HIGHER EDUCATION...A RIGHT?

The Question:  Simply put, do students have a right to a college education?

The Issue:  It is no secret that the various States are experiencing one of the worst budget situations in living memory.  State universities are cutting budgets for higher education, and schools are eliminating courses, majors, increasing class sizes, and raising tuition by double digit amounts.  Around the nation students and faculty have been protesting these actions arguing that these actions infringe on the students' right to receive a college education.  This, however, begs the ethical question as to whether in fact a college education is a matter of right.  Of course if we answer this question in the affirmative, then this results in a corresponding duty on society to provide that education, and many of the protesters' arguments are well founded. If, on the other hand, it is a privilege, then there is no such corresponding duty, and the market will do what the market does.

I say: It is a privilege. It is currently popular to argue that "anyone who wants to go to college should be able to do, without worrying about how to pay for it."  I believe that this misses some crucial points.  First, and with going on 30 years in higher education, I maintain that college is as much or more a question of intellectual ability as it is the financial ability to pay for it. Simply because a student may want a college degree does not mean that he or she has the ability to achieve one. Every term I have to fail a student in my courses.  This is not always because the student did not study.  Most of the time it is because the material was simply beyond the student's personal ability to master it.  This is not meant as a personal criticism of the student.  We all have our own unique abilities.  I can attest that there are probably hundreds of people alive and well in Chicago today who would probably otherwise not be so if I had gone to medical school.  I liked science courses.  I just wasn't all that good at them.  Some of use have skills in the fine arts such as music.  Others of us do not. Athletic ability is another obvious example.  I knew since early high school that a career in the NFL was probably not going to happen.  You get the point.  I disagree with a lot of the comments that I hear touting the importance, indeed almost the necessity of having a college education. This does a great injustice to all of those who either decide that college is not for them. or whose abilities are elsewhere. 

The second issue being missed, and this is too large an issue to go into in detail in this post, is what exactly constitutes a "university educated person." It has been argued that colleges have become nothing more than glorified trade schools, especially colleges of business.  Is it the primary purpose of a college education to train someone for a future job?  Or is that task better left to other institutions?

The counter argument to my first point is well, ok, if a student does in fact have the ability to do college level work, and wants to do so, should he or she be prevented from doing so simply because they do not have the means to pay for it. Arguably not.  However, is it the role/duty of government/society to provide that funding, or is this something better left to the free market to provide. Your thoughts.

ANONYMITY AND THE INTERNET

The Question: Does one have the right to post on the internet whatever they want anonymously?

The issue: Over the last several years, we have seen more and more cases of people posting anonymous comments on social networking pages, internet blogs and just about anywhere else that they can find an open forum. Many of these postings are less than kind. In fact, some are downright malicious. Public figures such as politicians, have long been accustomed to this sort of thing, and by and large, as a public person, this simply goes with the territory. In fact, in the famous case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity. Okay for public officials. But what about non-public persons? Can you say anything you want about your neighbor, your classmate, a rival at work, no matter how malicious and false the statement may be? The answer of course is generally no. That's the reason we have laws against libel and slander. Enter the internet. A week hardly goes by when we do not read about a court case involving someone who maliciously and falsely makes accusations against that neighbor, classmate or business rival, and tries to hide their identity (and thus shield themselves from liability) through the anonymity of the internet. The argument is that the internet is the new frontier of free speech. It is the only domain left where anyone with a PC can express whatever views, ideas, or opinions they may hold, however, goofy, without fear of censorship or legal consequences. To eliminate, or at least pull back in part the veil of anonymity that is the current hallmark of internet activity, would result in a degradation of one of our most cherished rights, the right of free speech. Do we agree?

I say: No. It is inherent in the concept of rights, that where there is a right, there is a responsibility. It is ingrained in our legal system, that if, in the exercise of your rights, you cause injury to another, even if unintentionally, you may be held accountable to that injured party for damages. From an ethical perspective, and apologies to my friends in psychology who may disagree with this, as a unique and rational person, I have individual responsibility for all of my actions. That is not to say that there are times when my decision to do or not do something may be less than a totally free choice, but apart from those instances where in fact I had no freedom of choice whatsoever, I still bear responsibility, in whole or in part, for the consequences of my actions. With the current issue, I believe this is not even a close call. To argue that someone who intentionally, falsely and maliciously maligns someone else, causing in some cases permanent and incalculable harm, has no responsibility for that harm because they hid their identity on the internet in the name of free speech, is not acceptable to me, on either level, legal or ethical. In fact, I would go further and say that even under the standard of New York Times v Sullivan, this would not be acceptable even in cases involving public officials. How less acceptable should and must it be for innocent private citizens?

The Great Health Care Debate

Unless you've been living in a cave, you know that this is the hottest topic in the country today. So let's frame the issue ethically, or at least part of the issue.

Question: Do people have a right to health care?

I say: Although this may seem like a no brainer question, (hint: the tempting answer is to say yes), I suggest that this isn't so simple. Virtually every special interest group argues that their position is really a matter of "basic human rights". Do we have a right to basic food, clothing and shelter? Do we have a right to earn a living wage? A retirement with dignity? The list gets pretty long. Throw in a few colorful adjectives such as "basic", "living" and "dignity", and how can anyone disagree with that? Apart from the obvious definitional problem of determining what basic, living, and with dignity mean, we have a far greater difficulty once we distill every social issue down to one of rights.

As soon as we decide that something exists as a matter of right, then that right creates a corresponding duty. If a child has a positive right to an elementary and high school education, then that right creates a duty in someone else, the taxpayer or whomever, to provide that education. The same is true for a right to shelter, employment or retirement. Once we concede a right exists, then someone has the duty to provide for it. So what of health care? If health care is a matter of right, then someone, society (the taxpayer) has a duty to provide, that is, pay for it.

Despite all the rhetoric out there, there is still no free lunch. As Mayor Giuliani said, if you think health care is expensive now, wait to you see what it costs when it's free. Although most of us would agree that the availability of health care for all our citizens as a general proposition is a good thing, once it becomes a right, then we, the taxpayers, have a duty to pay for it. Should we accept that obligation? I say...yes, but not as a matter of right.

Instead of looking at this issue from a rights perspective, I suggest we look at it as a privilege. And no, I am not just playing with semantics. Although a recognized right creates a duty, a privilege does not. Although we sometimes say that rights are "granted by our Creator", or simply inherent in being a human being, and thus should be immune from government interference, a privilege is not so created or inherent. A privilege is something that is granted, not necessarily earned or even deserved. It may be granted by the government, or more broadly, society itself. But because it is a grant, it is subject to restriction and/or interference by the grantor. One obvious valid restriction I can think of in the health care debate is society's ability to pay for it. Thus, for example, I believe that it should be a privilege of every American to have access to health insurance, subject to society's reasonable ability to financially provide for it. Your thoughts?

"The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates

Welcome to Ethics Now. As you can guess from the title, my purpose in starting this blog is to examine, discuss, and debate the ethical issues of today from the perspective of real people, living real lives, who have to make real decisions. It is not an exercise in the purely theoretical or academic. On a fairly regular basis, (I haven't decided how 'regular' regular will be), I will take an issue, lay out the ethical positions of the various sides of the argument, and tell you what I think the better position should be. What could be more fun than this? Now all of my friends, enemies, students and former students, colleagues and strangers will have the opportunity of telling me publicly what many of you have always suspected. "Roe really doesn't have a clue what he's talking about." Or at least that's one possible outcome. Regardless, if I can stir the pot of discussion and debate, then perhaps I have contributed in some small way to a more examined life, and thus one more worth living. GR