mdsinclair

At the end of today’s session, we discussed as a possible topic for next Monday a case argued before the Supreme Court on 30 April: St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond. According to a recent New York Times article:

“After Oklahoma’s charter school board approved the proposal to open St. Isidore, the state’s attorney general, Gentner Drummond, sued to stop it.

Mr. Drummond , a Republican, said a religious public school would violate the First Amendment’s prohibition of government establishment of religion and the State Constitution’s ban on spending public money to support religious institutions.”

The school has said it will include Catholic doctrine throughout its curriculum.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in favor of Drummond’s position that allowing the school to operate as a state chater school, which would require the state to provide funding for it, would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as applied to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. The US Supreme Court granted the school’s petition for certiorari.

Here are links to some recent New York Times articles about the case and about recent US Supreme Court decisions regarding the Establishment Clause:

Supreme Court Seems Open to a Religious Charter School in Oklahoma (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/30/us/politics/supreme-court-charter-school.html?unlocked_article_code=1.E08._u1U._zTvZ8w3te83&smid=em-share)

A Key Question Before the Court: Are Charter Schools Public or Private? (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/30/us/politics/charter-schools-public-private-supreme-court.html?unlocked_article_code=1.E08.TpuM.BDhlATqTsLf2&smid=em-share

Will Religion’s Remarkable Winning Streak at the Supreme Court Continue? (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/30/us/politics/supreme-court-religion.html?unlocked_article_code=1.E08.RKwO.ka_NhZt-Nm9r&smid=em-share)

Highlights: Religious Charter School Case Reaches the Supreme Court (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/04/30/us/supreme-court-charter-schools?unlocked_article_code=1.E08.487Z.Qs8DoGrEzCD2&smid=em-share)

Last week’s edition of The Ellsworth American included a commentary by Peter Sly proposing a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. At the end of today’s session, we identified this as a possible topic for next week’s meeting, if Peter is able to join us then (or if not, at a later meeting) and tell us more about how he sees this working.

At various times during sessions of Beyond Labels, we’ve discussed (explicitly or implicitly) the concept of “liberty”. In 1859, John Stuart Mill published a short book entitled “On Liberty”, in which he gave his definition of liberty. There are many other definitions, of course, but Mill’s definition had a big impact when he published it and continues to echo today.

We could discuss this, if anyone wants to, at any time since I don’t think it’s time-sensitive.

This is a summary of Mill’s definition, from his introduction to “On Liberty”, Penguin English Library (1984), pp. 68-69:

“The purpose of this essay is to assert one very simple principle as to the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion or control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of anyone for which he is amenable to society is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, as of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

Mill goes on to list some exceptions to this general rule, including the following:

• It applies only to mature human beings, not to children or minors (as determined by law)
• It does not apply to societies that are “in their nonage” (i.e. primitive or immature}. Mills writes: “Despotism is a legitimate form of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement and the means justified by actually effecting that end.”
• Society may compel people to perform “positive” acts for the benefit of others, such as to give evidence in court, or to participate in the common defense or in “any other joint work necessary to the interest of … society.”
• Society may compel any of its members to “perform certain acts of individual beneficence”, such as saving another person’s life or intervening to protect another person from “ill usage”.

The following are some questions we could discuss:

1. Is Mill’s general rule correct?
2. What’s left of Mill’s general rule once the exceptions are applied?
3. Are there any other exceptions to Mill’s general rule?
4. Are Mill’s general rule and exceptions reflected in American government and society today? Should they be? If not, why not?