All men are equal. You have heard it touted by advocates on all flanks. In our Challenge B class, we have recently looked at current cultural issues that commonly use that argument: All men are equal and so should have equal rights. Turning this into a Categorical Syllogism, we arrived at:
All equal beings are deserving of equal rights. (Major Premise) All men are equal beings. (Minor Premise) Therefore, all men are deserving of equal rights. (Conclusion)
The battle cry in question comes from the Minor Premise.
Logical Fallacy and the Misuse of “Equal”
While this argument is logically valid, it is neither true nor sound. How so? As in any argument, debate, or even persuasive essay we must define the terms. What does “equal” mean? The dictionary tells us it means “the same as” or “of equal value.”
In the Minor Premise, the word suggests “of equal value,” equal worth. This was the original meaning. It invokes a sense of higher power, of higher authority, even though it is most often misquoted in order to eliminate the Source of that authority. “All men are created equal,” not “All men are equal.” Interestingly, many groups using this misquote from the Declaration of Independence are the same groups that vehemently pronounce the Declaration is not a “founding document” (thereby eliminating the idea that rights are endowed by the Creator rather than the State).
However, in the Major Premise, the word takes on a different undertone. Here, it abandons the original definition and mutates to the idea that all humans are “the same as” all other humans. The implication is that all humans with a pulse are worthy of equal rights. But is this true? Are all humans really equal in this manner? And are they all deserving of equal rights?
Standards of Behavior and the Loss of Rights
Yes, all men retain their value as creatures made in the image of God, but do all men retain their equal status, and thence, equal rights?
Do they maintain their status as “the same as” everyone else?
Prisoners do not. They are not considered “the same as” everyone else and their equal status is revoked. Once their behavior becomes illegal and they are imprisoned, they cede their right to take a walk in the park. Once a compulsive kleptomaniac’s behavior is discovered, he is no longer “the same as” the rest and loses his right to work at the bank. People who lie under oath commonly do not retain their right to maintain positions requiring great trust. Felons do not retain their right to carry a gun or to vote. People who promote marital infidelity or champion child neglect generally relinquish their right to give advice to newlyweds or new parents.
Our culture readily accepts this idea and has an established pattern of classifying some as not “the same as” the rest, based on their behavior. This societal norm denies rights to people based on illegal or immoral behavior. What does this mean? It means that while all men possess equal value, they do not necessarily possess or deserve equal rights.
So, what does “equal” mean in this, the Major Premise? In the much-used argument, it is obvious that “equal” does not mean “created equal,” it does not mean “of equal value.” Instead, it means “everyone is the same as everyone else, regardless of behavior.”
So, where does that leave us? We have a valid argument presented to us, but a term has tacitly changed its meaning midstream. In logic, this is called the Fallacy of Equivocation. An example: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4, KJV). Since you are a woman, you are not commanded to be obedient to God’s Word. Here, the term “man” changes meaning midstream, committing the Fallacy of Equivocation. And the argument logically falls apart.
The Importance of Logic in Understanding Culture
If we have an obviously fallacious argument, how is it that people are so easily convinced by it?
If we accept the idea that people lose rights when departing from established standards of behavior (and we do), then the only recourse is to deny that those established standards of behavior are legitimate. And that is where our culture has landed, in the land of denial. Deny that any standards of behavior exist and the fallacious argument now seemingly holds water. If we can be convinced that our nation was not founded on biblical standards of behavior, then we cannot appeal to those standards to prove our indictment of Equivocation. If you believe that our nation was not founded on God’s principles, you will assume you have the right to a godless school system and a godless government, and you will assume that you are “equal” to everyone else, regardless of your actions.
When the standards by which we define “equal” are rejected, the fallacy seems to disintegrate, and people become inclined to believe that any behavior is acceptable, and that their immoral, ungodly behavior has no effect on their status as “the same as” anyone else. Essentially, this is like proclaiming that your boss has no right to discriminate against you (or fire you) for stealing the company’s money, because stealing the company’s money breaks no standard of behavior.
Seems simple enough, but, unfortunately, our culture is full of gullible “bosses” who are more and more believing that stealing company money is not only acceptable, but is, indeed, noble!
Even the Challenge B students, eighth-graders with young minds, are beginning to grasp how valuable a tool logic is and how relevant it can be in our current culture. Giving them the tools and training to logically think through relevant issues is a critical advantage that Classical Conversations affords. And hopefully, by the grace of God, they will make a lasting impact on our culture, showing that while all men are created equal, any man can squander his status as “the-same-as-the-next-guy,” by departing from the standards God has laid out in life’s instruction manual.
How will Kentucky Amendment 2 affect our educational independence? Will it lead to less freedom for homeschoolers?
Listen to this thought-provoking conversation on this episode of Refining Rhetoric between Robert Bortins and Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. While Dr. Mohler is for the amendment, Robert is more skeptical.
Read our blog to learn more about Kentucky Amendment 2.
Traditionally, the United States acknowledged that the responsibility of educating children fell primarily on the parents of that child. This common consensus can be seen in Supreme Court rulings like the 1925 decision Pierce vs. the Society of Sisters, and in the Merriam-Webster 1828 dictionary definition of “educate.” The definition explicitly states, “To educate children well is one of the most important duties of parents and guardians.”
However, today, many of our leaders are offering a different answer to this question. They argue that it is primarily the government’s job to ensure that children are properly educated. Consider what James Dwyer, a Professor at the William & Mary School of Law, stated in an interview: “The state needs to be the ultimate guarantor of a child’s wellbeing.” Even President Joe Biden said in a speech to public school teachers, “They aren’t someone else’s, they are all our children.” Furthermore, our current education climate is dominated by the public school system, state regulations on education, and crackdowns on independent education. It is clear that, in the eyes of our leaders and legislatures, parents are no longer primarily responsible for the education of children.
This past year, this worldview shift took root in the great state of Colorado. In fact, this November, citizens of Colorado will vote on Amendment 80, which, if passed, would enshrine this novel idea into their state constitution. What is Amendment 80? What would be its effects? Should voters in Colorado support it in November? All of these questions, and more, must be considered by the citizens of Colorado so that they can be prepared to vote either “Yes” or “No” when the ballot comes their way.
“To educate children well is one of the most important duties of parents and guardians.”
Amendment 80
Amendment 80 reads, “Section 1. In the Constitution of the State of Colorado, add section 18 to Article IX as follows: section 18. Education – school choice (1) purpose and findings. The people of the state of Colorado hereby find and declare that all children have the right to equal opportunity to access a quality education; that parents have the right to direct the education of their children; and that school choice includes neighborhood, charter, private, and home schools, open enrollment options, and future innovations in education. (2) Each k-12 child has the right to school choice.”
Briefly put, this amendment seeks to enshrine four claims in the state constitution:
All children have the right to equal opportunity to access a quality education.
Parents have the right to direct the education of their children.
School Choice includes neighborhood, charter, private, and home schools, open enrollment options, and future innovations in education.
Each K-12 child has the right to School Choice.
While these things may sound appealing, there are severe implications that must be considered before you vote on Amendment 80.
A Warning to Colorado
Parental rights vs. Child’s rights
The amendment is centered around the idea of a child’s right to quality education. The first problem, of course, is that if you give children rights, then you practically abolish parental rights. Parental rights” are a negative right, while a so-called “child’s right to education” is a positive right. Carolyn Martin, Director of Government Relations for Christian Home Educators of Colorado (CHEC), defined a negative right in her article Right to an Education? as “the requirement of someone else not to interfere in your ability to obtain something.” Conversely, Martin explains that positive rights “are a requirement of someone else to provide you with something.”
Parental rights require the government to ensure that nothing obstructs a parent’s ability to fulfill their God-given responsibility to raise and educate their children. This right is turned upside down. If we implement “a child’s right to education,” suddenly it becomes the government’s responsibility and jurisdiction to provide “quality education” for all children everywhere. The immediate effect of this is the government can no longer “stay out of the way.” It must oversee, regulate, and manage the education of all children to ensure that a child’s so-called “right to quality education” is protected. As soon as we permit the government to oversee our children, we abolish parental rights.
How is “quality education” defined in Amendment 80?
The second problem with Amendment 80 is the vague language of “quality education.” The big question this amendment fails to answer is, who gets to define “quality education”? UNESCO (United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization), the globalist organization that is actively working to globalize education, defines quality education as DEI education. Their website says that it is their job to “Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.” When you sit down to educate your children, is teaching them diversity, equity, and inclusion your top priority? Hopefully not. But that is the priority of the elites who openly work to control your child’s education.
Parental rights require the government to ensure that nothing obstructs a parent’s ability to fulfill their God-given responsibility to raise and educate their children.
While the state of Colorado may not adopt UNESCO’s radical view of “quality education,” we must recognize that its definition has the potential to be hostile to a classical, Christian education. Most likely, its definition will look more like the public school system where the Bible is banned from classrooms, sex education is taught for all ages, and patriotism is cast to the side in exchange for progressivism.
In short, this amendment would enshrine in the Colorado Constitution that “The government is responsible for the education of your children.” This is such an egregious assault on parental rights and the natural law that organizations like CHEC are speaking out against this amendment and warning parents about the severe implications.
Protect Education Independence in Colorado!
In November, it is up to the voters of Colorado to protect your state from this blatant infringement on parental rights. Educate yourself on the amendment, share this information with your friends and family, and vote “NO” this November to protect your education independence.
For more information on what is on the Colorado ballot this November, visit coloradosos.gov.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical Conversations® graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. She is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. As she continues her journey towards the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” Proverbs 9:10 KJV
The question of how science relates to faith is one that seems to baffle many people, but this need not be so. This is a foundational issue, because the approach that a person has to this question will also influence how they think of faith in a wide variety of situations. Most people take one of three main approaches to the relationship of science and faith.
Approach 1: Science and Faith Cover Different Topics
One approach that is popular among theologians is to separate science and faith with a great wall preventing any entanglements between the two. This view was popularized by Steven Jay Gould, who used the acronym NOMA, which stands for “non-overlapping magisteria,” to describe it. In this view, science and faith cannot conflict, because they cover two different subjects, which do not overlap at any point. Science covers the objective, evidence-based principles and facts, and faith covers value-oriented ideas and ultimate meanings. This is also often called the fact/value split.
This view is endorsed by a wide variety of organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The stated goal of this approach is to clearly demarcate the lines between faith and science so that neither one crosses into the other. It also takes into account the differences in methodology, and assumed differences in content. For instance, science, in large part, uses the inductive method for determining truth, while faith is about trust and hope. Philosophers have long pointed out that science is unable to deal with questions of value and morality on its own, so NOMA simply implements the converse as well—if science cannot reach morality, then neither will faith be allowed to reach facts.
Of course, in reality, this split really does not work. Christianity does make claims that relate to the natural world. God has revealed Himself in history, and this has affected nature and history. Therefore, evidence, facts, science, and faith all come together. In addition, scientists are always trying to expand the scope of what science covers—and they should do this.
Therefore, at least in theory, NOMA blunts both science and faith. However, in practice, most people who claim NOMA actually mean “science deals with whatever it wants to, faith deals with whatever science hasn’t gotten to yet”. For instance, the concept of “free will” would seem to be a question of faith, and yet the National Academy of Sciences, which openly subscribes to NOMA, has published supposedly scientific papers that deal with the question of free will.
The NOMA position even finds its way into many church denominations. While most do not have official positions supporting NOMA, one usually finds very few voices within the church willing to present any explicitly Christian view of science, or any science topic, except for Christ’s resurrection. Instead, the furthest they are willing to go is to express disapproval when scientists attempt to derive ultimate meaning from their theories and observations.
Approach 2: Science and Faith in Conflict
Another approach to science and faith is the “conflict” or “warfare” idea. In this view, science and faith are essentially contradictory ways of viewing the world. A scientific view of the world necessarily puts a person in conflict with religious modes of thinking, and a person of faith necessarily takes a negative view of science and scientific methodology. In this approach, any overlap between positions of science and faith are taken to be purely coincidental.
This approach takes science and faith to be two full, mutually incompatible worldviews. That is, any given question can be answered in a scientific framework, just as it can be answered in a religious framework. Therefore, science and faith “compete” for the answers to each of life’s questions. Note how different this is than NOMA. Under NOMA, science and faith are both given limits to the scope of inquiry. In the “conflict” idea, science and faith are not limited in scope, but form two mutually incompatible ways of addressing the same question.
The interesting thing about the “conflict” idea is that it is usually only held to by atheists and agnostics—it is almost never held to by Christians. It is usually held to by people who have expanded science into a religious position itself. Christians always have room for science, but atheistic materialists (people who think that the physical world is all there is) must expand science to fill their own religious needs. Unfortunately, popular news coverage nearly always assumes the “conflict” approach, and does not realize that Christians don’t find a necessary conflict between the two.
If this approach is so one-sided and non-sensical, why does it keep coming up? The fact is, in nearly every aspect of life, there are tensions between ideas. There are tensions between ideas in various disciplines, or even within a single discipline. None of these tensions means that there is a necessary conflict between two positions—this is simply the natural result of having incomplete knowledge. As long as our knowledge is partial and imperfect, there will always be tensions among the various ideas we hold onto.
This makes it easy for detractors of Christianity to paint faith positions as being anti-science. One needs only to find an issue, no matter how marginal (or tenuous), which may be in conflict with some person’s faith position, and then proclaim, “See—faith and science are irreconcilable!” In addition, in fact, most of these are based more on interpretation of the evidence than anything else.
Approach 3: Faith Seeking Understanding
The best approach I have found for integrating science and faith is the “faith seeking understanding” approach. In this model, faith is the total worldview, and science operates as one of many approaches for finding truth within that worldview. As Christians, we find truth in many places. We turn to history to find the truths of the past. We turn to science to find the truths of nature. We turn to philosophy to find the nature of reason. First and foremost, we turn to the Bible to find the truths that govern the other truths. In such an approach, science is certainly one of the means that we use to find truth.
However, science plays a subservient role—it is a discipline whose results are to be judged and weighed by people of faith, it is not the judge over faith.
It is interesting that the coherence of science itself relies on this model. Science itself relies on, but does not provide, a way to test for truth. While science demands that theories correspond with the preponderance of physical data, there are usually many theories, which have the same or similar correspondence. This comes as a surprise to many—most people assume that there is always only one theory, which is valid for a given set of data. The fact is, in many cases, the test for scientific truth is an aesthetic one. Scientists opt for theories, which are simple, elegant, and concise—in other words, beautiful theories. The only valid justification for this is that we expect this because of the nature of God that faith reveals.
This also means that, as Christians, when we participate in science, we should bring the expectations of Christianity with us. For instance, in my own research, I use as a starting assumption the idea that the genome is a designed system. Using that understanding, I have a better appreciation for what is happening within the genome. Since I believe that it is designed, I can reasonably compare it to other designed systems and make inferences and predictions based on those comparisons.
Teaching Our Children about Science
So how does this help us teach our children about science? We must teach our children, in every subject, to think about how various ideas make sense (or do not) within the context of Christianity. When we find ideas that do not make sense, we should ask ourselves—is this because of a lack of knowledge or a wrong interpretation of the evidence? If our goal is to bring every thought to the obedience of Christ, this must include science.
This does not mean that we should ignore subjects, which we have trouble integrating with our faith. Though future posts will cover this issue in more detail, we simply should attempt to understand such subjects thoroughly, teach ourselves to scrutinize the subjects well, and hold each idea to account under Christ.
You can see this “faith seeking understanding” approach reflected in the curriculum at Classical Conversations. Phil Johnson’s book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, used in the Challenge B curriculum, is one of the best introductory books not just on creation and evolution, but on the whole notion of academic study in any discipline from a theistic viewpoint. Likewise, the Apologia science curriculum used throughout the Challenge program also points in the same direction.
The origin of the public school system has all but been forgotten in the Western world. We seem to be under the impression that government schools have always been and always will be. However, a quick glance into history dismantles this ignorant idea. To understand the origin of government schools, we must examine a few basic questions:
Who came up with the idea of government-run education?
When was the first public school established?
What is the goal of public education?
American citizens, specifically parents, deserve to know the answer to these simple contextual questions because, as Aristotle observed, before you can know what a thing is, you must understand what it was designed to do. So, what were the public schools designed to do?
Origin of Government Schools
The idea of government schools was first proposed by a man named Robert Owen. Owen was a utopian collectivist who wanted to use universal government education to condition populations to accept the conditions of communism. Sounds promising, right? If you are not familiar with Owen and his work, I encourage you to read Global Utopia and Government Schools.
Continuing down the timeline of public education, we then become acquainted with a man named Horace Mann. It is likely that you have a vague recollection of Mann, though he is not talked about nearly enough. You may remember him as the father of public education or the great public school evangelist. However, I would propose that history remembers Horace Mann for what he truly was—a cynical theorist and a hypocritical reformist.
Born in 1796 to a poor farming family in Franklin, Massachusetts, Mann was largely self-educated because he could only attend school six weeks out of the year. During his childhood, he applied himself to studies at the Franklin public library and eventually attended Brown University in 1816, where he graduated as valedictorian. In 1822, he furthered his studies at Litchfield Law School, and the following year, he practiced law in Dedham, Massachusetts. His career in law was short-lived because, in 1827, Mann ran and won an election for the Massachusetts House of Representatives, where he would serve for six years.
When Horace Mann was elected to the Massachusetts State Senate in 1835, it became evident that he had a promising political career. With such a bright future ahead of him, Mann’s colleagues, friends, and family were shocked when he threw it all away in 1837 and turned his attention to radical education reform.
“Public Education is the cornerstone of our community and our democracy.” — Horace Mann
The First Board of Education
Mann’s great ambition was to establish a nationwide, mandated, government-run, and controlled school system. He wrote, “Public Education is the cornerstone of our community and our democracy.” Some may counter that democracy is the cornerstone of our democracy, but regardless, Mann strongly believed that he would be the patriot to establish the American “cornerstone” of public education.
He quickly recognized, however, that before this could happen, these measures had to be executed on a local scale. In Massachusetts, there were a few publicly funded schools here and there (the first of which had been established in the 17th century by Puritans with legislation called the “Old Deluder Satan Law of 1647“), so Mann turned his attention to the creation of the first Board of Education. This he accomplished very rapidly in 1837, and that same year, Mann accepted the position of secretary to the Board.
The function of the Board of Education was to oversee all education in the state of Massachusetts. It was so well-liked by legislators and politicians that only thirty years later, President Andrew Johnson promoted it to the federal level and was given the official title “The Department of Education.” However, according to the Department’s history, only one short year later, it was demoted to an Office of Education “due to concern that the Department would exercise too much control over local schools.”
Happily for Horace, unhappily for the American people, it was reinstated by Congress in 1979. In 2024 alone, the Department’s budget was 90 billion dollars. With so many billions of dollars at its disposal, Americans should begin asking the question first posed by politicians in the 19th century: “Does the Department exercise too much control over local schools?”
This pressing question was clearly not a concern of Horace Mann because after establishing the Board of Education, his interest was piqued by the Prussian government, which had been actively imposing a universal government-run and controlled public school system for decades. What did this system look like? And could it be duplicated in the land of the free? In 1843, Mann traveled to Prussia to answer these questions.
The Prussian Model
In 1806, Frederick William III, King of Prussia, was defeated by Napoleon at the battle of Jena-Auestedt. In reaction to this embarrassing defeat, the Prussian elite blamed the independent and freethinking Prussian population for Napoleon’s victory rather than their own military miscalculations. They decided they no longer wanted soldiers and citizens who could think for themselves; instead, they wanted submissive people who they could move around like pieces in a game of political chess.
“The goal was to make the bulk of the population compliant servants rather than free individuals who could think for themselves and create and enrich the Prussian culture.”[1]
It was then that the Prussian leaders learned of Robert Owen’s idea to implement a government-run and controlled school system to shape and condition the population. According to Owen’s account, they agreed with the utopists that complete collectivism could only be accomplished through state indoctrination. By 1819, this system of schooling was firmly established throughout Prussia.
The Prussian model of education segregated the population into three tiers, or “social rank,” based on what education they received:
Akademiensschulen (Academy schools) prepared students to be future policymakers and leaders. They were taught a wide range of subjects and learned to think critically, write well, read profusely, and strategize.
Realsschulen (secondary school) prepared the “professional proletariats” to be useful to the upper class. They became engineers, doctors, lawyers, and architects.
Volksschulen (elementary school), or “people’s school,” taught most of the population to be submissive, passive, and obedient. In practice, they were functionally illiterate and were only taught history that would fuel blissful patriotism.
This was the system that Horace Mann observed in his trip to Prussia. His response to such intellectual atrocities was not to condemn the government for manipulating its citizens and turning the populace into intellectual zombies. Far from it! Instead, he lauded the Prussian government and raced back to America to replicate this system of federal-centric schooling.
Eventually, in 1872, the Prussian government banned all alternative schooling methods, including private schools and homeschooling, according to the Prussian School Inspection Law of 1872. The Law stated, “By annulment of any contrary regulations in individual regions, the supervision of all public and private school and educational institutions is solely under the control of the state.” [2]
“Education of the state, by the state, for the state,” as Alex Newman wrote in his book Indoctrinating Our Children to Death, might be a utopian dream; however, the results it immediately produces are far from heavenly:
Reduced illiteracy and test scores
Compulsory tax-funding
Government-prescribed curriculum
National testing
Government-run teacher training and certification
Students are tracked by vocational and academic aptitudes.
Today, the country of Prussia no longer exists, but it is clear that government schools have long outlasted their founding nation. Indeed, “Deeds survive the doers,” as Horace Mann once wrote. Since 1872, government schools have been producing the same results—dumb populations and government control. With such disastrous results, why did Horace Mann export this failing education reform into his own country?
Horace the Hypocrite
Like Robert Owen before him, Mann was driven by utopian fantasies. He believed that he was responsible for ensuring their implementation in the land of the free by establishing a government school monopoly. For example, he wrote,
“Education…beyond all other devices of human origin, is a great equalizer of conditions of men — the balance wheel of the social machinery…It does better than to disarm the poor of their hostility toward the rich; it prevents being poor.”
This is the message that was paraded around the United States and sold to millions of parents. “Give us your children to raise and train, and we will end world hunger,” seems to be the official slogan of Horace Mann.
Why is it that utopians always steal liberty under the guise of “ending poverty?”
The obvious and immediate challenge to Horace’s statement is if he truly wished for education to be “a great equalizer of conditions of men,” why on earth would he travel to Prussia (a country that was intentionally segregating its population on the basis of education), laud its inherently unequal educational system, and then spend the majority of his professional career working to have it implemented in the United States?
Maybe he believed the public schools just hadn’t been done right yet. Perhaps he truly believed in his mission and really thought children would get the best education in the classroom. You would hope, at least, that Mann would align his own life to the philosophy and schools he mandated for others.
On the contrary! The truth is that Horace Mann refused to send his own three children to a public or “common school,” and instead, he personally homeschooled each of them! Perhaps Horace’s nickname should have been “Horace the Hypocrite.” If he did not believe his own children should go to a public school, why did Mann want them nationalized in the first place?
Horace, the Cynical Reformist
The reality is that Horace Mann feared and distrusted two groups of people: parents and Catholics.
“Horace Mann and his 19th-century education reform colleagues were deeply fearful of parental authority—particularly as the population became more diverse and, in Massachusetts as elsewhere, Irish Catholic immigrants challenged existing cultural and religious norms.” [3]
Because utopians believe it is their responsibility to perfect mankind’s environment and thereby perfect man himself, they cannot trust individual parents to raise their own children because “what if they do a poor job?“
“From a hundred platforms, Mann had lectured that the need for better schools was predicated upon the assumption that parents could no longer be entrusted to perform their traditional roles in moral training and that a more systematic approach within the public school was necessary. Now, as a father, he fell back on the educational responsibilities of the family, hoping to make the fireside achieve for his own son what he wanted the schools to accomplish for others.”[4]
Jonathan Messerli, Mann Biographer
As Mann said, “We who are engaged in the sacred cause of education are entitled to look upon all parents as having given hostages to our cause.” Those “hostages,” of course, are children. Children, who Mann viewed as test subjects in Robert Owen’s case study.
The only thing more terrifying than a parent doing a “bad job” raising their children, in the eyes of Mann and his utopian friends, was Catholic parents raising their children in their faith.
The Massachusetts state legislator commented on the influx of Irish Catholic immigrants, saying, “Those now pouring in upon us, in masses of thousands upon thousands, are wholly of another kind in morals and intellect.” [5]
This was more than a question of “How can we help these people assimilate into American culture?” This was a question of control: “How can a diverse group of people with specific cultures, faiths, and traditions be controlled under one political dogma?” How, indeed?
Robert Owen taught that in order to control a people, you must first control their minds. And so, he instructed his followers, the Prussians and now Mann, to commit themselves to this pursuit of intellectual control.
“To train and educate the rising generation will at all times be the first object of society, to which every other will be subordinate.” — Robert Owen
We must understand that Horace Mann did not have decent motives in imposing government schools on America. He did not believe in the cause. In reality, he was a cynical theorist, hypocritical reformer, and a secret homeschool dad. This is how he ought to be remembered.
The Legacy
In 1848, shortly after his visit to Prussia, Mann resigned as secretary of the Board of Education to take the seat of John Quincy Adams in the US House of Representatives. In 1853, he stepped away from politics for the last time and became the President of Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio. Here, he spent a lot of his time writing and training his students to further his plans for establishing Prussian education in the United States. You can find his writings here.
While at Antioch, Horace Mann inspired a class of graduates with the words, “Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.” There is hardly any doubt that, when he died in 1859, Mann believed he had won a great victory for the utopian cause through his American education reform.
Regretfully, for future generations of American children and families, the deeds of the Prussian elites and Horace Mann have outlived them. Even 187 years later, we still live under Horace Mann’s government agency, the Department of Education, which dogmatically and obsessively dictates what millions of children are taught every single day.
Somedays, it can seem that we are inching ever closer to a time when “all public and private schools and educational institutions are solely under the control of the state,” as it was in Mann’s beloved Prussian education system.
But we must not be discouraged because, though the deeds of Horace Mann outlived him all these years, our deeds today can outlive us as well. If we continue to fight for the educational independence we desire and deserve, our children and their children will live to see a day where the government does not raise children and where utopian theories are not imposed on populations; rather, they will live in a free country where true, free-market, God-honoring education flourishes.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical Conversations® graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. She is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. As she continues her journey towards the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!
[1] Delphine, R. (n.d.). “The Prussian Model of Education.” STEMiteracy. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from https://www.stemiteracy.org/the-prussian-model
[2] “School Inspection Law of March 11, 1872.” GHDI, Retrieved September 10, 2024, from https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=670#:~:text=School%20Inspection%20Law%20of%20March,the%20control%20of%20the%20state
[3] McDonald, K. (2017, May 1). “The Devastating Rise of Mass Schooling.” FEE. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from https://fee.org/articles/the-devastating-rise-of-mass-schooling/
[4] Messerli, Jonathan. Horace Mann: A Biography. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972, p. 429.
[5] McDonald, K. (2017, May 1). “The Devastating Rise of Mass Schooling.” FEE. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from https://fee.org/articles/the-devastating-rise-of-mass-schooling/
There has been an international push over many decades to create a right of education for children. The United Nations (UN) through UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) has been at the forefront of this push and they have established several treaties beginning in 1960 with the UN Convention Against Discrimination in Education. Interestingly, the United States (US) has declined to ratify these treaties. Homeschoolers fought hard against the ratification by the US Senate of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) since it was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995. Despite this, individual states and the federal government have been implementing various aspects of these treaties through their lawmaking process for years.
Parental Rights or Rights of the Child
In Colorado, we have seen for some time now a shift away from parental rights to the rights of a child, including when it comes to education. There have even been some attempts this year to put the right of a child to a quality education in the Colorado Constitution. Under the biblical order of the family, it is parents who steward the rights of children until they are capable of handling the responsibility of exercising their rights on their own.
Positive Rights vs. Negative Rights
Attorney Kevin Boden, from HSLDA, gave those who attended the class at CHEC’s Homeschool Day at the Capitol a quick lesson on the difference between positive rights and negative rights. Negative rights are the requirements of someone else not to interfere in your ability to obtain something. He referred us to the 4th Amendment guarantee to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause. The government is responsible for making sure they do not infringe on our right of property. Positive rights are a requirement of someone else to provide you with something. Here, he referred to the 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial, which the government must provide through its taxpayer-funded judicial system.
The parental right to direct the upbringing, care, and education of their children is a negative right. The government must secure that fundamental right given to us by God and not infringe upon it. A right of a child to a quality education is a positive right. It would require the government to provide for the education and ensure the quality of it. Home education would be subjected to greater scrutiny because the government would have a duty to evaluate the quality and content of the education being provided by the parents. Nature’s law is based on negative rights, not positive rights, but the world system is trying to move all nation states toward the positive rights structure through the UN treaties.
Ideas have Consequences
Ideas have consequences, and we must be careful to choose wisely what ideas we support and stay true to God’s order for the family and education. As the election season heats up, let’s make sure we ask probing questions of those who want to represent us! Do they support parental rights, and what does that mean to them? Do they know the difference between children’s rights and parent’s rights? How will they ensure we have the freedom to home educate our children without government intrusion?
Our parental rights are in danger, and we must stand together to preserve them.
Colorado Amendment 80 is on the ballot on November 5. Before you walk into the voting booth, educate yourself and inform others to do so as well. Amendment 80 could open the doors to unintended consequences in our fight for educational independence and protecting our homeschool freedoms. As citizens, it is our responsibility to be informed of what our government officials are doing!
Carolyn Martin serves as CHEC’s Director of Government Relations, working for you and other liberty-loving families to protect homeschool freedom, parental rights, and religious liberty at the state capitol. Subscribe to the CHEC blog for Carolyn’s regular updates here, learn more about legal issues in Colorado here, and donate to support Homeschool Freedom here. Contact Carolyn directly at carolyn@chec.org.
The purpose of education is to know God and to make Him known; therefore, we believe education, like religion, is a sacred pursuit outside the jurisdiction of the state.
Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 2 would allow state funding for non-public education.
The Kentucky legislature passed Amendment 2 earlier this year. It will be on your ballot this fall. Amendment 2 will change the fabric of the state government by changing the Kentucky Constitution.
In a Nutshell
Amendment 2 can potentially compromise Education Independence. The language of the amendment and the existing authority by law could give taxpayer money to independent homeschoolers, leading to possible government oversight and regulation of their homeschools or legally changing the definition of the homeschooler in the state.
Below is a summary of the amendment’s language, concerns, and possible implications for Kentuckians. At the bottom of this news bulletin, you will find background information on government-funded homeschooling and resources.
“Section 2. IT IS PROPOSED THAT A NEW SECTION BE ADDED TO THE CONSTITUTION OF KENTUCKY TO READ AS FOLLOWS: The General Assembly may provide financial support for the education of students outside the system of common schools. The General Assembly may exercise this authority by law, Sections 59, 60, 171, 183, 184, 186, and 189 of this Constitution notwithstanding.”
Concerns & Possible Implications
Section 186:“All funds accruing to the school fund shall be used for the maintenance of the public schools of the Commonwealth, and for no other purpose.“
Would Section 186 Necessitate Private and Homeschools to Become Public Schools?
We have seen instances in other states where homeschoolers opt in for a program, and they are no longer legally classified (with its protections) as homeschoolers.
In Arizona, for example, the student is legally referred to as an “ESA student” and no longer qualifies as a homeschool student by law, as stated by the Arizona Department of Education. “ESA students…are not considered “homeschool” students by state law.”
Section 189: “No portion of any fund or tax now existing … shall be appropriated to, or used by, or in aid of, any church, sectarian or denominational school.”
Would Amendment 2 Contradict Section 189?
Section 189’s language seems to be very clear on this matter.
The South Carolina Supreme Court recently ruled that the Education Scholarship Trust Fund (ESTF) (Act) was unconstitutional for this reason.
Watch Out for Policy Creep
Although the amendment does not pass School Choice law, we must acknowledge that it provides the opportunity for such legislation and the opportunity for policy creep in Kentucky. To aid your understanding of Education Independence and School Choice, hereis an article to help you. In Addition, investigate the resources below before you vote on Amendment 2.
Protect the Constitution & Education Independence on Election Day
Kentuckians can protect the state constitution and Kentucky from future bad policy.
Before election day, explore the resources below and share this urgent information. Protect Education Independence in your state and vote against the public capture of private education.
You Are Invited!
Classical Conversations cordially invites members of the community to an open forum to discuss Amendment 2. This important event will occur on October 9, 2024, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM at the Warren County Public Library, 175 Iron Skillet Ct., Bowling Green, KY 42104.
Join us for an engaging discussion led by Robert Bortins, CEO of Classical Conversations. This event serves as a conservative Christian rally for education independence.
Sadie Aldaya is the Manager of Research & Policy for Classical Conversations® . Sadie and her husband homeschooled for over 20 years. She served as a Classical Conversations field representative for 15 years, providing community and support for other homeschooling families. Sadie’s passions are to stop government encroachment in areas where they have no authority or jurisdiction and to see Christians return to a biblical Christ-centered worldview.
Guess what? It’s time for another trip to the grocery store! I typically have a list of items that I intend to purchase. However, recently, I have found myself walking past items like apples only to say, “4 lbs. of Honey Crisp apples are not worth $7.25; that is too expensive.” Maybe you would have done the exact opposite and purchased the apples because you heard your grandma’s voice saying, “An apple a day keeps the doctor away!” To buy or not to buy apples might seem unimportant at this moment, but there is a more important thought to consider. How do we assign value to that bag of apples?
Talking About Educational Freedom
In her article “Independence,” Lauren Gideon said, “The cost of independence is expensive, but what is the value of freedom?” The reality is that the answer to this question might look different for each of us. Just like my earlier example of buying apples, we each have different reasons for valuing homeschooling and the freedom that comes with it. How do we find a way to come together when our value of an issue might not look quite the same? In the Challenge II Guide, under the Debate strand descriptions and goals, it states, “This strand holds together the ideas that we must learn to reason and argue well, that we must learn lessons of the past, and that we must seek harmony with our fellow man.”
The unfolding of this goal in my own home has been extremely beautiful. Hard conversations are just that, hard. However, with these skill sets of reasoning, arguing well, learning from the past, and seeking harmony with our fellow man, we are given the tools to navigate through hard conversations. So, let’s get to talking! There is value in talking about Educational Freedom!
What We Know
The Wyoming Education Savings Act was signed into law on March 21, 2024, and is governed by W.S. SS 21-2-901 through 21-2-909. It will go into effect for the 2025-2026 school year.
Families with a household income below 150% of the federal poverty guidelines will qualify.
21-2-903 (a) The total amount to be deposited in an education savings account for an ESA student each year shall be determined by the student’s household income compared to the federal poverty levels, using the most recent federal poverty guidelines for the student’s household size and income, as follows; six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) for students whose household income is at or below one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the federal poverty level.
Parents must ensure their children receive instruction in core subjects and take annual proficiency tests.
21-2-904 (b) (ii) (B) Requires that the ESA student take the statewide assessments administered pursuant to W.S. 21-2-304(a) or a nationally normed achievement exam.
The State Superintendent will be solely responsible for the ESA program.
21-2-905 (b) The state superintendent shall establish procedures for approving applications in an expeditious manner.
21-2-907 (a) Before receiving payment from an ESA, a prospective education service provider shall: (i) Be certified by the state superintendent of public instruction pursuant to W.S. 21-2-906(a) to receive payments from ESAs.
What We Don’t Know
New legislatures and programs often leave us wondering how they will all come together in the end. Maybe you had some questions as you read through the new ESA program in Wyoming. I know that I did. Even as I began writing this article, I still had many unanswered questions. What an excellent opportunity to practice those rhetorical skills that we are instilling in our students! As I navigated this topic of government-funded homeschooling, I quickly realized that being educated on not only current ESA policy but also past ESA policy in other states was the most efficient way to have a voice.
What do you do if you don’t know how to bake an apple pie? You go to a reliable source. Maybe that is your grandmother, or maybe it is Pinterest. In either case, the education begins! Here are a few ways to educate ourselves and find the answers to the things we don’t know.
In Wyoming, we are blessed with a state homeschool organization called Homeschool Wyoming. The folks at Homeschool Wyoming work diligently to defend our homeschool rights. They have read the legislation, broken it apart, and gleaned all the information available to help educate homeschool families in Wyoming. I encourage you to reach out to them and ask your questions.
Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is a non-profit advocacy organization that makes homeschooling possible by protecting homeschooling families and equipping them to provide the best educational experience for their children. On its webpage, HSLDA offers state-specific information on home school law in a user-friendly and approachable way. Contacting and talking to an HSLDA representative is easy; they are knowledgeable and resourceful.
Contact your local representative. They vote on our legislation; they are our voice. They have read the bills, worked with the committees, and taken phone calls from their constituents. If you are unsure of who your representatives are, you can find them by going to Wyoming Legislators.
The Wyoming Department of Education (WDE) is another resource for educating yourself specifically about education-related topics. After not seeing some of the things I had questions about while researching for this article, I contacted the WDE. I received a return call quickly, and every question I had was answered to the best of their knowledge.
Classical Conversations® itself also offers a variety of information on Educational Freedom. If you are new to the idea of Educational Freedom, this is the place to start!
“An educated person is not someone who knows something, but someone who can explain what they know to others.” Leigh A. Bortins, The Core.
Let’s get educated. Let’s commit to knowing. Let’s raise awareness. Let’s explain what we know to others. If not for someone initiating this conversation with me, I would never have moved toward being better educated on educational freedom and ESAs. We have the ability to know what we didn’t know before!
Moving Forward
Let’s go back to my original question. How do we assign value to that bag of apples? It isn’t really about apples, is it?It is about the value of the educational freedoms that we currently have and the value of maintaining them. The Apostle Paul writes, “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Ephesians 4:1-3)
As we move forward into the uncharted waters of Educational Savings Accounts and government-funded homeschool options in Wyoming, my hope is that we walk in a manner that is honoring to Christ, that our conversations are seasoned with humility, gentleness, grace, and patience, that we continue to love one another and strive to maintain the unity of the Spirit. Will we always agree? No. Will we answer all of the questions?Probably not. But I confidently believe we can remain unified through Christ and grow through hard conversations. It is my prayer for the state of Wyoming to continue to honor and value our educational freedoms as homeschoolers. Please join me in this prayer!
Laura Taylor lives in northeast Wyoming. She and her husband, Pete, have four children aged 11 to 17. Laura is a Support Representative for northeast Wyoming and serves as a Challenge Director in her CC Community. She strives to seek God daily, support Pete in his business endeavors, and educate their children all for God’s glory. She enjoys gathering with friends and family and avidly supports her kids’ shooting sports activities. It is her prayer that in their daily lives, they can point others to Christ and the richness that can be found in a relationship with him.
In December of 1860, Frederick Douglas was slated to lead a discussion on the abolition of slavery for a Boston audience of fellow abolitionists. An angry mob opposing abolition took over the stage and shouted down the discussion. Six days later, in a gathering at Boston’s Music Hall, Douglass ended his lecture with a brief address criticizing how the earlier event was handled—by the protestors, Boston’s mayor, and even supporters of Douglass who expressed reluctance to criticize the mob’s clear violation of free speech. Douglass described the earlier meeting as having been “captured by a mob of gentlemen and dispersed by the order of the mayor, who refused to protect it…”1
Douglass went on to note the irony. These men who shouted him down were not rowdy, uneducated drunkards but “men who pride themselves upon their respect for law and order.” But as gentlemen proclaimed their “law of slavery,” he noted, the “law of free speech . . . [was] trampled under foot . . .” Douglass described this incident as “instructive.”2
How so? What can we, the citizens of the same nation, learn from this seemingly minor historical event, which happened 164 years ago? Surely, we have grown to understand and appreciate our right to freedom of speech.
Enjoy Your Free Speech
Maybe not. On April 25, 2024, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, addressed the students and faculty at Columbia University, an institution he defines as “one of America’s preeminent academic institutions.”3 The purpose of his speech was to condemn the violent pro-Palestinian protests that had exploded on campus and to call for the resignation of Columbia’s president, Minouche Shafik, for her failure to protect freedom of speech on Columbia’s campus and enforce school policies protecting all students.
The same students, who had sought to silence and intimidate Jewish and pro-Israel students on campus, jeered and shouted, “We can’t hear you,” attempting to end Johnson’s speech just as the mob of gentlemen attempted to shout down Douglass. Undaunted, Johnson responded, “Enjoy your free speech,” and, in a similar spirit to that of Douglass, continued his address.4
Three Lessons From Douglas on Free Speech
These two incidents of lawless attacks on freedom of speech are startlingly similar regarding both the words and actions involved and the supposedly enlightened, privileged status of the perpetrators. It seems, after all, we should revisit the instructive lessons from our past. In Douglass’ closing comments at the Music Hall, he outlined three lessons he drew from his experience of having that freedom attacked.
Every person, regardless of race, gender, social, economic, or educational status, has the same right to speak. No one is to be excluded. The freedom of speech is the common right of all men. Douglass stated, “No right was deemed by the fathers of the Government more sacred than the right of speech. It was in their eyes, as in the eyes of all thoughtful men, the great moral renovator of society and government.”5
It is the responsibility of governmental and institutional authorities to lawfully uphold, protect, and defend all citizens’ freedom to speak. The equal enforcement of the law is critical. After chastising Boston’s mayor for capitulating to the angry mob, Douglass emphasized, “There can be no right of speech where any man, however, lifted up, or however humble, however young, or however old, is overawed by force, and compelled to suppress his honest sentiments.”6
Freedom of speech provides opportunities to hear as well as to speak. Douglass wisely understood that it is as important to hear other people express their ideas freely as it is for us to freely speak our own.Our right to freedom of speech offers us a double blessing. Douglass concluded his speech with this reflection: “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money.”7
Each of Douglass’s assertions have not only been confirmed and defended throughout America’s history, but policies protecting freedom of speech have been confirmed in liberal intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, such as Amnesty International.
A Universal Right That’s Not So Universal
The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights was to set “a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations . . . fundamental human rights to be universally protected…”8Article 19, in particular, addresses freedom of speech and states that the individual must have the right to freely express their opinions and ideas “without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”9Amnesty International, an independent, international, non-governmental organization, states that its mission includes the commitment to help fight abuses of human rights worldwide and to free people jailed just for voicing their opinion.
Both international organizations support freedom of speech for all people echoing America’s First Amendment right which was ratified in 1791. The First Amendment was written well before both the writing of United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the founding of Amnesty International in 1961 emphasizing America’s earlier declaration of our sacred right to freedom of speech.
The importance of Douglass’s second point that it is the responsibility of governmental and institutional authorities to lawfully defend a citizen’s freedom to speak has been exemplified by the widespread suppression of speech affirming conservative values, or in Columbia’s case, pro-Israel values in university classrooms and on campuses across the country in recent months. The failure of university administrators to defend this freedom and the rationalizations used to justify their actions is symptomatic of our country’s breakdown in protecting its citizens. This type of institutional cowardice and negligence has become blatantly obvious.
Douglass’ own response to this type of negligence was to strongly urge his Boston audience that “…the time to assert a right is the time when the right itself is called in question, and that the men of all others to assert it are the men to whom the right has been denied.”10
If We Are Brave, We’ll Win the Fight
Free speech requires a courageous defense not only from citizens but, most importantly, from the institutions responsible for upholding this freedom through equal application of the law, even in the face of threats and opposition. In an address to his organization, American Cornerstone Institute, Dr. Ben Carson states, “…if we are persistent…if we are courageous, if we are brave, we’ll win that fight.”11— the fight to avoid America’s movement toward being a totalitarian state where free speech is unsupported, or worse, opposed by law.
Douglass’s third point that freedom of speech provides opportunities for a citizen to hear as well as to speak, was articulated earlier in 1859 in the famous treatise, On Liberty, by the 19th-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill. He makes this point incisively.
“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. “12
This doctrine has come to be defined as the doctrine of counterspeech—”…is one of the most important free-expression principles in First Amendment jurisprudence.”13It derives from the theory that audiences, or recipients of the expression, can weigh for themselves the values of competing ideas and, hopefully, follow the better approach.”14
Freedom of Speech Only Matters When You Don’t Like What Someone Has to Say
The danger of silencing speech has also been tested in our Supreme Court system. In the case of Whitney v. California (1927), Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis’s concurring opinion advanced the protection of the freedom of speech and has become a “…critical justifications for safeguarding freedom of speech even under the most challenging conditions.”15 He wrote: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”16
The closing instructive comments by Douglass in December 1860 are as applicable today as they were 164 years ago. Our fight to protect and defend our freedom of speech for every citizen in our nation is crucial.
Douglass concluded his final remarks with the statement, “The principle [freedom of speech] must rest upon its own proper basis. And until the right is accorded to the humblest as freely as to the most exalted citizen, the government of Boston [and the United States of America] is but an empty name, and its freedom a mockery.
A man’s right to speak does not depend upon where he was born or upon his color. The simple quality of manhood is the solid basis of the right—and there let it rest forever.”17
Enjoy your free speech.
Amy Jones is an Instructional Designer for Classical Conversations®. She and her husband of 36 years raised four children in the beautiful foothills of the Tennessee Appalachian Mountains. Amy and Whit thoroughly enjoyed homeschooling their children through high school. During this journey, the Jones’ were blessed to participate in a Classical Conversations® community, even tutoring and directing several programs. Now blessed with nine grandchildren, Amy enjoys writing Classical Conversations® materials for young learners in the Scribblers tier.
Douglass, Frederick. “A Plea for Free Speech in Boston (1860).” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.Org, 2024, constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/frederick-douglass-a-plea-for-free-speech-in-boston-1860. ↩︎
Allen, Hugh. “Mike Johnson Columbia Palestine Protest.” Rev, 2024, www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/mike-johnson-speaks-at-columbia-university ↩︎
Allen, Hugh. “Mike Johnson Columbia Palestine Protest.” Rev, 2024, www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/mike-johnson-speaks-at-columbia-university ↩︎
Douglass, Frederick. “A Plea for Free Speech in Boston (1860).” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.Org, 2024, constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/frederick-douglass-a-plea-for-free-speech-in-boston-1860 ↩︎
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations, United Nations, www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights#:~:text=Article%2019,media%20and%20regardless%20of%20frontiers. Accessed 12 Aug. 2024. ↩︎
Douglass, Frederick. “A Plea for Free Speech in Boston (1860).” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.Org, 2024, constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/frederick-douglass-a-plea-for-free-speech-in-boston-1860. ↩︎
Carson, Ben. “Dr. Ben Carson’s Most Important Speech.” Rick Walker Podcast, YouTube, 2023, www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1Tj-Q6MxU&t=818s. ↩︎
Mill, John Stuart. “John Stuart Mill.” Oxford Reference, 2024, www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191843730.001.0001/q-oro-ed5-00007298. ↩︎
“Counterspeech Doctrine Archives.” The Free Speech Center, firstamendment.mtsu.edu/encyclopedia/case/counterspeech-doctrine/#:~:text=The%20counterspeech%20doctrine%20posits%20that,hopefully%2C%20follow%20the%20better%20approach. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024. ↩︎
Serafin, Tatiana. “Brandeis Concurring with Holmes in Whitney v. California, 1927.” First Amendment Watch, 30 Sept. 2022, firstamendmentwatch.org/history-speaks-brandeis-concurring-holmes-whitney-v-california-1927/. ↩︎
Douglass, Frederick. “A Plea for Free Speech in Boston (1860).” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.Org, 2024, constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/frederick-douglass-a-plea-for-free-speech-in-boston-1860. ↩︎
Homeschool Days at the Capitol, Legislative Days, Capitol Days, Pie Day, and other similar events foster communication between parents and their elected representatives. Seize this excellent opportunity to teach your children the importance of the legislative process. Help them mature into civic leaders who will help protect American freedoms.
The chart below lists October Homeschool Days at the Capitol. Check your state’s dates here if it’s not listed below.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
