Introduction to Excerpt from On Liberty

WHAT ROLE SHOULD THE STATE PLAY in the education of its citizens? This question strikes at the very foundation of society because education is the means by which a modern society transmits its culture and its values. Thus, it is no wonder that the administration of education by modern states is the subject of constant controversy. In the United States, the controversy over public education has come to a head in a series of Supreme Court cases. In 1982, the Louisiana State Legislature passed the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act. The act prevented the teaching of evolution in public elementary and secondary schools unless it was accompanied by instruction in the theory of creation science. The act was challenged, and in the1987 case of Edwards v.Aguillard, ¹ the Supreme Court held that the act violated the Establishment Clause—the constitutional prohibition of governmental endorsement of financial support of religion. Five years later, in the case of Lee v. Weisman, ² the Court held that including prayers in official public graduation ceremonies also violated the Establishment Clause. Needless to say, many people find a disconcerting tendency in these decisions toward doctrinaire secularism in public education. They see these decisions as excluding distinctively religious ideas and ways of life from the public discourse.

In stark contrast to this recent trend toward secularization, the State of Ohio recently established the Pilot Project Scholarship Program. The program provides tuition aid to parents based on financial need and allows them to choose where to spend the aid. Some of the participating schools are public, but many others are private. Moreover, 82 percent of the participating private schools have a religious affiliation, and thus, it is no surprise that the program was challenged as unconstitutional. On June 27, 2002, in the case of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the Supreme Court upheld the Pilot Project Scholarship Program. In a 5-4 ruling, the majority decided that the program does not offend the Establishment Clause because it is neutral with respect to religion—the program provides direct assistance to a broad class of citizens who use the assistance to send their children to schools of their own private choice, religious or not. ³ The slight margin by which the majority upheld the program suggests that voucher programs will continue to be controversial. It is this debate that prompts us to return to the perennial question: What is the proper role of the state in the education of its citizens?

The nineteenth-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill addressed this question in his classic 1869 work of political philosophy, On Liberty. Mill was one of the founding fathers of the political philosophy of utilitarianism. Broadly speaking, utilitarianism is the doctrine that the action or policy that brings about the greatest good for the greatest number of people is the right action or policy. An action or policy that maximizes happiness for everyone involved is the action or policy that should be taken. This doctrine is assumed in On Liberty.

Mill's purpose in On Liberty was to define what he saw as the proper limits of government regulation. More precisely, Mill tried to provide reasons for limiting the power of government to regulate the activities of its citizens. Given Mill's utilitarianism, the limits on government power he proposes should promote happiness for the greatest number of a nation's citizens. What is the connection between limiting government power and promoting human happiness? Mill's basic contention is that human beings can achieve happiness only if they have the freedom to make informed choices among competing ways of life. People can make these choices only if they have the freedom to experiment with competing ways of life. Without experimentation, informed choices cannot be made. In this way, Mill concludes that to promote human happiness we must place limits on government regulation. It is in...