Schools in liberal societies are responsible for producing liberal citizens. However, if they have too robust a view of citizenship, they may find themselves undermining the view of good lives held by many pacific and law abiding groups. Here I argue against treating citizenship as an educational good that simply trumps private values when they conflict and in favor of a view that seeks a context sensitive balance between such conflicting goods. The paper explores Rawls's distinction between two moral powers (...) as a way of understanding the character of some of the private interests in schooling. (shrink)

This paper discusses the role of religious speech in the public square and the common school. It argues for more openness to political theology than many liberals are willing to grant and for an educational strategy of engagement over one of avoidance. The paper argues that the exclusion of religious debate from the public square has dysfunctional consequences. It discusses Rawls’s more recent views on public reason and claims that, while they are not altogether adequate, they are consistent with engagement. (...) The outcome of these arguments is applied to three ‘hot button’ issues in US education: creationism, an issue of gay rights, and teaching the Bible in schools. (shrink)

This paper examines two questions. The first is what it would mean for schools to be communities. This question is pursued by examining four metaphors for community: families, congregations, guilds, and democratic polities. Three models of school communities are then sketched. The second question is whether schools that are communities are inherently illiberal. The paper distinguishes between a liberal interpretation of schools as communities, where schools are viewed as limited-purpose free associations, and a communitarian interpretation where community and polity are (...) not adequately distinguished. I argue that, within a framework of liberal pluralism, schools can be communities without being illiberal. (shrink)

This paper discusses the role of religious speech in the public square and the common school. It argues for more openness to political theology than many liberals are willing to grant and for an educational strategy of engagement over one of avoidance. The paper argues that the exclusion of religious debate from the public square has dysfunctional consequences. It discusses Rawls’s more recent views on public reason and claims that, while they are not altogether adequate, they are consistent with engagement. (...) The outcome of these arguments is applied to three ‘hot button’ issues in US education: creationism, an issue of gay rights, and teaching the Bible in schools. (shrink)

This paper examines two questions. The first is what it would mean for schools to be communities. This question is pursued by examining four metaphors for community: families, congregations, guilds, and democratic polities. Three models of school communities are then sketched. The second question is whether schools that are communities are inherently illiberal. The paper distinguishes between a liberal interpretation of schools as communities, where schools are viewed as limited-purpose free associations, and a communitarian interpretation where community and polity are (...) not adequately distinguished. I argue that, within a framework of liberal pluralism, schools can be communities without being illiberal. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Orientation Teacher Ethics and the Law The NEA Code of Ethics Teaching with Integrity Citizenship, Civic Norms, and Moral Education Conclusion.

Strike explores the differences between Marxists and liberals over the nature of the good life, about how human beings are formed, and about episemology, and uses these discussions to explore views of schooling.

I propose that there are four standards to be met if a given educational enterprise is to be considered humane: the practice to be mastered must be socially justified; the disciplines pursued to master the practice must be appropriate to the practice; the practice must be owned by the learner; and this ownership must itself meet certain ethical requirements. The paper emphasizes the problem of ownership. It argues for a view of ownership that is “communitarian.” This view sees ownership as (...) a function of identification or membership. People become committed to certain educational ends in virtue of the fact that they see themselves as members of a group and the ends as the ends of the group. It is central to this view that ownership of ends does not require full understanding or rational appraisal of such ends. I argue that a rational appraisal of ends is difficult when a novice seeks to appraise the ends of some practice both because the ends of the practice are internal to it in a way that makes grasping such ends difficult prior to mastery of the practice and because initiation into the practice will change the individual's standards of appraisal. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Religious Dialogue in the Public Square Rawls on Public Reason Engagement in the Common Schools References.

Ambiguities in liberal 1 education and the problem of its content RSPeters INTRODUCTION If one was mounting a defence of certain distinctive values in ...

This paper addresses the question of whether the interest liberal societies have in producing liberal citizens gives liberal societies the right to regulate the affairs of illiberal groups. It claims that attempts by Rawls and Galston to make liberalism more “pluralism friendly” by reducing the demands for liberal citizenship fail, and it explores arguments by Amy Gutmann, Susan Moller Okin, Eamonn Callan and Will Kymlicka that support a stronger interest in regulating the socialization practices of illiberal groups. The main conclusion (...) of the article is that we must seek for a context-sensitive balance between the need to produce liberal citizens and other liberal values such as freedom of conscience. (shrink)

This paper addresses the question of whether the interest liberal societies have in producing liberal citizens gives liberal societies the right to regulate the affairs of illiberal groups. It claims that attempts by Rawls and Galston to make liberalism more “pluralism friendly” by reducing the demands for liberal citizenship fail, and it explores arguments by Amy Gutmann, Susan Moller Okin, Eamonn Callan and Will Kymlicka that support a stronger interest in regulating the socialization practices of illiberal groups. The main conclusion (...) of the article is that we must seek for a context-sensitive balance between the need to produce liberal citizens and other liberal values such as freedom of conscience. (shrink)

Kenneth Strike’s essay on pluralism, personal identity, and freedom of conscience, takes up the concept of identity, and contrasts cultural and religious pluralism. He argues that the issues of affiliational obligation and recognition are often different in these two types of pluralism, and that religious groups are often asking for something very different from cultural groups. Strike makes a case for a more fluid conception of the idea of identity and against its essentialist form; he holds, e.g. that some of (...) his affiliations are stronger than others and more tied to his sense of a larger self, but it is questionable, he argues, whether any of these affiliations could not be re-evaluated without loss of the larger idea of the self. Strike does allow that members of groups more oppressed than his might certainly rally around the attributes that they hold in common, and he is sympathetic to this strategic function of identity. Nevertheless, he wants to hold onto the individualized and phenomenological conception of identity: identity is whatever the agent feels it to be. (shrink)