The Catholic Argument for Abolishing the United States Department of Education

On October 17, 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act, establishing the United States Department of Education (ED) as a federal agency. While the ED has been praised by both Republicans and Democrats alike, its creation has caused more problems than most Americans realize. The federal government should abolish the U.S. Department of Education due to its usurpation of the father’s right to educate his children and its violation of the United States Constitution. Upon doing so, the federal government will return the right to educate not to state governments but to the father of the family, its natural custodian.

According to the Catholic Church, the fundamental right to education resides with the father of the family. For instance, in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, the Angelic Doctor taught that “the father is the principle of generation, of education and discipline and of everything that bears upon the perfecting of human life.” Although the Angelic Doctor also acknowledged the mother’s role in education in his Commentary on 1 Timothy,he noted that her function is ultimately ancillary, for “the woman…is for the sake of man; therefore, the man should rule [the family].”

Not only that, but the father also possesses “in a particular way a share in that principle which…is found in God,” the Creator of Heaven and Earth. In other words, just as Divine Providence governs all creatures, so, too, is the father primarily responsible for his family’s well-being. Consequently, his authority must be given pride of place, for it is through his love, vigilance, and care that children are able to attain their full development.

Reiterating St. Thomas’ teaching in the late 19th century, Pope Leo XIII declared in Sapientiae Christianae:

These [parents] hold from nature their right of training the children to whom they have given birth, with the obligation super-added of shaping and directing the education of their little ones to the end for which God vouchsafed the privilege of transmitting the gift of life.

Here, the Holy Father highlights another important aspect of the father’s fundamental right to educate his children. What is this “end” which children are ultimately destined for? It is nothing less than the Beatific Vision—the sheer, gratuitous gift of seeing God face-to-face and living in His presence for all eternity. Thus, by allowing husband and wife to partake in the creation of new life, the Most Holy Trinity has endowed them with the privilege to provide not only for their children’s temporal needs but their spiritual ones as well.

To quote the Angelic Doctor in his Supplement of the Summa: “Nature intends not merely the generation of the offspring, but also its development and advance to the perfection of man considered as man, that is, to the state of virtue.” In light of this observation, if the father fails to direct his children toward the Beatific Vision, then he can hardly be called a parent. After all, the English word “education” stems from the Latin verb educare (“to rear”), which implies the presence of a specific telos embedded within education by God Himself.

Additionally, since the public school system in the United States neglects to teach students in accordance with the Deposit of Faith, it fails to take into account man’s supernatural end and implicitly encourages him to place his trust in the State alone. Written to combat the growing influence of so-called “neutral” learning institutions throughout Christendom, Pope Pius XI’s Divini Illius Magistri identified schools “from which religion is excluded, [as] contrary to the fundamental principles of education” on the grounds that they scorn “every sort of dependance on the divine law” and place themselves on an idolatrous pedestal in the process.

The Holy Father predicted that if such “schools” were allowed to remain open, they would be “bound to become irreligious” and make their students “unhappy and helpless.” From a Catholic perspective, then, the State’s usurpation of the father’s right to educate his children ultimately infringes upon the preservation, well-being, and happiness of American families. To quote Pope Pius XI:

Whoever refuses to admit these principles…must necessarily deny that Christ has founded His Church for the eternal salvation of mankind, and maintain instead that civil society and the State are not subject to God and to His law, natural and divine. Such a doctrine is manifestly impious, contrary to right reason, and, especially in [the] matter of education, extremely harmful to the proper training of youth, and disastrous as well for civil society [and] for the well-being of all mankind.

In the early history of the United States of America, the Founding Fathers—a majority of whom were not Catholic, I might add—nevertheless recognized the origin of the father’s right to educate his children via the natural law. As a result, the Constitution contains no explicit language regarding a federal or state role in education, implicitly leaving its regulation in the hands of the father.

However, in the early 18th century, the federal government began to encroach upon the father’s authority. For instance, after admitting Ohio to the Union in 1803, Congress required that all subsequent states after Ohio place public education in their state constitutions as a condition of statehood. Although Massachusetts had been in the Union since 1788 and did not need to comply with this new mandate, it responded by becoming the first state to establish a public school and pass a compulsory school attendance law, doing so in 1821 and 1852, respectively.

According to the Massachusetts School Attendance Act of 1852, children between the ages of 8 and 14 were required to attend public school for at least three months of the year. Shortly after the Civil War, Congress created the United States Office of Education (USOE), a predecessor of the ED, in order to collect statistics on state education nationwide and to “share” (i.e., force states to accept) information regarding the organization and management of their respective public-school systems.

Since USOE was a federal institution which disseminated its educational strategies to the states, the argument for its lack of involvement in the public school system is weak. For example, by 1918, 47 other states had adopted compulsory school attendance laws similar in scope to Massachusetts. In light of this fact, it would not be a stretch to link Congress’ early-18th-century mandate with the federal government’s increased role in education throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

By doing so, it attempted to supplant the father’s right to educate his children by regulating education vis-à-vis the states. They, in turn, carried out Congress’ will through their enactment of compulsory school attendance laws, forcing children to learn outside of the home. Building on this traction, the federal government finally solidified its presence in education under President Jimmy Carter, becoming a proverbial “thorn in the side” of American families for the past 45 years.

Responding to the overreach of Congress and the states in the 19th and 20th centuries, the Supreme Court began to reaffirm the father’s right to educate his children. In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the Court heldthat “the American people have always regarded education and acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance.” In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the Court invalidated an Oregon law requiring all children within the state to attend public school, holding that Oregon had shown “no justification for its interference ‘with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.’”

Next, in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), the Court held that there is no “right to education explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution.” In the majority opinion, Justice Lewis Powell remarked:

[We agree] that “the grave significance of education both to the individual and to our society” cannot be doubted. But the importance of a service performed by the State does not determine whether it must be regarded as [a] fundamental [right protected by the Constitution].

In his concurring opinion, Justice Potter Stewart added: “Unlike other provisions of the Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause [of the 14th Amendment] confers no substantive rights and creates no substantive liberties [upon American citizens],” including education. Finally, ten years after Rodriguez, the Court reaffirmed its position in Plyler v. Doe (1982). In the plurality opinion, Justice William Brennan acknowledged “the pivotal role of education in sustaining [society’s] political and cultural heritage.” Nevertheless, he made it clear that “public education is not a right granted to individuals by the Constitution…neither is it merely some governmental benefit indistinguishable from [others].”

The significance of these cases cannot be overstated. Although some constitutional law scholars argue that the 10th Amendment gives the states the right to educate their citizens, the Court in Pierce, Rodriguez, and Plyler explicitly rejected their theory. Consequently, the case for American fathers’ right to educate over that of Congress and the states is given not only philosophical and theological support but judicial sanction as well.

While a proponent of state regulation of education might retort that the Court’s adoption of a specific viewpoint does not necessarily mean that its perspective is correct, the fact that the first public school in the United States was not established until Massachusetts did so—roughly eighteen years after Congress’ 1803 mandate—provides convincing historical evidence leaning in the Court’s favor. Granted, there is some merit to the opposing argument. After all, the Court’s affirmation of the so-called “right” to abortion in Roe v. Wade in 1973—the same year that Rodriguez was decided—does not turn an egregious violation of the Fifth Commandment into a justifiable, lawful course of action through mere judicial fiat.

When the Court embarks in legal positivism to sweep aside the natural law, no practicing Catholic would question that American citizens must disobey these so-called “laws” at all costs. Nevertheless, even some of the dissenting judges in Rodriguez and Plyler recognized the states’ inability to regulate education via the 10th Amendment. For instance, Chief Justice Burger’s dissent in Plyler recognized that “the importance of a governmental service [like education] does not elevate it to the status of a ‘fundamental’ right [protected by the Constitution].” In light of the foregoing, then, it is clear that justices on both the “winning” and “losing” sides of each case consistently rejected both the federal government’s and the states’ right to educate American citizens in favor of the father.

Because the United States Department of Education interferes with the father’s right to educate his children and violates the United States Constitution, the federal government should abolish it “with all deliberate speed” (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954).