[Note for bibliographic reference: Melberg, Hans O. (1997), A Neutral State?, http://www.oocities.org/hmelberg/papers/970526.htm]
A Neutral State?
by Hans O. Melberg
Introduction
The Norwegian Left Socialist Party recently met to discuss their Programme. One resolution
caught my attention: They wanted to reduce the support to the private schools, and allow
no new private schools to operate. However, the delegates then discovered that some of
their "own" private schools would be hurt by this new policy
("Steinerskolene"). Their spokesperson for educational policies, Øystein
Djupedal then suggested that the resolution about reducing the support to private schools
should only apply to "the most commercial and religiously extreme schools." The
meeting then wanted to discuss the resolution once more in order to reformulate it so that
it would not apply to their own schools.
I have to admit my immediate reaction was one of great anger. I accept that people are
against private schools. However, it is outrageous to discriminate between schools so that
only those which you happen to like should enjoy state support. This is the kind of
instincts and policies that lead to a totalitarian society - a society in which only one
opinion is tolerated.
The issue, however, is not as easy as it first appears. In the following observation I
shall use different examples in order to point out the complexities of "state
neutrality".
Another example: Consistency?
The incident above is not isolated. Recently, a representative from the Labour Party has
threatened to "re-evaluate" the financial support to a school (KG) because it
fired a teacher who - in their opinion - did not act in accordance with the ethical
requirements of the school (he had an extra-marital affair). However, thinking about this
example led me to an apparent contradiction. In the first case, I appealed to the
principle of freedom to argue that the state should not discriminate between schools of
different political and religious persuasions. Doesn't this also apply on the level of
individual schools: Why should a school be allowed to discriminate between their teachers
depending on their ethical principles? To say yes to discrimination in the second case,
but no in the first case, seems to be contradictory.
I do not think the attitudes are inconsistent. The state should try to be neutral since
its resources are gathered from people with many different opinions. For example,
religious and non-religious people pay taxes (which is not voluntary). Why should the
income then be used only to promote those who want to send their children to non-religious
schools? The private schools, on the other hand, are voluntary organizations. They were
started by voluntary private organizations, and parents send their children there because
they want them to be raised according to certain values. That is their right as parents -
religious or non-religious. Moreover, a teacher is free to teach in a secular school if he
wants to. So, unlike paying taxes, individuals are free to send their children to he
school of their choice, and they are free to work in a school of their choice. In sum, the
state represents everybody and should not favour a particular group, individuals represent
themselves and are free to act on their own beliefs.
Arguments against neutrality?
The problems, however, do not end here. First, my argument so far means that I cannot
support the Norwegian system of an official state-church. Nor can I support the laws which
state that Christian teachings have a special place in the official school system. This
is, once again, to use state resources to promote a discriminatory policy. Once again, the
ideal is neutrality.
Still, one might advance three counter-arguments. First, some people say that the state
cannot be neutral. Whatever we do, whatever we teach, however we act - it always imply and
reveal some kind of underlying value judgement about what is right and wrong, good and
bad. Pretending to be neutral only covers up this fact. While I partially agree with this,
it still seems possible to avoid the extreme solutions. The choice is not between
promoting one value system and promoting none. Rather, it is possible to be clear about
what one oneself believes, while also presenting some competing systems. Moreover, most of
us would agree on the underlying values of honesty and respect - Christians or
non-Christians. There is no need for state-schools to make this a question of religion.
Hence, while I do not believe that every state action can be completely neutral, I do not
think it necessarily follows that they have to teach one particular religion in
state-schools (more about neutrality in the third section).
Second, one might argue that since most Norwegians are members of the state-Church, the
problem of using state resources to teach Christianity is not so large. Once again, I
partially agree with this. In a homogeneous society the problem of using state resources
to promote the values of the majority is not as great as when there is a minority force
its values on a minority (The Communist in the Soviet-Union is a good example). This does
not mean that I think the majority is free to impose its values on a minority (note the
phrase is not as great as. I did not say does not exists). It is more a
practical point when we evaluate different societies - the "badness" of a
society depends on the means employed and the number of people affected.
Third, there is the problem of "extreme" values. What if a few people
disagree with the value of honesty. Would it be wrong if we still tried to convey the
value of being honest in state-schools? I have to admit that this represents a problem.
Some people hold values so extreme, or some values are represented by so few people, that
it seems very impractical (costly) and/or intuitively appalling to respect their values.
The great problem, of course, is how to define what these "extreme" values are.
For example, many religions imply differential treatment of women (e.g. they are not
allowed to be priests in the Catholic Church). Does this represent "extremist"
values? The Labour Party in Norway seems to think so, and they recently voted that the
laws on equal treatment of women should apply to the state-Church (but, inconsistently,
the law does not apply to the non-state churches). Another example is abortion. Some
people think abortion is so morally appalling that almost any mean is justified to prevent
abortions from taking place. I cannot see a clear-cut solution to the issue of extreme
values. In practice it is impossible to create the ideal-society in which everybody's
rights are respected. Once again, this does not necessarily lead to the other extreme -
that we allow only one set of values. We may decide to allow quite a lot of what we think
is "extreme" values, only disregarding (by practical necessity and moral
indignation) a small sub-set of individuals and values.
What does it mean to be neutral?
In the paragraph below I used the phrase "practical necessity." I now want to
explain this a bit closer. I also want to examine what it means to act neutrally.
Political decisions may be placed on a scale indicating the degree to which it is
possible to leave it to the individuals, or whether the decision by its nature is such
that it has to be made on behalf of a group, thus disregarding the wishes of the minority.
An obvious example is traffic laws. We cannot leave it to individual preferences whether
to drive on the left or the right side of the road. A more important example (since it is
not just a question of co-ordination rules) is the decision to join an international
organization such as the EU, NATO or WTO. While some people in those countries may
disagree with the decision to join, they have to bow to the majority which wants to join.
It is simply impossible, by the nature of the situation, to have individual membership of
these organizations. Thus, traffic laws and joining international organizations are
examples of decisions that by their very nature have to be made on behalf of collectives.
Another set of state decisions do not necessarily involve collectives in the same
way. It is possible to leave peoples sexual preferences to themselves (e.g.
homosexuality). One might argue that this also affects the rest of the community, but it
seems difficult to argue that they by their very nature have to be made on behalf of
collectives. It is physically possible to have people with different sexual preferences in
the same community; It is not physically possible to leave the decision of which side of
the road to drive to the individual.
The problem with decisions that have to be made on behalf of collectives, is that it is
impossible to respect the values of every single individual. Some people may be strongly
against NATO, but as long as a majority is in favour it seems democratically acceptable to
join. (One might conceive of a higher order agreement to solve these collective decisions
by majority vote.).
One definition of neutrality, would be to avoid all laws except those that by their
nature have to be made on behalf of collectives. All other issues would be left to the
individual. I realize that this requirement is too strong. There may be arguments for and
against a law even if it concerns an issue that by its nature do not have to be made
binding for the whole collective. Politics, after all cannot - and should not - be neutral
on all issues. Maybe this is one key: It all depends on the issue. For example, a policy
of reducing support to all private schools is not neutral (it favours state schools above
private) - yet I am not (too) outraged by this policy as long as it is applied to all
schools (although I do disagree). Moreover, political question of redistribution are by
their very nature not neutral. Hence, I may argue that state-neutrality is required in
some areas (such as religion), but not in others (questions of wealth redistribution).
Conclusion
This observation started with my angry reaction to a discriminatory resolution at a party
conference about reducing the state-support for only some private schools. I then tried to
give some more examples illustrating the complexities of the concept of state-neutrality.
There is no clear conclusion, only more questions!
A note on sources
The resolution from the Left Socialist Party which set me going, is reported in the
newspaper "Vårt Land" (Monday 5. May, 1997, p. 7. See the last page of the
issue the next day. I was also inspired by the chapter "Why I am not an
environmentalist" by Steven E. Landsburg in his book The Armchair Economist
(The Free Press, 1993). He describes how his daughter was "taught" several
values (here: environmentalism) which he objected to in elementary school.
[Note for bibliographic reference: Melberg, Hans O. (1997), About reviewing
econometric textbooks, http://www.oocities.org/hmelberg/papers/970425.htm]