So, what are the ties that bind?

I have been reading Michael Sandel's 1996 book Democracy's Discontent. Its thesis is that the polarized and non-nuanced political culture in the U.S. works against any notion of civic responsibility, and thus, any hope of good government. In particular, the trend of Supreme Court decisions over the last 150 years has been away from applying the Constitution, and in particular the Bill of Rights, exclusively to the federal government: the Court instead has found that Constitutional protections apply to all levels of government. What this has engendered is what Sandel pithily, if a bit misleadingly on occasion, calls an emphasis of the right over the good: that is, we as a nation prioritize individual rights over our collective good (as expressed through a national government).

So it was with a certain weariness that I read of New Hampshire's new law giving parents "greater control over course materials taught in school".

Both the House and Senate voted to override the governor's veto of HB 542, which requires school districts to adopt policies to allow "an exception to specific course material based on a parent's or legal guardian's determination that the material is objectionable."

Those who agree with the bill, including some commenters to this article, say that it's only right that parents should be the final arbiter of what their kids are taught.

As one who "desires nothing more than just the ordinary chance to live exactly as he likes and do precisely what he wants" (to quote Alan Jay Lerner from My Fair Lady), I find the principle of individual choice to be enormously compelling. And yet, consider where New Hampshire's law leads us.

What led to New Hampshire's law was one parent's disapproval of a book taught in a personal-finance course. I can imagine any number of other books to which various people might object. So can you.

I can also imagine whole subjects that might be taboo. You don't have to resort to citing the stereotypical fundamentalist Christian strawman who might object to a biology course on the grounds that it might mention evolution: now a committed member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) could object to the biology course as well, on the grounds that dissection was repugnant.

What is a public school -- what is a public education system -- supposed to teach?

That's not an exasperated question. That's a genuine query that has two further, deeper queries behind it:

What can we agree that kids need to learn?

and

Is a child's education supposed to prepare her to be a good citizen?

I don't have answers to these questions. They're more than ripe for answering, though. They also touch on a central issue in Sandel's book: what ties us together as a nation?

The trouble with the primacy of individual rights in our political culture is that it does absolutely nothing to promote any sense of commonality among us. I look forward to seeing what recommendations Sandel has for restoring a sense of unity, or at least comity, among us.

(On a totally separate note, boo to the Union Leader for failing to provide a byline to the linked article. It was short, but it didn't write itself.)