Can we conclude from what is said below, that David Deutsch is mistaken when he writes: " . . . I conclude, therefore, that the CLAIM is simply false, and that the school's regime, though it seems much more humane than a typical school, is nevertheless systematically coercive both in its overall constitution and in its detailed functioning." ? [What about Sudbury Valley? -- Why the Sudbury Valley School is not TCS http://www.tcs.ac/Articles/DDTCSvsSudburyValley.html ]
"The child is not the mere creature of the State."
David Rovner - email@example.com
Favors ending government involvement in education,
working for the Advancement of Democratic Schools
& the Freedom of Learning, Individual Rights and
Objectivist philosophy in Israel.
Separate School from State
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Schneider-Joseph" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: DSM: TCS (Taking Children Seriously): Non-coercive Schools?
> As an SVS alumni, a proponent of the Sudbury model, and supporter of TCS
> philosophy and member of the TCS community, I believe I can offer some
> useful ideas to this discussion.
> 1) According to the TCS definition of coercion (which you can see at
> http://www.TCS.ac/FAQ/FAQShortGlossary.html), democracy is not
> inherently coercive. It can be, and often is (even SVS democracy), but
> doesn't have to be. If everyone's preference is to make decisions
> *within* the framework of a democracy, then it is not necessarily
> coercive if the democracy makes a decision that I disagree with.
> To explain this, I'll use an example: I like having money. I'd love to
> have more money. But I also think stealing is wrong. Unless I am in
> poverty, it is my preference that people who earned money legitimately
> keep the money. If I make more money, I want to earn it. As another
> example: I like playing chess. When I play chess, I try to win. But I
> don't find it coercive when I lose. I love the learning experience and
> I'd much rather lose within the rules of chess than win by any means
> possible (including cheating).
> Now, in all three examples, someone *could* find these situations
> coercive. Depending on the circumstance, I could (and often do) find a
> decision made by a democracy I'm a member of coercive. There are also
> some people who play chess *only* to win, and are very distraught when
> they lose. I use these examples only to illustrate what coercion means
> according to the TCS definition, not to make any points about the morals
> of democracy or economics or chess.
> 2) The TCS position on coercion is that coercion is *harmful* to the
> person being coerced, not that it is always wrong. In fact, the TCS
> position is that coercion is often perfectly moral, and sometimes the
> ONLY moral way to act. It is coercion, for example, to use force in
> self-defense, but perfectly moral. A common preference cannot be found
> with someone who's not interested in finding one.
> TCS does say that it is possible and desirable for parents and children
> to have non-coercive, common preference-finding relationships (because
> of the unique nature and responsibilities inherent in such
> relationships). It's often hard work to figure out how to avoid
> coercion, and it will probably take many generations before there will
> ever be a completely non-coercive parent (if there ever is one), but it
> is very important that parents try very hard with their children to
> avoid coercion.
> 3) I think a good analogy with a Sudbury school is that of a town
> government. In many ways it serves the same roles. It allocates some
> communal funds, hires some people to keep things running smoothly, and
> sets basic rules of behavior so that everyone feels that their rights
> are being protected. It also has a judicial system for dealing with
> rule violations. By their nature, rules are coercive to someone who
> does not want to follow them. And enforcing those rules with a judicial
> system is also coercive. But IF the rules only outlaw actions that are
> violations of the rights of others, then it is perfectly moral to use
> coercion to enforce those rules. It just so happens that the rules at a
> Sudbury school only exist as a defense against coercive behavior, i.e.
> theft and assault, not to coerce people "for their own good", which are
> what most of the rules in other schools and homes are there for. In
> this way, there is nothing contradictory to TCS philosophy in the
> Sudbury model.
> So, strictly speaking, people that want to break the rules at a Sudbury
> school are not "doing what they want to do." But I don't think that any
> TCSer would think that the actions that are not allowed at SVS should be
> allowed. Nor is this statement misleading in any but the most literal
> interpretation, in my opinion, because the vast majority of Sudbury
> school students ARE doing what they want to do, all day.
> 4) Finally, I definitely agree that parents should never force their
> children to go to school, Sudbury model or otherwise, and if their
> children don't want to go to school they should help them find other
> activities that they *do* like. No Sudbury school would enroll a child
> that refused to attend, but it is unfortunately true that it's possible
> for parents to coerce their children into saying that they want to
> attend even if they don't really want to. There is no way that a
> Sudbury school can prevent that, nor does it have any moral obligation
> to, anymore than a supermarket should refuse to sell food to children
> unless the manager can be sure that the child is not there because of
> parental coercion. But I think Sudbury schools are the one type of
> school where nearly every single student wants to be there, usually
> because (among other reasons) it is a haven *from* coercion.
> David Schneider-Joseph
If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
email@example.com (do NOT reply to the mailing list) with the following
phrase in the BODY (not the subject) of the message, replacing
"firstname.lastname@example.org" with the email address that you subscribed under:
unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model email@example.com
If you are interested in the subject, but the volume of mail sent is too much,
you may wish to consider unsubscribing from this list and subscribing to
This mailing list is archived at http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/archives
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Mar 27 2002 - 19:39:49 EST