jump to last post 1-25 of 25 discussions (88 posts)

Is Education a Right?

  1. Freeway Flyer profile image83
    Freeway Flyerposted 7 years ago

    In a world where a college education becomes increasingly mandatory, do you think that people have a right to an affordable college education (or to an education at any level)?

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
      weholdthesetruthsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      How can you have a right to what someone else must do?   We abandoned that idea with slavery.

      1. alternate poet profile image62
        alternate poetposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I understand the sentiment but is it correct - don't you have mandatory seat belt laws, among many others ?

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
          weholdthesetruthsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          We do, but that's not relevant to the topic.

      2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
        uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Simple, to the point and correct.  How can you have the right to demand the services, resources or actions of others.

    2. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      In the U.S. education is a requirement up until a certain age.

      Ok, they can't make you learn but they can make you attend.

      The poor don't pay taxes argument won't work because on a local level they do.

      Property tax is figured into the rent they pay so they do pay tax.

      Property tax is one source of funding for schools.

    3. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Food and shelter are necessary for life itself! Yet neither is a "right" so I don't see how education should be a right.

    4. Freeway Flyer profile image83
      Freeway Flyerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      When I said mandatory, I did not mean compulsory. I meant that it is increasingly necessary for success.

      1. profile image0
        kimberlyslyricsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Good morning.

        Education is a a desired privilege I do hope. I do hope.

        To your point of 'we can't just sit back and get educated' I find a bit confusing, unless what you mean is how can one learn just floating through the process.

        In response to many comments, if eduction is a right or not is irrelevant, either way, it's education.

        .my last day of school was 2 days after my 14th birthday.  I never returned, and missed out on what every person is deserving of.  I highly doubt, today, parents or the board of education, would permit this to happen.

        I always worked, and somehow due to being so stubborn and driven love 20 years as a global broadcast producer.

        I am trying to say, I know nothing of algebra, ecomonics, shakeshpere, history, geography, even what a prom is like.  School Dumb

        but extremely street smart,  In every way possible. I often wonder would I be doing something else had I had all those years of education?

        I predict not but when your assistants have MBBA's and such, it does get scary, but my 20 years hands on, still cannot be measured yo any degree.

        I hope today the system/parents never allow this.

        Education is a gift

        have a great day  smile

    5. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I think they have a right to basic education, but not to college or other "higher learning".  Especially since that "higher learning" is ideologue-focused and often seems to revert them back to social ignorance, the blame for which should fall on the leaders of the education system.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I take it you were denied a college education then? wink

        You are definitely winning the "good grief - I never knew people could still be that prejudiced," stakes. Is there any group you don't hate? I know about the Muslims, Liberals, Catholics, Atheists, Wiccans, Gays, Wishy Washy Kristians, College Graduates, Lawyers and Politicians (I am with you on the last two) But - Who else is left? lol

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          No, I wasn't denied a college education.  I had a scholarship to go to college for free.
          But I wasn't personally ready for that.
          Which actually turned out to be a blessing in many ways.

          But guess what, Mark?   I was smart enough to learn the definition of "prejudice", unlike you apparently, since you've totally applied it incorrectly in your post there.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Ah - so "prejudice" doesn't mean lumping college graduates together as often being "socially ignorant."

            What does it mean? wink

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Do you have access to a dictionary and remember how to look up word definitions and the ability to do so?

              If so, I suggest you do so.  Without prejudice!  And read every word of the definition;  don't just skip over the ones that really give credence to the actual meaning.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Dear me. So - even with a dictionary in front of you, making sweeping generalizations about a group of people - most of whom you have never met - still is not being prejudiced? lol lol lol

                1. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Again, Mark, the problem is with your reading and understanding of the definition,  and perhaps....with your understanding of how human nature works....

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    No no - I think prejudging an entire group of people based on your limited understanding of what is involved in obtaining a college education and what that education produces is an adequate definition in this case.

                    Dear me. Do you even own a dictionary?

  2. Pcunix profile image88
    Pcunixposted 7 years ago

    A right, no.  But it would be smart policy for the nation to educate its citizens.

    1. Disturbia profile image60
      Disturbiaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'm with you on this one.

    2. Freeway Flyer profile image83
      Freeway Flyerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I agree. Politics should always be practical.

    3. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with everything but the word "nation".

      I'm glad we're finding at least a bit of solid ground together.

  3. alternate poet profile image62
    alternate poetposted 7 years ago

    Education is the key to knowledge and knowledge can help set you free.

    Unless the pseudo-knowledge is pure Creationsist b@llsh@t when the intent is to enslave you to a stone age cause that prays for an end to the world.

  4. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    No. They absolutely have the right to stay ignorant. Too bad so many people choose to exercise that right.
    College education becoming mandatory? Would that it were so.
    Not here in the good ol' USA, at least not now.
    We're 'enjoying' an era of antiintellectualism.

    1. MobyWho profile image60
      MobyWhoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Glad you got into this Mighty Mom...I do see though (following Facebook grandkids) that they are taking education more seriously than a few years ago...actually working their way through college...even if it means taking a year or so off to work.

      The old days of assuming college as a rite of passage resulted in a generation of "educated" non-producers (I include myself in that undeserving group). Those serious students are now leading the country and many companies. (As the Amish say, "Too soon old, to late schmart."

      I do think kids today are beginning to realize they have many years in front of them, and will be responsible for their well-being. I hope they have had a jolt from the current financial meltdown.

      1. profile image0
        china manposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        This situation is a fault in the society not the education system.

    2. Freeway Flyer profile image83
      Freeway Flyerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I would never argue that college should be mandatory. I was asking if people should be guaranteed the privilege of going to college should they choose it.

  5. Michael Willis profile image78
    Michael Willisposted 7 years ago

    If our Tax dollars are used to fund Educational Facilities, then Yes it is a right of any taxpayer to receive a college education. If you pay no Taxes, then it is not a right.

    1. Michael Willis profile image78
      Michael Willisposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      But at the same time, anyone can choose not to be educated. then that is their own fault.

  6. Joe Badtoe profile image60
    Joe Badtoeposted 7 years ago

    Define Education?

    Would be a good starting point methinks.

  7. Cagsil profile image62
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    Is Education a Right?

    The basic fundamental of education is a right, with regards to public school system funded through taxpayer money.

  8. iantoPF profile image89
    iantoPFposted 7 years ago

    A right is an opportunity not a "Must Do" everyone has the right to vote, that doesn't mean everyone votes. Education should be the right of everyone. It doesn't mean everyone will take the opportunity. It should be available though. It is against the national interest to deny education for any reason including lack of funds.

    1. profile image0
      zampanoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      and the ignorant supersticious anaphabet's vote weighs the same as the literate educated's one.

      1. iantoPF profile image89
        iantoPFposted 7 years ago in reply to this



        I'm not sure what you're getting at there but:
        Your sentence should begin with "The" and the first letter capitalized.
        It's spelled "Superstitious"
        The correct spelling for someone who does not know the alphabet is "Analphabet"
        There is no need for a possessive for "Educated" in that sentence.
        For the record, I left school when I was 15, I'm a farm boy turned bus driver with no education to speak of and my vote counts.

        1. alternate poet profile image62
          alternate poetposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Analphabet would likely be through some form of dyslexia maybe ?

          1. tobey100 profile image59
            tobey100posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Is analphabet really a drow?

        2. thisisoli profile image54
          thisisoliposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          and can begin a sentence when it is used in a continuation of a previous statement.

        3. profile image0
          zampanoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you. I was writing fast and lazy. I sure can use some education.
          I try to educate myself and sometimes results are not bright.
          What I'm getting at is that democracy works better when children have an easy access to "education" so that they become parents who can help their own children do their homework and so on.
          I'm convinced that a higher education helps a lot understanding the world we live in and seeking the correct information to make decisions and adopt the truth that drives your life.

  9. Joe Badtoe profile image60
    Joe Badtoeposted 7 years ago

    Stupidity isn't a right but plenty of educated people have it.

    1. flutterbygems profile image60
      flutterbygemsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I agree.  Best comment on the topic so far!

  10. tobey100 profile image59
    tobey100posted 7 years ago

    A right is that which cannot be bestowed or taken away. It applies to all men, not just to a few. There is no such thing as a "right" for one , or a group, that is not possessed by all. This means there are no special "rights" unique to women or men, blacks or white, the elderly or the young, homosexuals or heterosexuals, the rich or the poor, doctors or patients or any other group.  There is no 'right' to a college education.  However, should one desire to attend college, and should one qualify both educationally and financially, it is one's right to attend.  There is no right to a 'free' college education.  There is no 'free' anything where government intervention is concerned.  Someone else is always footing the bill in which case, the 'free' college education violates another's right not to be forced to pay for another's college education.  Gets complicated don't it?

    1. alternate poet profile image62
      alternate poetposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Not really - a right to something is just that a "right'  and rights are often specific to some people and not others.

      And taking taxes is not violating a persons rights - it is charging them for being able to take profits from the society around them, remember them? The people.  And if a society wants to 'improve' it had damn well better educate its citizens, part of the current regression of American society is due to a regressing education system that has been discussed elsewhere - added to the issue that significant numbers are taught Creationist bullsh!t.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
        Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        ... that is nonsense. How can different people have different rights?

        Taking taxes IS a violation of rights: I have the right to my property, and the government thinks it's allowed to bring guns to my home to steal it.

        Rights are NOT granted by governments - read the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, and just about any other founding document.

        Here's a sentence that you apparently missed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

        Here are a few more: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed "

        Here's a doozy; it shows that the Confederacy was actually right in seceding from the union: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

        Here is a quote that, in various wordings, you find many times in the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law..."

        The tenth amendment shows that our current education system is unconstitutional: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

        Your claim that taxes are just the government "charging [people] for the being able to take profits from the society around them..." is COMPLETE nonsense. Everyone has a right to their property, and thus if they can sell their property for a profit... why does the government have to tax them? that's nonsense. Here's the Constitution (notice how any sort of "charging the people for making profit" is found NOWHERE in the document): "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

        And, finally, JUST because you mentioned profits, I would like to point out that our entire monetary system is completely unconstitutional: "No State shall... emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"

        So anyway, it seems that the entire group of founding fathers would completely disagree with you.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
          Jeff Berndtposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          "Here's a doozy; it shows that the Confederacy was actually right in seceding from the union:  "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government""

          Yeah, I'm still going to have to disagree with you on that, on the grounds that the Confederacy was full of people who were being denied their rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and surely did not consent to be governed in that manner), and the folks who wanted to alter or abolish the Federal government were the folks who were busy aliening the unalienable rights of a large part of the population.

          I don't get how you can reconcile the South's right to secede from a government "destructive of these ends" when the Confederacy was being plenty destructive of those ends its own self, except only to the black people, while the federal government was trying to restrict slavery, you know, so that everyone's rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness would be secured.

          "I would like to point out that our entire monetary system is completely unconstitutional: "No State shall... emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts""

          Here's where I get to pay you back for your lesson on interpreting the Constitution.

          No State is allowed to make anything but gold or silver coin a tender, but there is no such limitation on Congrefs. If Congrefs wants to make legal tender out of gold, silver, copper, steel (like the WWII pennies), Ritz crackers, or Pixie Dust, it may do so.
          Article 1 section 8, powers of Congrefs:
          "...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

          Note that there is no mention made of what substance the money must be coined of.

          You were quoting Artilce 1, Section 10, Powers denied to the States.

          1. BDazzler profile image81
            BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            1) The Whites in the north were every bit as guilty as the south for slavery.  The emancipation proclamation was a war tool, not a civil rights coup.  The North was quite happy to count slaves as 3/5 human.  That's NOT OK, and they were unwilling to pay higher prices for cotton and sugar so let's not pretend the Yankees were lily white about being lily white.

            2) Just because the people were wrong to deny slaves freedom does not mean that their succession was wrong.  Your grounds for disagreement means that slavery was OK because the Federal government had allowed it.

            Just because someone doesn't do what they know is right, doesn't make what they know is right, wrong.  Right? Right! So you're wrong! Right? Right!

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
              Jeff Berndtposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              "The Whites in the north were every bit as guilty as the south for slavery."
              You mean for not having the stones to insist on emancipation when the Constitution was first written? Yes. 
              "The North was quite happy to count slaves as 3/5 human."
              I don't know about 'quite happy.' More like grudgingly accepted it as the only way to keep the Southern states in the country.
              "and they were unwilling to pay higher prices for cotton and sugar"
              Um...you got some sort of reason to believe that's why slavery was allowed to continue?

              "so let's not pretend the Yankees were lily white about being lily white."
              No, the North had its own problems, to be sure, but by 1860, allowing one person to own another person (and all of the owned person's children as well) was not one of them.

              "Just because the people were wrong to deny slaves freedom does not mean that their succession was wrong."
              If the people (all the people) had been able to vote on the question of whether to secede, I might agree that the South had the right to secede. But not all of the people had that right. The fact that they denied liberty to their people themselves makes ridiculous the claim that the Confederacy was pro-liberty.

              "Your grounds for disagreement means that slavery was OK because the Federal government had allowed it."
              How does that follow?

              "Just because someone doesn't do what they know is right, doesn't make what they know is right, wrong." Agreed.

              "So you're wrong! Right?"
              Wrong. smile

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
                Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                The north benefited tremendously from slavery; Most of them didn't care at all about it; And just about every state that DID abolish slavery OUTLAWED (well, basically outlawed via horrible laws and fines) blacks from living in the north: the illinois black codes, for example (which Lincoln supported).

                Lincoln wanted to deport all the blacks to Nigeria, for Christ's sake.

                He also helped author an amendment to prevent slavery from EVER being unconstitutional.

                How about this doozy straight from lincoln's mouth: "holding such a provision [the provision in question is the institution of slavery] to be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable" --- Which directly means that EVEN THE GUY WHO INVADED THE SOUTH said that slavery was a state right.

                Or how bout this one: "My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery."

                (If you want citations, I can provide them, I just don't want to clutter the post up)

                However much that I agree with you that Slavery is evil, I refuse to ignore Secession on the sole grounds that "them thar slave owners dun did do it". That's nonsense. the first states to seriously consider secession were the north eastern states during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson .

                And, as an added bonus, when the South began to secede, numerous states had absolutely NO problem with it whatsoever - many NORTHERN newspapers agreed with the move. (Those newspapers that did agree with it, and disagreed with the invasion of the south later found themselves being overthrown by the tyrannical iron fist of Lincoln - in fact, a northern CONGRESSMAN was deported for speaking out against the invasion).

                THE WAR WASN'T ONLY ABOUT SLAVERY.

                1. alternate poet profile image62
                  alternate poetposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  WOW - I can agree with you !!!   Of course this is correct, the war was about economics - like every war at its base.  The slave issue was just the huge advantage the South had within the states, not having to pay wages makes for loads of profits and gave the south huge wealth and a huge advantage.

                2. dosters profile image84
                  dostersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  @ Evan-"Lincoln wanted to deport all the blacks to Nigeria, for Christ's sake. "
                  It was Liberia.

                  @ Jeff- "I don't know about 'quite happy.' More like grudgingly accepted it as the only way to keep the Southern states in the country."
                  Actually, the northern states wanted slaves counted as 0 people and the southern states wanted them to count as 1 for the purposes of population.  If they were counted as 1 person, southern states would have more population, thus more representation in the House.  Conversely, if they were zero, the northern states would have more representation.

                  Not sure what any of this has to do with the OP, but just thought I'd clear that up.

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
            Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            the south wasn't mad only about slavery... although, reading any textbook today would lead you to believe other wise.

            Robert E. Lee freed his slaves... Lincoln wanted a constitutional amendment that would PREVENT future amendments from freeing slaves.

            so...

            It wasn't about slavery.

            And you completely screw up the translation of the constitution: You forgot about the 10th amendment, which would ban the Congress from making paper money, and you ignored A.1 S. 8 - "The Congress shall have the power... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

            When was the last time you ever fixed a standard of weights and measures for paper money? Never? Not a single time ever?

            Yeah. "To COIN money".

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I agree.  You can send me all of your paper money to assuage your constitutional guilt...

            2. Jeff Berndt profile image88
              Jeff Berndtposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              "And you completely screw up the translation of the constitution: You forgot about the 10th amendment, which would ban the Congress from making paper money,"
              The 10th amendment reserves powers not grated to the Fed for the states or the people.
              Article 1 section 8 specifically grants the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof to Congrefs, so there's no way that power to coin money is reserved for states.

              We can quibble about "coining" money specifically meaning making coins only, sure, but there's nothing there about what the money Congrefs makes must be made of. Nothing at all. Congrefs can make money out of anything from gold to...I dunno, those gold-foil-wrapped chocolates some people give to kids at Christmas and Hanukkah. There's no requirement that money be made of anything in particular, but Congrefs is allowed to make it, and regulate the value thereof.
              If a state wants to make something legal tender, it needs to be gold or silver coin, but even then, they're not allowed to strike their own gold and silver currency. Someone else must do that, as the power to coin money is reserved for Congrefs.

              "When was the last time you ever fixed a standard of weights and measures for paper money? Never?"

              I've never fixed a standard of weights and measures for anything at all in my life. I don't have the power to do so. That power is reserved for Congrefs, and what that clause means is that Congrefs gets to decide how much a pound weighs, so that a pound of meat (or feathers, or lead, or whatever) in Michigan is the same weight as a pound of meat in Ohio, that a mile is the same length in Colorado as in California, and that a gallon is the same volume in Washington DC as in Washington State. If Congrefs couldn't do that, then a car maker could test their cars' fuel efficiency in the state with the biggest gallons and the shortest miles, and Hummers would be getting 50 mpg. In short, nobody would really know how much of anything they were buying unless they knew the standard of weights and measures in both the state of origin and the state of purchase, and the conversion rate between them. Pretty chaotic for anyone who wants to expand their business from one state to another....*

              Anyway, what I'm getting at is that the power to fix the "standard of weights and measures" is separate from the power to coin money, despite their proximity in the text.

              You're usually right about Constitutional stuff, Evan, but it seems your love of States' Rights has clouded your judgment in this case.

              Out of curiosity, what were the non-slavery grievances the South had? I'm sure they existed, but I'm curious to know what they were. (And I agree with you that the Civil War wasn't only about slavery, but I don't think it would have started if it weren't for slavery.)

              *This interstate chaos is the main argument in favor of the federal law that makes the lender/borrower agreement subject to the usury laws in the state that the lender, rather than the borrower, is based in. This is why so many banks have their headquarters in Delaware: when that Federal law was passed, Delaware (and also South Dakota, I think) went and repealed pretty much all of their state usury laws. So banks, realizing that they could do pretty much whatever they wanted if they did it in Delaware, relocated there. That hasn't worked out so well (IMO) for most of America.

    2. MobyWho profile image60
      MobyWhoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Aye, Tobey and the poet - I wish people would stop talking about "Rights" - It was just suggested by a bunch of rebels who decided to draw up a Bill. Now I'm really putting my life on the line. But hey, how can men declare "rights"? Rights imply a prioritized list...who has rights over whom? Do I have rights over my dog - as a ridiculous comparison. Do I have "rights" for a knee replacement? Possibly, because I've been paying into Medicare. Otherwise, it's a privilege bestowed on me by a compassionate government. Socialism? I don't know, but I do know that we can't ignore the people who are suffering (yes, in this country) while we have gluttony all around us.  The answer? I don't know - as Dr. Seuss said, "Go ask your dad."

      1. profile image0
        china manposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        NO it isn't - it is how your government spends your taxes.  This is not a privelage it is your right, you buy into your system by paying tax and voting - but you are voting about your own money among the whole of your society's money aims and goals.

      2. profile image0
        kimberlyslyricsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        big_smile   big_smile   big_smile   big_smile

    3. Freeway Flyer profile image83
      Freeway Flyerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Is there anything for which we should be obligated to pay taxes in order to support? (military, roads, police forces, etc.)

  11. profile image0
    ralwusposted 7 years ago

    right, not right, I thought it was law here, at least until one is 18 or incarcerated or otherwise

  12. BDazzler profile image81
    BDazzlerposted 7 years ago

    Education is not a right it's a responsibility.  The responsibility of parents for minor children, a joint responsibility between self and parents for adolescents and finally fully our own responsibility as adults as we mature.

    Society, the government or whoever does not have an inherent responsibility to educate us. It is, however, massively convenient for millions of people. And for all of it's increasingly obvious and worsening faults, it still has a place.

    However, if we rely solely on government education, we abdicate our responsibility to educate ourselves and get what we deserve, a mediocre education targeted at the lowest common denominator in society.

    If we see education as a "right" we often expect society to just give it to us.  That doesn't work long term. Any education that we do not ourselves strive for, and take as a responsibility for ourselves is not truly an education.

    1. profile image0
      china manposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      If our society wants to improve, get on, survive, or anything except go backwards - then it should ensure that its members are educated, beyond the remit of parents.  Some parents would teach their children bible babble instead of physics and anything else useful to them - it is the responsibility of those that society elects to run all of us to ensure a balanced education.  If we leave it to parents who can afford it we will get a whole sub-class of morons and flat-earthers while the rich establish themselves even more firmly in their bunkers.

      1. BDazzler profile image81
        BDazzlerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        "Our Society" is not a single entity.  And just because those society elects have the responsibility doesn't mean they will.  History has demonstrated that they often will not.

        It is foolish to count on professional politicians for anything.

        We already have classrooms full of morons. Mostly they are the officers of the NEA. Of course, in my home district the NEA was using federal labor laws to cover a pedophile ring in the school district... they were, of course in Federal compliance with their paper work ... so why worry about a little thing like messing with vulnerable kids.

        And as a professional educator,  for you to promote class envy against hardworking successful people by classifying the "rich" as an isolationists and morons is inherently irresponsible.

        You sound the type of person who wants to control what people think, that is not education.

        The fact is that you promote division in society with your attitude about people with religious beliefs and those who are financially successful.   Those who are successful should be the teachers not the enemies.  It seems far more rational to model ourselves after successful people than failures.

        For you to imply that "society" has more of a right to shape the mind of a child than their own parents is exactly why government cannot be trusted with education. 

        Your contempt for parenthood is common among government workers and why parents often avoid government education .

        I have yet to see a ward of the state with a personal drive for excellence.

        1. profile image0
          china manposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Your ability to mis-read and mis-represent is dazzling in its scope and breadth.

          Your blinkered view of what society is and does is somehow entangled with paedophiles and paperwork and teachers.  I guess you were challenged in your education ?

          The divisions in society are already there and those that rule ensures they continue and that society works ceaselessly to divide itself.  Religion and greed are the first two dividers.

          In case you are confused - One of the functions of education is to educate, knowledge and opinion are relative to everything around us, especially the society we are in. Education is not indoctrination inone way of thinking but thinking in ways that make sense to others around us and the ability to understand those around us.  Our views remain our views.  Moronic parents hiding their kids away and teaching flat earth nonsense along with the elitism of their own group, gang or sect are teaching their kids to be morons like themselves.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
            Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            "Those that rule"... is this just a given for you? Screw that! I wanna rule myself! I don't need a government telling me what to do.

            On the question of "society": what is society? Can a society decide one day to just up and buy a can of coke? no, of course not. A society is NOTHING MORE than the individuals of that society acting individually. When one sovereign individual decides to buy a coke, then "society" has bought a can of coke. Societies are NOT sovereign, conscious, things. They are merely amalgamations of individuals.

            Thus, it is impossible for a "society" to decide anything, demand anything, or to DO anything. The individuals in that society make their choices on a daily basis, and society is nothing more than a nonsense term.

            And as far as education not being an indoctrination... really? then what the hell was that "pledge of allegiance" that they made us say EVERY SINGLE DAY?

            Let's use good ol' honest abe as a reference point. He was one of the greatest presidents right? he freed the slaves, right? he made sure the US was safe, right?

            ... this is complete nonsense and just about every child in the US had this pounded into his brain from grade 1. Abe never freed a single slave; he invaded a foreign country without a declaration of war; he suspended habeus corpus on hundreds of accounts; he launched a total war campaign against citizens (this would be called a "war crime" if it were done today); he threw thousands of dissenters in jail; he ACTUALLY had a CONGRESSMAN THROWN OUT OF THE COUNTRY because the congressman disagreed with him; he didn't actually want the slaves to be free citizens of the US, he actually wanted them all to be shipped to Liberia and other countries...

            ... i could keep going if you want.

            But anyway, my point is that in my "non-indoctrinating" public school system, which only wants me to be smart, no one ever heard about any of this at all in any shape or form.

    2. MobyWho profile image60
      MobyWhoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Amen!

    3. Freeway Flyer profile image83
      Freeway Flyerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      True. We can't just sit back and be educated.

    4. FloBe profile image81
      FloBeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I like what you said about education being a responsibility. I think it is extremely important for everyone to learn to read so they can manage their own life. If someone is left in ignorance they fall prey to those who seek to control them for their own purposes. Education enables people to think for themselves and make their own decisions.

      1. BDazzler profile image81
        BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks Flo, People always seem to care about their rights than their responsibilities.


        If knowledge is indeed power, then great knowledge is great power ... and everyone who's ever read Spiderman or seen the movies knows, "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility. " wink

  13. Reg Brittain profile image60
    Reg Brittainposted 7 years ago

    I do not consider a college education "mandatory" to success in life.

    I do consider my life immensely improved for having gotten a college education.

    Some people need college to have a shot at success, while others do not.

    Much of my knowledge has come from education and experiences outside of college, but without my college education I doubt I would have developed the tools to learn from those external experiences. That only means I "needed" college, not that everyone does.

    As to whether an affordable college education is a right, I honestly cannot decide. If I felt college were the end all, then I would say yes. But it is not the end all. Some leave college -- while equipped to do possibly extremely well in one field -- about as socially ignorant as the day they got there -- four (or more) years older, and no smarter. 

    There are many college success stories, but many failures, as well. I know college graduates who are wonderful, clearly educated people. And I know others who come off as ignorant as the day is long.

    On the other hand, I have friends who never earned a college credit and are driven and successful, but also able to accept people who are different from them.

    I feel this post has rambled some, but my point is I am glad I got a college education -- and an affordable one at a large public university, no less (one that ironically produces a lot of people who vote for those who would cut taxes and stop funding public education -- do they not realize their own college educations were partially funded by taxes! lol) -- but I am not even sure I would insist to my own children that they be college educated.

    To answer the OP's question, affordable college education is not necessarily a right in my opinion, but it is likely in society's best interests -- just like small business grants and other support for those ready to strike out on their own without college.

  14. wingedcentaur profile image86
    wingedcentaurposted 7 years ago

    Good Day Freeway Flyer

    I would formulate the matter somewhat differently. I would actually say that society has a duty to provide an education (pre-K through BA college). By 'society' I mean government (speaking specifically of our American government) which is presumably of, for, and by the people.

    But here's the trick: Does 'society' want every single person to have and education (particularly a four-year college degree or more)? Who would collect the garbage on the streets? Who would provide the at least semi-permanent staffs of the Starbucks, McDonald's, and the like? Who would do the seasonal landscaping and provide the nanny services for the rich?

    I think the underlying motivation for the question (Is education a right?) emanates out of the very structure of society (a division of servers and the served, broadly speaking). So, have people who have not had the benefit of a solid education been denied a right or privilege (Is education 'optional' like a driver's license and a car, in theory anyway?)

    If education is a mere privilege then the consequences for not having one should not have such dire consequences (as we know happen). In other words, if education is merely a an (effective) privilege then the real-world consequences for a person not having one should be (effectively) neutral. But this is not the case.

    If the consequences of negation of something (as we're trying to decide whether its a privilege or right) we should look at the effective consequences of the negation.

    We have freedom of speech. Is that a right or privilege (suppose it weren't in the Bill or Rights, etc)? We could ask what the negation of this would bring about: lack of political engagement of millions of the population, mass political, legal, social, and economic disenfranchisement. So, if Freedom of Speech was not a right, I think we'd have to make it one. The negation is not effectively neutral!

    1. BRANDONHEATHTART profile image58
      BRANDONHEATHTARTposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      are there books on shelves gathering dust?

      1. BRANDONHEATHTART profile image58
        BRANDONHEATHTARTposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        evidently, computers are not a right since bloggers evidently have them, or, access to them - perhaps in institutions of higher leaning.

        so they (those who are not er(oded)udite can't read all of our sage commentaries.

        but the proliferation of Blogs may just replace the proliferation of books, and the world will therefore - come to an end after all.

        why? well, we are not able to educate the ditch diggers that can't access our direct access to god in our blogs...because they can't access public libraries either - funding is what is not a right, until you are 25, and have a GED or High School equivalent.....

        education is inevitable...you ever worked on a farm???? 
        or is education about page turning alone to you????
        or is birth a right???
        B logs...  bowel....

        what do you write about?

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      your arguments are unfortunate.

      No one has the right to an education - you have a right to spend your money to get an education, but no where is there a god-given right to take money from your neighbor and then spend it to educate yourself.

      Who will take out the garbage? Heck, if the pay is right, a college professor would take it out! That's how capitalism works, and why socialism fails. IF you pay $3000/hour... then yeah, i'd do it. I'd do it immediately. There would be lines forming at the garbage pick-up center to become a garbage man.

      You then ask if education is optional like a drivers license. This is a false choice. To be a decent driver, I don't need a sheet of paper to tell me I can drive. To get a good education, I don't need to steal money from my neighbor. To educate a kid in the US, it costs $13k / year / student. Yowza. How is that money generated? by taxing your neighbor.

      And just a reminder about the freedom of speech: it's kind of a non-sense term. the Constitution actually PROHIBITS the federal branch of our government from preventing people from saying what they want to say. That's all. A state government COULD take away this right.

      1. wingedcentaur profile image86
        wingedcentaurposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Evan G. Rogers -- Surely you don't mean that? "Who will take out the garbage? Heck, if the pay is right, a college professor would take it out! That's how capitalism works, and why socialism fails."

        Surely people have other motivations than fiscal. And please forgive me for saying so, your implication that one way to get people to do demeaning and often physically dangerous jobs (garbage man is not as safe as you think) is actually rather reminiscent of the propaganda that went about about the old Soviet Union in the 1980s. We would always hear rumors that garbage men were paid as much as doctors and we, at that age, tended to be appalled by that.

        You say that you, Evan G. Rogers, would do that job if you were paid right. First, I'd have to say I doubt (work is about more than compensation, one like to actually enjoy what he's doing and feel like he's making a contribution to society and all that). Do you really understand how hard the work is?

        Do you know the kinds of substances garbage men are exposed to? Would you really like to go home smelling like that? Would you really like your children to have to say what you did for a living?

        Would you really be comfortable going to your children's school on career day? Surely not!

        Garbage man is a job I happen to think no human being should have to do, and that it should be eliminated. This means we have to live a different way, and this has some implications for education.

        It is my contention that America does not want everyone to have a college degree because it is not functional, as I've mentioned.

  15. Evan G Rogers profile image78
    Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago

    I wrote an entire hub about this and pointed out that it's lunacy to think that education is a right.

    Check it out.

  16. Ruchira profile image51
    Ruchiraposted 7 years ago

    It is up to us...if we want to get hit first and then learn or learn first and then avoid the mishaps...

    Education definitely brings about awareness in any subject if we choose to get it first then, rise of the person is definite. By rising in one's career...he will get self confidence in himself and also the money. Money rules the world and so does knowledge/education. Both make a reversible equation.

    Money  <--------------> Education

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      money and education are not directly related. It costs about $13k / year / student for an education in the US.

      And a great many of those students are failing.

      1. Ruchira profile image51
        Ruchiraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Evan, I am not referring to the tuition fees here.

        What I meant was if a person pursues education there is a very good chance that he will do well and be able to make money.

        1. Ruchira profile image51
          Ruchiraposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          And regarding your remark as "many students are failing"

          Well, everything requires dedication and hard work. Just going to college does not mean that he will get a certificate of achievement.

  17. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    ... or, you could go take your morning constitutional, as you obviously need the relief.
    inference intentional.

  18. yenchuck profile image55
    yenchuckposted 7 years ago

    Education is most necessary part of the life but it should be like in practical manner not theoretical.. It should be like make yourself Excellent success behind yours automatically..

  19. Rod Marsden profile image74
    Rod Marsdenposted 7 years ago

    People do have a right to an affordable education which includes college and or university provided they do not abuse the rights of others to an education.

  20. profile image53
    almera diwaposted 6 years ago

    Everyone has the right to educate himself, the formal education we are calling. So I agree that education is a right and should be given to everyone.

  21. xixi12 profile image69
    xixi12posted 6 years ago

    If we are paying our taxes, then it should be a right for our children. On the news in the UK, they are toying with the idea of paying people as an incentive to lose weight. With which money? tax money.In my opinion education is of a higher priority and our taxes should be used for that instead

    1. BDazzler profile image81
      BDazzlerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree: if taxes are used to fund education, everyone should have the right to use that tax money to help fulfill their responsibility of educating themselves and their children.  The administrators of that money have the responsibility of using it properly.  Sadly, in this country they  often do not ... and it appears that paying people to lose weight means that those in your country who manage taxes have a set of priorities of managing tax money that I would not agree with either.

  22. profile image0
    maddy757posted 6 years ago

    Education is a necessity. So i think each one should have a right to educate himself.

  23. The Smiling Man profile image82
    The Smiling Manposted 6 years ago

    Many of you seem to be confusing an education to schooling. It's not the same thing.

    An educated populace is essential for society to progress. A right or not, it's for the good of all.

    *Think about those uneducated folk down south making babies with their own sisters, damaging their genetic makeup.

    *Think about ignorant racists.

    *Think about mob mentality and how easily stupid people can be manipulated.

    *Think about China who is churning super educated graduates out of its universities at ever increasing numbers. (good for them)

  24. Dumbledore profile image85
    Dumbledoreposted 6 years ago

    Education is expensive and to some degree, all people are educated.  To that extent, education is a right in the same way that the pursuit of happiness is a right.  Does that mean that other people must pay for the education of others?  I do not believe so.  Do people have the right to a 56" LCD TV at the expense of others?  Do people have the right to a new car at the expense of others?  Some people feel that the right to the pursuit of happiness means the right to hapiness itself and to those people the answer is yes.  To the ethical majority, however, the questions are still a matter of debate.

  25. janessecret profile image56
    janessecretposted 6 years ago

    Whilst education may not be a birthright what is certainly true is that any government that doesn't do as much as it can to educate as amny of it's citizens as possible is storing up problems for the future. That's because an uneducated workforce simply will not be able to compete in the global marketplace and the overall counjtry will suffer.

 
working