In the wake of the massive protests over the killing of George Floyd, Kanye West announced that he will pay the college tuition for Floyd’s daughter. While this is a fine gesture on his part, though not so grand as billionaire philanthropist Robert F. Smith’s payment of the student debt of some 400 graduates at Morehouse College, both gestures raise far larger issues.
I posted this on facebook in response to West’s announcement: “It’s sad that anyone has to pay college tuition anywhere. Tuition for education is a method used by the ruling classes to keep the lower classes from getting ahead. Civilized nations not only have free tertiary education but may even pay adult students while they are studying.”
American liberalism is in crisis because it fails to grasp the fundamental issues that make social democracy such an effective system. Perhaps the most fundamental is that everyone should have equal opportunity. That requires going beyond removing bans against certain groups, like women, immigrants, people of colour, etc.. It means removal of the barriers that prevent people from taking advantage of those opportunities.
Education is called the great equalizer but that’s only true when it is freely available to all. By freely, I mean not only that there are no tuition barriers but also no other barriers preventing people from availing themselves of it. Graduates can’t be saddled with massive debts nor can we reasonably expect their families to live in poverty while they study. Both propositions present very real barriers to equality of opportunity.
Many American liberals resist the call for free tuition, asking “why should we pay for the rich to send their kids to school?” They claim that universal programs like this are a “subsidy to the rich”.
This is, of course, utter nonsense. One might just as well ask why should roads and sidewalks be free (in fact, at one point many city roads were maintained under private contracts and you had to pay toll to use them). Essential societal infrastructure should never be subjected to means tests. That merely gives the rich and powerful an incentive to remove them.
Progressive income taxes and/or wealth taxes and/or inheritance taxes should raise the money to pay for all social infrastructure. In many nations they do. That’s why those nations have free tuition, universal healthcare and housing as a human right.
It’s interesting to note that those same nations generally refer to colleges and university education as “tertiary” while nations that use tuition as a barrier refer to them as “post-secondary”. The terminology differences shows that one group sees higher education as a continuation of a universal education system while the other group sees it as something separate.
American liberals use the same fallacious arguments against expanding medicare to encompass everyone. Again they see medicine as a way to make private profit rather than as an essential component of a functioning (I’d like use the word “healthy” but it might be misconstrued in this context) society.
Anyone can get sick but for some the consequences are dire. That is especially true in the United States right now, where even their bizarre system of private insurance is so tied to full-time employment that tens of millions of people currently find themselves without coverage. And even those with coverage can find themselves going bankrupt because they got the wrong problem at the wrong time or were treated by the wrong healthcare provider.
Over the last several decades we’ve grown accustomed to seeing homeless people sleeping on the streets. We’ve forgotten that this too is a policy decision by our governments. Homelessness doesn’t exist in really poor nations because they don’t enforce building codes and zoning bylaws. People can and do build shelters out of whatever materials they can find.
In industrial societies, we have more stringent requirements about what can be built and where. In North America these rules often prevent the kinds of social housing found in Europe where housing is frequently a right. A lot of this is NIMBYism but a lot is also based on outdated notions that the homeless deserve their lot.
Housing as a right says that if you don’t have a permanent shelter, the state will provide a place for you. That means more than the overnight shelters provided in North America. It means a place where you can keep your things with your own lock and key. Depending on your situation, it may mean having a basic kitchen or having a shared kitchen in a group facility.
Housing as a right ensures that everyone can live with some degree of dignity and security. It also protects society because public health officials can follow up when diseases like TB infect someone. It can be hard finding people on the street. It’s far easier when they have a permanent address.
A permanent address also means they can find work more easily if they are capable.
Housing as a right makes it easier for people to escape abusive relationships.
Childcare has become another essential piece of social infrastructure. This is no longer the 1950s wife stays at home to look after the kids TV fantasy. This is today’s “all hands on deck” to earn a living reality. Few families, and no single-parent household, can have one parent stay home while the other works. Recognizing that means the need for a universal childcare system cannot be denied.
Liberals and liberalism don’t recognize social infrastructure. Their view is reactive to whatever problems they see. It grew out of dismay of the glaring inequities of the industrial revolution. It’s time to move beyond reacting and start actively planning a social infrastructure that grants everyone the equality of opportunity that West and Smith’s philanthropy so inadequately address.
Gary Dale's Blog 