Comprehension

EQUALITY AND LIBERTY

Over the past century those on the left in British politics who have struggled for greater equality have never felt that this objective was incompatible with personal liberty; indeed, the assumption has always been that the two aims were complementary. For British reformers equality has always meant equality of treatment, of respect for the individual, equality in the sense of an equal chance to develop one's personality and to live a full and free life. For this reason it has never been thought likely that to increase an under-privileged person's chance of a comfortable house, an adequate education, a good job or a satisfactory pension could do anything except increase his freedom to have a satisfactory existence.

But this equality of treatment is induced by the intervention of the state, either by central or by local government action, which can involve some loss of liberty. This may happen if activities leading to inequality have to be prohibited or penalized, but it can also occur if people are dealt with in broad categories, irrespective of the merits of particular cases. In either situation the application of laws designed to produce greater equality can inhibit liberty.
One example is in education. There is a powerful argument that the segregation of children into secondary modern schools, secondary schools, grammar schools, direct grant schools and public schools militated against equality of treatment for the children, both during their education and in subsequent life. At school some had over-crowded classes, poor facilities and a constant turnover among their teachers, while others got stability and careful, almost personal, tuition. Moreover, the whole effect was to produce different types of accent and patterns of behaviour which did much to reinforce the class divisions in British society, divisions which clearly make equality of opportunity, and equality of respect from officials and those supposed to serve the public, much harder to obtain.
It would be argued with great force that equality would be served if the system which did, and still does, exist in the small towns of the Scottish highlands and borders could be spread over the whole country. These were areas with no private schools, where the existing town school had a long tradition and a reputation for good work; and everyone – from the well-off farmer, the clergyman and the doctor, down to the unskilled labourer – sent their children to the same school.
But if, particularly in cities, many secondary schools came into this broad category, would liberty not be enhanced if the maximum parental choice was allowed, provided this did not have an adverse effect on the school system? When parents have two or three schools within reach, and given that these schools all have room to take pupils from outside their immediate area, and if one has a reputation for athletics, another for a more permissive style of education, while a third is known to have a good music department, why not let parents choose the school they want their children to attend? This question of the school environment is accepted as being of vital importance in moulding the behaviour and outlook of the young. To permit segregation according to ability is held to be damaging, as is segregation on class lines, and for this reason the kind of freedom of choice that would produce these results is prohibited to parents. Yet many local authorities go on to assume and assert that it follows that almost all freedom of choice should be prohibited.