The Only Fair Safe Space is a Private Safe Space

     Arizona has come up in the news and not in a good way. Well, what else do I blog about except bad news?
     I choose to critique the article in Reason Magazine as they usually have the best analyses and to find a flaw in a Reason writer's argument would be quite a rare thing. This time, however, I think something more needs to be said.
     A bill, HB 2120, has been introduced in the Arizona House of Representatives by Republican (are there any other kind in Arizona?) representatives Thorpe and Finchem (who I voted for). By the terms of the bill, "courses, classes, events, or activities" that
1. promote the overthrow of the U.S. government
2. promote division, resentment, or social justice toward a race, gender, religion, political affiliation
    social class, or other class of people
3. are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group
4. advocate solidarity or isolation based on ethnicity, race, gender, religion, or social class
5. violate state or federal civil rights laws
6. negatively target specific nationalities or countries
are to be prohibited in school districts and community colleges and universities subject to the authority of the state (of Arizona).
   
     The author of the Reason article opined that

". . . allowing authorities to legislate what is and what isn't acceptable speech on campus—especially public campuses which are required to respect the First Amendment—is a terrible idea and inevitably comes back to harm whichever party the speech restrictions were designed to protect. The authors of HB-2120 might think they're taking a stand against P.C. culture run amok, but all they're really doing is legitimizing the concept of hiding from challenging ideas rather than confronting them." 

     In other words, schools and universities are supposed to be arenas where competing ideas are debated, and may the best idea win! Perhaps that is what people have in mind when they assert that the state should not have control over educational content:

"The Arizona school boards association said it opposes Thorpe’s bill because the state should not have control over school content. 'It should be up to each district what kind of curriculum should be approved,' said spokeswoman Heidi Vega."

    I don't really have a dog in this fight. The two sides each have their own idea about what should happen (what content should be taught) on public property (the schools). My position is that it's impossible to decide fairly how public property should be used.
     The concept of ownership gives one a solid basis for deciding questions of how to resolve conflict over scarce resources. Ownership entails the following property rights: enjoyment, occupation, possession, rental, sale or other form of alienation, use, or even destruction of a property, and the right to exclude others from the exercise of aforesaid rights.
     All property, including "public" property, belongs to the persons who determine who gets to exercise the property rights. The theory of public property in a democracy entails the idea that public property will be used in a way determined by the majority of the voters. But what if two powerful political factions disagree about how certain public property is to be used? Then the goal of the concept of ownership---to resolve conflicts over scarce resources---is defeated. And indeed, that's what we're witnessing in the fight over what content should be taught in Arizona public schools.
     I think everyone has the right to advocate whatever ideas or theories they believe in, no matter how mistaken I think they are. However, people should not have the right to steal other peoples' money (taxation) and then use that money to erect facilities where their ideas and theories will be propounded at taxpayer expense.
     Therefore, the only just solution to the problem of what content will be taught in schools is that the schools be privatized. One can't complain about what people do on their own property!