Dr Tom Hickey has kicked off a lively and useful debate about our schooling system and the meaning of 
republicanism. In a blog [1] last week, I took issue (among other things) with the phrase ‘child-citizen’ which Dr Hickey continually used in his article. In any event, Dr Hickey has responded in a blog [2] of his own and it is worth a read.
In his blog, Dr Hickey expands on what he understands republicanism to be. He defends himself against my charge that he believes the primary relationship of the ‘child citizen’ is with the State and he defends his position that children must be capable of “critically assessing their own religious or non-religious commitments, for instance, so that they are not permanently in thrall to those of their parents”.
Actually, on this last point I agreed with him to a certain extent, but only if children are also taught to critically assess the current ideological dominance of a certain liberal-left view of the world.
A great deal depends on whether or not Dr Hickey’s version of republicanism is as neutral as he claims it to be and therefore on whether his idea of the State would be neutral between competing versions of the good.
He refers to ‘equal liberty’, but what must the State do to bring about equal liberty in his opinion? For example, to what extent must it curb freedom of religious belief and manifestation, of conscience, of association, of expression? To what extent must it seek to redistribute goods and to what extent must it control the economy?
In respect of schools for example, an enrolment policy that admits children of the faith of the school ahead of other children is a form of freedom of association. But Dr Hickey does not like this sort of enrolment policy and it appears he would prohibit it.
He also appears to wish to curb the right of those schools to teach say, traditional sexual morality and that would curb freedom of religious belief and manifestation, and freedom of expression as well.
A State that does all these things is not neutral. It has, in my opinion, an idea of the good that strongly interferes with other ideas of the good. It elevates the idea of ‘equal liberty’ above other goods.
Finally, John Waters has also responded to Dr Hickey’s original article and Waters’ article can be found here [3].