Sir, – A distinction that has been missing from much of the debate on faith schools in your pages is the one often made by political theorists between negative liberty (“freedom from”) and positive liberty (“freedom to”).
Negative liberty, loosely stated, is the freedom not to be interfered with and to be allowed to live our lives in peace. For instance, we expect to be allowed to take up a job for which we are qualified without being discriminated against on account of our gender, or being fired without reason. We expect our home to be relatively sacrosanct, so that it cannot be searched without a warrant, or encroached upon by a neighbour building an extension. Negative liberty is usually of particular concern to individuals.
Positive liberty is usually more of concern to groups or collectivities, and is the freedom to engage in projects that are desired by a significant group of people. The freedom of a group of workers to establish a trade union is one example. The Constitution is another: “The Irish nation hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible, and sovereign right to choose its own form of Government ... and to develop its life, political, economic and cultural, in accordance with its own genius and traditions”.
Positive and negative liberties often come into collision with one another, and may even appear irreconcilable. For instance a majority of the people may want better and wider roads, but the building of these often involves compulsory purchase orders, as a result of which individuals may see their family homes demolished. Or a majority of the public may demand better public services, but individuals who do not care about these will still find their wage packet raided by the tax authorities to pay for them. On the other hand various public projects, such as better drainage or flood control, can be thwarted by individuals or small groups who, rightly or wrongly, focus on undesirable consequences, such as damage to wildlife, and pursue objections through the courts.
In the context of faith schools, Article 42 of the Constitution provides for the right of parents to provide for the religious education of their children in schools recognised or established by the State. In Ireland, given the scarcity of non-religious schools, this positive liberty inevitably comes into conflict with the negative liberty of a growing number of non-religious parents who wish to have their children protected from religious ideas. But this does not imply, as some of your letter-writers have suggested, that the particular positive liberty enshrined in religious schools should be completely swept aside to accommodate the negative liberty of those parents who do not approve of them.
Both types of liberty are essential in any state. Where there is no regard for negative liberties, basic rights are trampled on. But without positive liberties there can be no overall vision for a nation, nor any ideals for significant groups of like-minded people to pursue; civic life can descend into a series of local squabbles, shaped only by defensive legislation and case law. It should be noted that totalitarian states have been as quick to crush positive liberties as negative liberties, with trade unions and civic associations among their earliest targets.
While negative and positive liberties often seem irreconcilable, there is usually room for some accommodation between them, and this should be sought in the current debate about faith schools. It does not seem that the best solution would be for the “negative libertarians” to develop their identity and organisation to the extent that they are able to enforce a new positive liberty that would be to replace totally the religious ethos of schools by a non-religious secular ethos; this would only swap one group of aggrieved people for another, and would only perpetuate the perceived “tyranny of majorities” (past or present) which the secular camp are currently challenging. – Yours, etc,
BILL TONER, SJ
Cherry Orchard,
Dublin 10.