To the Editor,

As F.A. Hayek wrote in his 1944, now seminal, text The Road to Serfdom, "Although we have been warned by some of the greatest political thinkers of the nineteenth century, by de Toqueville and Lord Acton, that socialism means slavery, we have steadily moved in the direction of socialism. And now that we have seen a new form of slavery arise before our eyes, we have so completely forgotten the warning, that it scarcely occurs to us that the two things may be connected."

That "new form of slavery" that Hayek is clanging the alarm bells over, is the modern welfare state. I was reminded of Hayek's warning upon reading Aaron Lee Wudrig's column on tuition deregulation.

Lee Wudrig joins a chorus of modern theorists who believe we are still upon the road to serfdom, frivolously throwing our own economic and political freedom away to be caged by the monsters of social provision.

Lee Wudrig argues that as the "primary beneficiaries" of education, paying half the costs of that education is not an unfair burden. He then goes on to suggest that because the societal benefits of public-funded education can not be calculated, they should be discounted if not dismissed.

My problem with Lee Wudrig's argument is both theoretical and concrete. From a matter of information, Lee Wudrig has the facts wrong on a number of issues. Firstly, students pay 35% of their total education costs (as set out in the Tories blueprint in the 1999 election), and at many universities pay as much as 42-45%. The other myth is that 65% is being paid by the taxpayer. In fact, an increasing proportion of university operating budgets are provided by third party organizations, individuals and corporations. So much so, in fact, that the Council of Ontario Universities was forced to alter its definition of a public institution as the University of Western Ontario was now more than 50% privately funded.

In addition, engineers, computer scientists and other deregulated professionals are not "subsidizing" other programs in the way that Lee Wudrig presents. 80% of tuition increases (after student financial aid set-aside) are kept within the faculty, while 20% are sent to the "centre" and are spread across university budgets. However, as the deregulated programs have by far the highest costs and have many unfunded students, they end up largely subsidizing themselves while other faculties contribute more.

The theoretical problems with Lee Wudrig's claims are more complex. They stem from a genuine philosophical divide with not just Lee Wudrig but the historical liberal argument more generally. The complexity arises out of the difficulty of justifying state social provision when, as Lee Wudrig points out, the benefits are diffuse, abstract and often difficult to measure. This point is probably best expressed by Canadian theorist Michael Ignatieff in his text, The Needs of Strangers, "Rights language offers a rich vernacular for the claims an individual may make on or against the collectivity, but it is relatively impoverished as a means of expressing individuals' needs for the collectivity.

However, this does not make them disappear. Education is a public good not only because we say it is so. Instead, education is a public good because it has become, ironically a means by which we can further enhance our freedom as a society by ensuring a relative equality of opportunity. As Ignatieff continues, "It has been in order to equalize everyone's chances at a free life that the state now meets needs for food, shelter, clothing, education, transport and health care (at least in some countries). It is in the name of freedom that experts in need now pronounce on the needs of strangers."

Additionally, state social provision is a means by which we as a society empower ourselves to achieve our own individual potential. It is in keeping with the ideas of a just society and a basic humanity that we provide essential services in a universal and accessible manner. This case is best made by Bo Rothstein in his book "Just Institutions Matter" in which he states: "In order to achieve what economists call market-conforming regulations, then, some form of taxation must be instituted" and that, in paraphrasing Rawls, "a system founded solely on voluntary market relations is, ' not, in general, fair, unless the antecedent distribution of income and wealth as well as the structure of the system of markets is fair'." This is the clarion call for a universal and publicly funded system of social provision and essential services, of which post-secondary education is very much one.

In summary, Lee Wudrig is, in my eyes, both theoretically and concretely incorrect in his push for a deregulated education system. While the benefits are diffuse and difficult to measure, a universal education system is both a necessity for our individual freedom as well as an important promotion of equality within a market economy. Furthermore, publicly funded education does have measurable and important effects on our economy in the form of productivity, income generation and efficiency.

When phrased in the quality/accessibility argument, Lee Wudrig promotes a false dialectic with which it is impossible to create a favorable outcome. He then creates paper dragons to slay by painting the opposition as merely pro-tax utopians. The reality is that deregulated tuition limits accessibility to what should be a universal public service and an essential component of state social provision in the promotion of a just and fair society.

Let us not run away from the imaginary Road to Serfdom but instead proceed to a place where we can rightfully and humanely acknowledge the needs of strangers and, thereby, the collective good.

Sincerely,

Mark A. Schaan
UW, Class of '02