the point. First, Mr. McGuinty did not discriminate between religions in the sharia case, but applied the same principle to all religious tribunals -- much to the chagrin of the existing Jewish courts.

And second, the whole point of the law is that there should be one law for all. Remember that the issue with the sharia courts was not whether they should exist -- people are free to settle their private disputes in any way they wish -- but whether the decisions they hand down should be given the imprimatur of the state, including its powers of enforcement.

But whereas justice is one of the core functions of the state -- indeed its raison d'etre -- education is not so clear cut a matter. Ensuring access to education has rightly become a state responsibility, at least at the primary and secondary level. But we have traditionally allowed a great deal of latitude with regard to the actual business of teaching -- how students are taught, and even what they are taught, within limits.

Justice is necessarily a collective matter: It is our shared understanding of what is just that gives the law its power. But in matters of education, let a hundred flowers bloom.

Links to this post:

21 Comments

Meany:

Oh Andrew. It's because of the constitution and you know it.


The best option would be to shut down the catholic school system, can't be done. Besides, as indefensible as McGuinty is, everything this John Tory says and does makes me think he is trying to lose this election on purpose. All he needs to do is go hide in his home and come out on election day to at least win a minority. Instead he keeps opening his mouth and saying outrageous things. He's the Ontario PC's StockBot.

6/9/07 12:46 AM  
Meany:

ps welcome back.

6/9/07 12:46 AM  
Anonymous:

AC,

You wrote: "So Mr. McGuinty, asked to respond to the Tory proposal, might have simply shrugged and said: 'Not my policy.'... But Mr. McGuinty did not do that."

From the Toronto Star, five days before your column was published: "McGuinty ... has defended the status quo of funding just one religious group by saying: 'That's the system that we have inherited.'"

Sounds like he did say some variation on "not my policy". And while the system of the past has not been socially debilitatining, a good case can be made that integration would have been better than separation. But what is really missing in your column is the acknowledgement of the 500lb boogeyman in the room. If public funding is open to schools of all faiths, then that would include fundamentalist Islamic schools. Surely no good can come from that, but this is what funding all riligions would come to.

DW

6/9/07 8:00 AM  
Mark Dowling:

meany - it wouldn't shut down the Catholic system necessarily but they would have to self-fund like the other faiths.

Tory was pretty good on TVO the other night (downloadable as podcast) but I think of the small communities who have had two schools close rather than have the Catholic amalgamate with the public. Unity of education might not be as core as justice but schools are civic anchors.

Here's the elephant in the room though - when I hear people talking about sending their kids to Catholic schools it's because there's a perception that public schools are flawed beyond repair, particularly in matters of discipline.

The way to bring kids into the public system isn't to price out the others, it's to fund the public system lavishly, especially in capital funding - learning is not assisted by decrepitude. This should be as much a priority for monied donors as the AGO or the Four Seasons Opera.

6/9/07 9:03 AM  
Mark Dowling:

oh and by the way I was educated in a Catholic-patroned primary and a Catholic secondary in Ireland - but coming from Ireland and its religious issues I'd rather my kids go public.

6/9/07 9:05 AM  
Skinny Dipper:

Welcome back, Andrew.

I read an article today in the Ottawa Sun. A principal at a private relgious school would like to see public funding for her school so that the tuition fees can be reduced.

John Tory has promised that public funds would go to private religious schools--or faith-based schools as he calls them. These funds would not go to non-religious private schools.

I finally figured out that public funding for private religious schools is really a scam to get more money. From what I remember from my Economics 101 course, for every dollar a private school receives from the public taxpayer, that school can charge 50 cents less in tuition but still make an extra 50 cents. The funding issue is about revenue. Religion or "faith-base-ism" is just a veneer to get funding. Why don't I just provide my bank information to a Nigerian over the Internet?

If private religious schools were to get funding, they would still be private schools controlled by private interests. It doesn't matter if they follow the Ontario Curriculum. They would be privately run institutions which would receive taxpayer money so they can charge a little less tuition but get more revenue at the same time.

I think I'll join this scam. I'm going to set up my own "Independent Christian" school that focuses on athletics. I'll stick a couple of crosses on the front of the school building. I can receive public funding for being a "faith-based" school, charge tuition, and build a state of the art athletic complex.

Here's what I think a future government could do:

Establish a school system for each of the English and French language communities. Within each system, school boards can offer alternative programs that will be publicly run. Programs could include French Immersion, Mandarin Immersion, Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, athletics, and the arts. Others could be included. This way the schools are publicly administered and publicly accountable. Any student living within a catchment area would be eligible to attend. Any qualified teacher would be eligible to teach. Private schools should remain private. If they want to charge $10,000 or $20,000 tuition, that is their choice. Don't use funding for "faith-based" schools as a veneer for generating revenue for private schools.

6/9/07 2:36 PM  
Quebecois Separatiste:

What is a catholic school these days anyway?

I went to a semi private catholic school in Quebec. It was in name only. You obviously didn't have to be catholic to be accepted. Religious course were about all religions. There was some pastoral extra curriculum optional stuff but that's about it.

Even religion teachers told us being gay was ok. That abortion was a right and blabla.... Noting about catholic doctrine there.
It was not different from a secular school.

6/9/07 8:06 PM  
Mader:

Andrew,

Terrific column. I'm still trying to get my thoughts in order on this one; I've had a lot of trouble believing that McGuinty's position really is as contrary to the basic tenets of pluralism as it seems to be. And it hasn't been easy to avoid taking personally the implication that public funding of the education of "his people" is a-ok and un-problematic, but that public funding of "my people" is contrary to public policy. But though deep down I don't believe that McGuinty's policy is motivated by explicit xenophobia of this type, I think he must bear the burden of injecting religious hostility into Ontario politics for the first time in my memory, at least.

But I quibble, as I often do, with your sharia tribunal distinction. You argue that there should be one law for all people. But never was there a suggestion that the laws of Ontario would not apply in sharia courts; rather, those tribunals would apply additional and non-contradictory rules to parties voluntarily appearing before them. If this destroys the notion a single legal system, then so does any private contract; for a private contract by definition creates rights and obligations as between the contracting parties that do not exist as to any third party.

The problem with sharia tribunals, if there is one, is the question of voluntarism and the risk of social coercion. I think banning tribunals is a distinctly second-best solution, and I use the term as derisively as possible. But to object to tribunals on the grounds you suggest is to deny private parties the ability to enter into rights-creating private contracts. That seems contrary to the political liberalism that otherwise seems to stand at the root of your political philosophy.

I'm sure you've thought this through, though, and would love to hear what you have to say.

7/9/07 1:04 AM  
Flaggman:

Can you write a follow-up column on why Tory came out with this half-baked big-government proposal, instead of a more logical, fair, and equitable Charter School plan?

I'd guess a free-market libertarian like you, Andrew, would be in favour of ditching public schools altogether in favour of charter schools.

7/9/07 8:09 AM  
FDuquette:

It would be useful to examine this issue in terms of a child's best interests, or rather, precisely who is to determine them: the family or the state?
In a system in which everyone pays, who decides is the only question left. The teachers union (through ads) and McGuinty seem to be saying that the state overides the parents right to choose a school that reflects the values those parents are instilling at home.
Though there may be zealots who teach intolerance, then lets not pretend it isnt in reaction to the banality, drugs, violence, degeneracy and apathy that exists in varying degrees at public schools.
Statistically, private schools are a burgeoning provider of childhood education and are doing so despite parents paying twice through property tax and tuition fee, such is their opinion of public education. That means dedicated teachers working for less, administrators out-sourcing maintenance and special programs to tender, on-going fundraising and so on. Such discipline is unheard of in public schools.
If public funding is conditional upon a common curriculum, then let it also be conditional on effective management as well, applied to all schools, not just the religous ones.

8/9/07 11:54 AM  
Summa Guy:

Whether hypocrisy is always a mortal sin?

Objection 1: It seems that hypocrisy is always a mortal sin. For Jerome says on Is. 16:14: "Of the two evils it is less to sin openly than to simulate holiness": and a gloss on Job 1:21 [*St. Augustine on Ps. 63:7], "As it hath pleased the Lord," etc., says that "pretended justice is no justice, but a twofold sin": and again a gloss on Lam. 4:6, "The iniquity . . . of my people is made greater than the sin of Sodom," says: "He deplores the sins of the soul that falls into hypocrisy, which is a greater iniquity than the sin of Sodom." Now the sins of Sodom are mortal sin. Therefore hypocrisy is always a mortal sin.

Objection 2: Further, Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 8) that hypocrites sin out of malice. But this is most grievous, for it pertains to the sin against the Holy Ghost. Therefore a hypocrite always sins mortally.

Objection 3: Further, no one deserves the anger of God and exclusion from seeing God, save on account of mortal sin. Now the anger of God is deserved through hypocrisy according to Job 36:13, "Dissemblers and crafty men prove the wrath of God": and the hypocrite is excluded from seeing God, according to Job 13:16, "No hypocrite shall come before His presence." Therefore hypocrisy is always a mortal sin.

On the contrary, Hypocrisy is lying by deed since it is a kind of dissimulation. But it is not always a mortal sin to lie by deed. Neither therefore is all hypocrisy a mortal sin.

Further, the intention of a hypocrite is to appear to be good. But this is not contrary to charity. Therefore hypocrisy is not of itself a mortal sin.

Further, hypocrisy is born of vainglory, as Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 17). But vainglory is not always a mortal sin. Neither therefore is hypocrisy.

I answer that, There are two things in hypocrisy, lack of holiness, and simulation thereof. Accordingly if by a hypocrite we mean a person whose intention is directed to both the above, one, namely, who cares not to be holy but only to appear so, in which sense Sacred Scripture is wont to use the term, it is evident that hypocrisy is a mortal sin: for no one is entirely deprived of holiness save through mortal sin. But if by a hypocrite we mean one who intends to simulate holiness, which he lacks through mortal sin, then, although he is in mortal sin, whereby he is deprived of holiness, yet, in his case, the dissimulation itself is not always a mortal sin, but sometimes a venial sin. This will depend on the end in view; for if this be contrary to the love of God or of his neighbor, it will be a mortal sin: for instance if he were to simulate holiness in order to disseminate false doctrine, or that he may obtain ecclesiastical preferment, though unworthy, or that he may obtain any temporal good in which he fixes his end. If, however, the end intended be not contrary to charity, it will be a venial sin, as for instance when a man takes pleasure in the pretense itself: of such a man it is said in Ethic. iv, 7 that "he would seem to be vain rather than evil"; for the same applies to simulation as to a lie.

It happens also sometimes that a man simulates the perfection of holiness which is not necessary for spiritual welfare. Simulation of this kind is neither a mortal sin always, nor is it always associated with mortal sin.

This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.

8/9/07 7:45 PM  
bigcitylib:

This all went from being a nice academic argument to meaning something when Tory said that evolution was just another theory and that private religiou schools should be able to teach alternative threories.

Frankly, whether Creationism is taught in Science or Religion class is irrelevant, unless you advocate letting your Religion Class undermine what is being taught in Science.

8/9/07 8:16 PM  
Caveat:

Equal treatment under the law is a concept that the McGuinty government does not value.

This issue nicely illustrates that.

No religion is more or less valid than any other - they are all the same. Therefore in the opinion of this atheist, if you insist on funding religious indoctrination in the schools, then you have to fund all religious indoctrination in the schools. Or none of it.

None of it would be preferable.

9/9/07 4:37 PM  
Anonymous:

I am wondering about the current staffing of either the Catholic Schools or proposed Faith Based schools with limited tax dollars "...teaching a common curriculum, using accredited teachers..."

Didn't Mr McGuinty mention a ratio of 1 teacher to 20 students?

Currently if one wants to apply as a teacher candidate with the Catholic Boards Faith Based Schools one would have to take the necessary course and secondly be of the Catholic faith to qualify to teach in a Catholic School.

An exerpt from that site...

The Catholic School Board - O.I.S.E. (Ontario Insitute for Studies in Education) web site...

"Learning and Believing in Catholic Schools

A Religious Education Course for Initial Teacher Education Candidates

Three Strands flow through the course:
The Spirituality and Personal Philosophy of the Catholic Educator
Scripture and Tradition of Catholic Church
Prayer and Liturgy

Q. Do I have to take this course in order to teach in Catholic Schools?
A. Yes. This course is only for teacher candidates and is offered in Faculties of Education during the academic year. Catholic School Boards require this course as a pre-requisite for a job interview and as a condition of employment.

Q. Do I have to be Roman Catholic to take the course?
A. No. The course is open to all teacher candidates. Many non-Catholics take the course for a variety of reasons.

Q. Do I have to be Catholic to be hired by a Catholic School Board?
A. Yes. It is the policy of Catholic School Boards to only hire Catholic Teachers at the present time.

Q. How long does the course run?
A. This religious education course runs for the full year consisting of 18 classes, for a total of 36 hours.

Q. How will completion of this course and grade be documented?
A. Upon successful completion of the course, you will receive a certificate of professional learning and a final grade. The course will not appear on your official transcript.

Q. Is this course the same as the Religious Education Part I Additional Qualification Course?
A. No. This course is required for hiring purposes by Catholic School Boards - most boards will require Religious Education Part I to be taken at some time during the first two years of teaching, and prior to the granting of a permanent contract..."


We should separate Church and State by keeping religion out of the schools and better fund the Public School system and move on to the more important issues facing our society.

The 1800 children at the Thorncliffe Park Public School are counting on us for that support.

9/9/07 11:54 PM  
Stephen:

Good article. Sad but true. I am not sure where the Libs think they are going with this argument.

Warren K may be thinking he can relive his moment in the sun with Stock Day, and maybe he will.

However, all that will happen is that it will highlight the contradiction that you point out. The Liberal poisition, in the heat of an eletion is untenable.

Where do you think the Catholic braintrust will go when the public starts asking the difficult question of why them and not others and more importantly why them alone period.

They know the RC system cannot maintain its priveledged position, especially since Quebec made the constitutional change so painlessly....imagine that a painles constitutional ammendment involving Quebec!

I am not a fan of the PC position but it is consistent. If the Libs turned around tomorrow and promisd the ammendment to end relgous school funding I would vote for them, assuming of course I believed their promise, but that is another story.

10/9/07 5:26 AM  
Anonymous:

Andrew,

Good article

Related to this topic I don't know how someone of your calibre can work for a newspaper that publishes rubbish like we see today, namely the article "My vision for Ontario's schools" by McGuinty.

Why is the post allowing itself to be used in this way?

This is the same paper that also has Kinsella on the payroll, another McGuinty worshipper.

Seriously, how can you stand it?

The Post used to be a fine paper, but it has gone way down in my estimation. I hardly read it all these days.

10/9/07 1:09 PM  
Anonymous:

Andrewe Coyne suports government funded sectarian schooling? He wants to beirut-ize Canada -- where Muslims and Jews go to separate schools and learn (not through the official curriculum, but through socialization) to hate each other?

Integrated schools help integrate Ontario. Banning private schools may be impossible, but there's no reason to help exclusionary religious bigots indocrinate young Ontarians.

14/9/07 12:04 PM  
David:

Actually, Mcguinty is on record as supporting funding for faith based schools a few years ago.So there are three choices; status quo,fund all or fund none.Mcguinty supports all three!
So which will he push during this campaign? The most popular chosen by opinion polls of course.

The status quo for now is what most Ontarions support so this is Mcguinty's position.

Ontarions are very reluctant to change anything but I think if forced to consider this they might realise the inconsistancy of the status quo and start coming round.
The catholic school board must be careful if they endorse the status quo.The other option is to fund none. I think that if Ontarions reject fund all then we may eventually see fund none settle in as the winner sooner or later.

14/9/07 4:38 PM  
FDuquette:

A religion-free, state run/funded school system with a centralized curriculum is a Marxist fantasy doomed to low academic achievement and runaway costs.
Studies have demonstrated that the funding of separate school has benefited both separate and public boards that "competition" between overlapping districts tends to encourage, both academically and managerially. The funding of private schools would only increase this rivalry as funding would be based on enrollment and attracting students would abet ongoing reform.
If Ontario decided to cut Catholic funding, then what happens to the (roughly) 40% of the students attending? Who owns the plant and property of those Catholic schools? If the Catholic church owns that land, they could sell it to hungry land developers for far more than the province could afford and the province would be stuck financing a massive schools construction project, busing programs etc. to make and use space: so you can think of your increased property taxes as you sit in traffic jams created by the mass of dislocated students in buses.

15/9/07 3:40 PM  
Anonymous:

This is a great idea.

Forcing public curriculum will give religious students the opportunity to learn and expand beyond one religion...like a public school.

This will lead to a more secular and tolerant Ontario.

19/9/07 12:50 AM  
Richard:

On education, both leaders have it wrong.

Living in the Grand Erie School Board area, the public school system has closed 1 rural high school and have reviewed closing 2 more in Norfolk County. These are community based schools that have been under pressure for the past 15 years. At the same time, there have been 2 Catholic high schools build in the district. This process is still going on through out the province and until there is security in a community based school system rather than a student population based system, there will be opposition to any expanded funding to other religious or private based systems. In talking to parents of today’s systems, English text books must be shared between schools and there is a general shortage of math & science text books in the schools. This applies to both the public and catholic school systems. With the shortage of funds to educate the next generation, school boards resist sharing busing systems and other resources. It ends up being a turf war and power struggle at the board level. If there are turf wars at the adult age can you imagine the turf wars that occur when 2 high schools are merged. We grew up in an unlimited funding environment in the 60’s & 70’s. Today there is a finite amount of resources and priorities have not been properly debated or established.

26/9/07 9:29 AM