Dialectical Analysis of a Defense of Faith-Based Schools

Vincent J. Curtis

 

13 Dec 2013

In response to the attack on the Separate School system in Ontario by Michelle Zimic, Dr. Richard Shields had published a rebuttal in my hometown newspaper.  Dr. Shields teaches theology at the University of St. Michael's College of the University of Toronto.  Below is an analysis of the dialectics employed by Dr. Shields in his article.

The rebuttal to Michelle Zimic’s attack on separate schools written by Richard Shields was certainly interesting in its approach.  It started by positing an alternative reality and then tackled the essential parts of Zimic’s thesis from that new perspective.

 

Richard Shields and I are in agreement on the conclusions that he reaches.  However, the “alternative reality” approach as a means of reaching those conclusions leaves one a little unsatisfied.  It failed to meet Zimic’s arguments on their own ground, and Shields is forced into making statements that are, in their own way, as dubious as Zimic’s were.

 

The advantage to the “alternative reality” approach is that it is less violent than a direct head-to-head confrontation on the issues and merits.  For that reason, it may fail to convince those who accept Zimic’s view of reality and do not accept Shield’s view.  As you probably are aware, I prefer the violent, head-to-head confrontation as a method because it guarantees that the issues are truly joined.  It is clear that the debate is about the same thing in its details, and not simply arguments moving like ships passing each other in the night on the way to different destinations.

 

The “alternative reality” approach of Shields begins with the statement that we do not have two systems, but one system made up of several systems.  This certainly is true, though Zimic implicitly rejects it.  The “system of systems” view lays the groundwork for easily refuting Zimic’s contention that Separate Schools do not belong in Ontario since it is a component system of Ontario's system of systems. The system of systems view makes easy to see the unintended consequences of abolishing Separate Schools, namely, what happens to the students and the properties that presently belong to the Separate School system?  They cannot just be taken over by the province because it lacks both the legal and constitutional authority to appropriate the properties and the students of the Separate system.  Abolishing Separate Schools would create a tangled legal mess far beyond anything Zimic imagines.

 

The “alternative reality” approach gets Dr. Shields into trouble when, to join issue with Zimic, he has to make questionable arguments himself.  Such as, there “being no proof” that faith-based schooling is a source of division.  Of course there is no proof of that, but there is no proof of the opposite either,  To argue that one of Zimic’s contentions has “no foundation in fact” is not quite the same as saying they are false and imaginary.

 

The citing of educational research as undermining of another of Zimic’s arguments, superficially, is effective.  However, social research is plagued with scientific problems, and the conclusions of social research frequently amount to nothing but common sense generalizations or the opinions of the reseachers dressed up as scientific findings.  It would be better to simply say that, in this instance, Zimic merely expresses a hope or a wish and not a forecast, and that she fails to appreciate the hostility and upheaval that the adoption of her alleged remedy to a non-problem would cause.

 

Shields devotes four sometimes wooly paragraphs to dealing with Zimic’s argument that Ontario is a secular society and so should offer only secular schools.  It would be better to simply point to the Constitution Act 1867, and say, “That’s the deal.”  Zimic’s opinion about the structure and nature of Ontario society notwithstanding, black letter law and the facts on the ground say otherwise.  And if one is prepared to open up the constitution in order to extinguish minority rights in the teeth of that minority’s opposition, what other rights might be susceptible to such treatment, the right of women to vote?

 

Shields was most effective when he took on the speculative opinion that amalgamation of Ontario schools would save money, pointing out that amalgamations of hospitals, school boards, and municipalities have demonstrated otherwise.  Indeed, the very idea that a government monopoly saves money is laughable in some quarters.

 

Richard Shields effectively refutes Zimic’s opinion piece, but does so by positing a competitive view of reality.  That method, in general, fails to ensure that issues are truly joined.  Shield’s method works in this case because his view of reality better accounts for the facts.

-30-