Eric Seifriz ‘22
Guest Writer
On Monday November 9, 2020, the University of Virginia School of Law hosted a Zoom symposium entitled “Fundamental Questions for Our Democracy Regarding a Federal Right to Education.” The discussion was borne out of issues raised by UVA Law professor Kimberly Jenkins Robinson’s new book “A Federal Right to Education: Fundamental Questions for our Democracy.” The book includes articles from leading education scholars, edited by Professor Robinson. Professor Robinson is a nationally recognized expert on educational law and policy, as well as on closing educational opportunity gaps and civil rights.
Pictured: Professor Kimberly Robinson, a recognized expert on educational law and policy, spurred this conversation. Photo Courtesy of twitter.com
Dean Risa L. Goluboff welcomed the virtual attendees and President James E. Ryan moderated the first panel, named “Should the United States Recognize a Federal Right to Education?” The speakers at the first panel were Professor Kristine L. Bowman from Michigan State University College of Law, Professor Peggy Cooper Davis from New York University School of Law, Professor Jason P. Nance from the University of Florida Levin College of Law, and Professor Eloise Pasachoff from the Georgetown University Law Center. Professor Robinson participated in the second panel, “How the United States Can Recognize and Define a Right to Education.”
In her welcome, Dean Goluboff discussed how the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 rejected a federal right to education in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, but explained that this was not the last word on the matter—it has still been an ongoing legal question in the decades since. Following the welcome, each speaker on the first panel was given eight minutes to speak before a brief Q&A session at the end.
Professor Bowman started the panel off by explaining that we need a federal right to education, because if we leave it to the states, they may not always provide substantive protections. Michigan, according to Professor Bowman, has weak and unenforceable educational rights at the state level, combined with limited fiscal capacity and a limited political will to improve matters. These factors together are undermining educational opportunity for Michigan students, who don’t currently have an effective avenue for relief when basic standards in their education are not being met. She gave examples of schools in Detroit having textbooks that are decades old, windows that don’t open in the summer, and no central heat in the winter.
On this topic, an exciting case just came out of Michigan—Gary B. v. Whitmer—where the 6th Circuit held that the Constitution affords a fundamental right to a basic minimum education (running counter to the Rodriguez decision). The Gary B. lawsuit asserts a federal right to obtaining a basic education in literacy in order for all children in the country to be able to be baseline participants in our democracy and public life. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has agreed to rehear this case, however, to review the initial panel’s ruling.
Professor Davis then took the floor to advocate for the United States to finally recognize a federal right to education, which she says is now broadly considered a basic human right. In her view, education is a fundamental right crucial to the functioning of a democratic republic. Professor Davis also provided a history lesson on the struggles of education for African-Americans throughout American history, from slavery to Reconstruction.
Next we heard from Professor Nance, who shared a snapshot of the chapter he wrote for Professor Robinson’s book. He believes that the U.S. should implement a stronger federal response to address the inequalities in the public education system, and considered five rationales to back up this view—economic, criminal justice, health, democracy, and fairness. He also shared sobering research on how a child’s self-perception is negatively affected by poorly resourced schools.
Professor Pasachoff agreed with the broader goal of the other panelists of working toward an equitable education system for all students, but doesn’t believe pursuing a federal right to education is the right way to go about this. In support of this claim, she argued—among other things—that relying on courts to interpret our existing Constitution isn’t likely to bring about change, because any court order would still require implementation by the institutions that are already struggling. In Professor Pasachoff’s view, these institutions lack the capacity, not the command, to act. Instead of advocating for a federal right to education, she believes that instead we should focus on educational policy debates about best practices and on improving budgets.
President Ryan returned to the screen then to host the Q&A session. He himself posed a question to the panelists, then audience members raised a host of issues including whether, if the federal right to education were recognized, our institutions would adequately be able to ensure that no child would be left behind. A second panel, “How the United States can Recognize and Define a Right to Education,” followed.
---
es5eg@virginia.edu