The recent story of the high-school Assistant Principal—a woman—who, allegedly, demanded students show their underwear before entering a dance shows something about power, and the way Americans think about it.

The administrator offered a rationale—to "ensure appropriate school dress." The parents who protested her conduct cite the "right to privacy" and "appropriateness." Some others have opined that her motive was sexual gratification. Everyone suggests that there must be a reason. These suggest that both sides have agreed to suppose that the conduct had some rational basis. The controversy seems to lie in a matter of degree—did she go too far?

In my opinion , it was not a matter of degree. To the contrary, there was no reason at all. I think that the woman took advantage of her authority simply because she could. The conduct was wanton, a plain instance of the exercise in power for its own sake. Mostly, power doesn't need a reason, it only wants an excuse.

No published reports suggests this. It is very important for Americans to believe that their institutions exercise power rationally. Arbitrariness offends Americans so much that they'd rather provide an obviously phony rationale, than to admit the existence of arbitrary, or wanton, power in their institutions.

American high school really Is Rock 'n' Roll High School

This may be particularly true for American public schools. These institutions, controlled by locally-elected school boards, have the power to tax, and often have their own cadres of police. They are repositories of community values (they may have supplanted what may formerly have been a function of churches in this regard). Their missions are the enforcement of social norms—chastity, obedience and being "a good consumer" are priorities. The inculcation of critical thinking is not. The stated goal, "education," is, when it occurs at all, merely an artifact.

Re-build from scratch compulsory universal education

I believe that education, not social conditioning, ought to be the sovereign criterion for primary and secondary compulsory schooling. In my estimation, the systems of public schooling, as constituted in the United States, are bad, so thoroughly wrong-headed, that trying to fix them would be a waste of time, and a squandering of taxpayer moneys.

Better to start from scratch, to re-build compulsory universal education: to pension off the administrators—they would be happier in law-enforcement, anyway—and to insist that all teachers be compelled to re-apply for their jobs. Abolish local control of schools—they have had the entire twentieth century, and billions of dollars to succeed or fail, and they have failed.

New standards for teachers would be rigorous. On that basis, teacher salaries should be raised (to raise salaries, but not standards, which is what teachers unions demand, is corrupt).

If public schools are bad, are private-school vouchers good?

What about the voucher for private schooling? It has nothing more to do with education than the present public school system, which is to say, nothing at all. The voucher is about social and economic class, not education.

The voucher system is designed to stop social mobility, and thereby to petrify the existing class structure. It is the act of the arriviste who, having clambered up the social ladder, turns around and pulls the ladder up, to prevent anyone from coming after.

The Supreme Court says that the voucher system is lawful. This does not mean that it is a good idea—it is not.

But the proponents of the voucher system offer voters two things which its opponents do not: first, an admission that the existing public-school system is egregious; and an alternative. It may be a selfish and pernicious alternative, but it has the virtue of not repeating the mistakes of the past.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

The opponents of the voucher system, who support universal compulsory education, are, unfortunately, part of the problem, not part of a solution. They are the creatures of the present, failed public school system.

The opponents of the voucher system refuse to admit what every citizen knows, which is that the present régime is a failure. They offer no alternative, but simply more of the same. A reasonable voter apprehends this as complete denial of reality.

If they want to make headway among reasonable voters, they need to offer a real alternative to the existing system.