As I am following Facebook discussions about proposed changes in Portland Public Schools' system of enrollment and transfers, I have been watching Michael Sandel's Harvard lectures in his course "Justice" (here).
Note that Tom Friedman writes about how popular Sandel is in Asia (here):
Who do you think was on the cover — named the “most influential foreign figure” of the year in China? Barack Obama? No. Bill Gates? No. Warren Buffett? No. O.K., I’ll give you a hint: He’s a rock star in Asia, and people in China, Japan and South Korea scalp tickets to hear him. Give up?
It was Michael J. Sandel, the Harvard University political philosopher.
Enrollment and transfer issue in PPS raise interesting issues of political and moral philosophy. I am far from expert in these fields, but so far, I have come up with three thoughts on applying some of the political and moral philosophies from "Justice" to the SACET's, and now Superintendent's, proposed changes.
(1) To the extent that SACET and the Superintendent are arguing that the proposed changes, while reducing the educational benefits of some students (those now able to transfer or get sibling preferences who will not be able to do so in the future), will increase the educational benefit to other students (those at a neighborhood school which will gain students and low income students who can now get into focus option programs), they are arguing in the utilitarian tradition of Jeremy Bentham and John Mills. Utilitarians seek "the greatest good for the greatest number."
Yet, in the case of the proposed transfers rules, I do find adding up the positives and negatives to be complex and not as clear as advocates posit.
(2) The philosopher Immanuel Kant would have problems with reducing the educational benefits for any student for the sake of other students. Kant writes:
And, with regard to Kant's "Categorical Imperative," the "Formula of Humanity as End:"
(3) The modern political philosopher John Rawls argues that a fair set of principles (in this case transfer rules) can come from imagining a "Veil of Ignorance" in which one does not know ahead of time the specifics of one's own situation. So, in term of PPS now, ask what set of transfer rules would I support if I did not know where I lived, nor what my income was, nor what my racial, ethnic and language identity was. From this "Veil of Ignorance" perspective, is the current proposal the best PPS can do? And, do I have the empathy and imagination to think from the perspectives of all the students and families (and their preferences and needs) involved?
The lecture introducing the thoughts of John Rawls begins at the 26th minute of the above video.
Comments