Stop Lifestyle Discrimination! May 6
Today on the front page of the dailycal is an article discussing the hardships student parents wil face as a result of UC budget cuts. The people interviewed in the article seem to think we should be moved by the unfairness of reducing the child care subsidy provided to graduate student parents and support the Graduate Assembly’s resolution to exempt child care from the proposed budget cuts. While I can empathize with any graduate student who faces tough choices because of our low wages (particularly at UC Berkeley) the universities subsidy of child care is blatantly discriminatory against people with other lifestyle choices and should be totally abolished not saved. I mean we surely wouldn’t tolerate a program that offered straight couples who wanted to have their own apartment (rather than rooms in a shared house) a subsidized low rent apartment but denied gay couples the same benefit so why do we tolerate a program that discriminates on this lifestyle choice?
My fiance and I will never have children but this hardly means that graduate school imposes no hardships on us. She is a graduate student at Harvard and I am finishing up at UC Berkeley and just as the low salary of graduate students makes it difficult to raise a child it also makes it tough to afford flights across the country. Yet does the university offer me a subsidy to visit my fiance the way it does to graduate student parents? No! Worse, this term UC Berkeley gave me a MWF teaching assignment (instead of the Tuesday one I requested) that made it impossible to visit my fiance over the weekends. But long distance relationships don’t get any consideration by the university while graduate students with children get automatic first dibs on teaching slots that are convenient for their child care arrangements. Moreover, the department is expected to bend over for graduate students with children if they need a particular day free while it’s just tough luck for me if I want to visit my fiance but can’t find anyone to substitute.
In light of this blatant unfairness does the article offer us any particular justification as to why we should subsidize those students who make the choice to have children? No, we are merely given a string of observations about how difficult it is to raise a child as a graduate student.
“If you have an infant, it’s $20,000 a year just in child care fees,” Keeley-Saldana said. “(The cost) really prohibits students from seeking their higher education degrees.”
…
With a new baby on the way, Cruz said the heightened costs would be “impossible” for he and his wife to meet.1
…
Senior Dana Parsons, 32, said campus child care services are essential for student parents such as herself.
….
“Had it not been for subsidized care on campus, I would not have been able to attend school full-time,” she wrote in an e-mail.
…
“There is no good solution,” she said. “I’m not saying that I don’t think it’s fair for Early Childhood to be spared from cuts, but I’m hoping that they really do value the children on campus.”
First of all let’s make this absolutely clear. Failing to subsidize child care doesn’t force anyone to stay at home, leave graduate school or otherwise deny them the benefits of higher education. The lack of subsidized child care merely forces people to choose between the benefits of using their resources to have a family or attend school. This is no different from the fact that without subsidies or special considerations Sharon and I must choose between graduate school and getting to see each other more than rarely during the school year. It’s blatantly unfair to offer monetary subsidies and preferences to one lifestyle choice without the slightest official consideration for the other.
Of course sometimes radically unfair policies can be justified if they offer sufficient benefit for the society at large. However, in order to overcome the presumption against unfair policies such as this one would need compelling evidence that this was really the most cost-effective way to increase the number of US graduates in math/science or the equivalent. Since women make up a majority of graduate students even finding that subsidized child care did more to retain women than men wouldn’t justify the program.2 Even restricting such subsidies only to the fields where women were underrepresented and granting the bizarre idea that numerical underrepresentation is ipso facto unfair3 one would need to establish that this kind of subsidy was particularly effective (more so than just giving women extra pay) to justify discriminating against those women who didn’t plan to have children.
I’m not going to even go into how this policy implicitly discriminates against those who have a more difficult time having children (the infertile, gays and lesbians). However, I will note that offering these benefits only to parents and not to those of use with other lifestyle preferences goes directly against the valid feminist justifications for legally required maternity leave and other bars against the implicit discrimination against women smuggled in via career punishment for maternity. However, unlike the lauditory goal of stopping corporations from imposing unfairly excessive penalties for one lifestyle choice (partially because of female stereotypes) we have a situation where the university is unfairly benefiting one lifestyle choice over another.
Of course I realize that few people are likely to be convinced by a logical argument in this situation. Most people want to have children themselves so, as is common with discrimination, it seems right and proper to them that people like themselves should receive a benefit. Moreover, the people who benefit from this program are easy to see while the small cost that all graduate students pay as a result is diffuse. So if you aren’t yet convinced just ask yourself this. How would you feel if things were reversed? Suppose I got subsidized air fare to go visit my fiance and got first pick of teaching assignments so my schedule would allow these visits but graduate student parents received no official consideration at all. If you find that disturbing tell me what’s different about this situation.
-
I’m open to the idea of continuing to support families who relied on the existence of this program when deciding to have children at the current rate by borrowing money and making up the shortfall in future years by totally eliminating the program for future students ↩
-
This certainly wouldn’t show that not providing such subsidies somehow discriminated against women any more than the fact that higher graduate student pay might preferentially increase the retention of CS graduate students would show we are discriminating against CS graduate students. In the absence of other evidence we should assume that female graduate students would be rationally choosing to have a family rather than stay in graduate school suggesting that the correct way to look at the situation is that female graduate students are more likely than male graduate students to have an even better option. ↩
-
As opposed to the more reasonable model where we assume that we want to provide equality of opportunity. In which case to the extent that women are leaving graduate school only because they decide (perhaps in non-coercive discussion with their husband) that they would prefer to devote their time to raising a family that isn’t a problem to be rectified. Of course I don’t think this is really that significant a cause of the underrepresentation of women in math/science but that goes hand in hand with thinking it’s not a cost-effective approach to increase the number of women. ↩
Loading ...
Children hold a unique status in our society for very good reason. Viewing it as a lifestyle choice is… odd. That is not how any parent considers the choice to have a child. And that is definitely not how the child considers the choice to exist — this “lifestyle choice” is an existential choice for the child. Acting like it is the same as other lifestyle choices makes no sense at all from the perspective of the child.
Because society treats subsidies of children as conceptually different from subsidies of anything else, I think the rest of your argument doesn’t make sense. Well, it makes sense to you because you view them as the same, but it’s not a compelling argument because you are in a small minority in that opinion.
If you want to argue that child subsidies should be viewed the same as all subsidies, you could, but it would be pointless. Minds are made up on this issue, and the emotional foundation of those beliefs are firm. The foundation of this belief in society is not logical, nor does it seek to be logical because it is a fundamental belief, it is core to the very concept of society. Obviously the way this belief is expressed in terms of policy is chaotic and not always sensible, but attacking the belief itself won’t accomplish anything.
At least, that’s what I think. (FWIW I don’t have any children, but I don’t begrudge any subsidies given to children.)
The question is not whether people have their minds made up or how they react to it but whether it is correct. If you listen to the way people talked about apartheid in south africa (certainly not morally equivalent but the point is the same) you could have justified it exactly the same way.
So once we understand that the question is about the actual fairness not merely what people have decided lets examine the points you raise. In particular does the fact that having children causes a child to exist change the moral status of the act? Well I agree that is a reasonable position to take but it entails that we have a moral responsibility to have children.
Let me put the point differently. Either the choice to have children is morally neutral or it is not. Almost no one is willing to admit that we are being somehow immoral (or even imperfectly morally) by choosing not to have children. Thus it seems the child’s existence can’t be said to be a net positive (i.e. is balanced out by the resources he will use). Besides, even if you did believe this no one thinks they are having children out of duty to society despite their wish they didn’t have to have them. People have children because they want to have children so I don’t see the difference.
Regardless even if I grant your point my argument still stands since people see getting married or having a significant other as just as significant and non-trivial as having children.
I think a lot of people believe we have a collective responsibility towards children, that happens to be mediated by the child’s parent. One can see this as “fair” because we have all been children.
Having a child is a considerable expense. Subsidies don’t make up for that. And I’m not sure it’s much like a luxury. It’s like reverse social security of a sort — with social security you pay for someone else’s retirement, and you might in the future have your retirement paid for by someone else. Your parents paid to raise you. Are you going to pay it forward?
First of all we have to distingush the responsibility we have to children once they exist from any responsibility we might have to create children. Now I think this point can come down to a simple question: is there a moral obliation to HAVE a child? Certainly there is an obligation to take care of them once they exist (both by the parents and society more generally has a responsibility to see they have a good life). However, I don’t think virtually anyone (including yourself) is willing to claim that having children is like giving to charity, it’s something we do reluctantly because we know we should.
Breaking it down there are three possible explanations for why most people have kids despite their large cost.
1) Most People are irrational and don’t realize how bad it is to have kids. If they had to do it again they wouldn’t.
2) Most People have children knowing that all things considered they will make their life less enjoyable but they reproduce as a sacrifice for the benefit of society (much like one might feel guilty and give to a charity).
3) Most People have children because all things considered they find their lives are more rewarding and enjoyable with children even including the huge costs in time and money children impost.
Now I think the answer is pretty clearly 3. One seems hard to maintain in the face of second children and I doubt you would advocate it. Every parent I’ve ever talked to endorsed 3 wholeheartedly, even those whose children suffer abnormally large medical expenses or the like.
Thus there is nothing to make up. If I really really wanted to own a porsche I shouldn’t be reimbursed because I wanted something expensive. Unless parents are lying when they tell us that having children is far more rewarding than any of the goods or benefits they give up this situation is no different than any outlay of money to live in a way you find rewarding. If anything the extent to which parents claim their lives are improved by children is a reason to pity those who can’t have children and transfer money from the better off (those who can have children) to the infertile. (not relevant to me but I just want to emphasize that it can’t both be a burden to be a parent and a burden to be infertile).
I will reply to the argument about giving the children a good upbringing in my reply to the other commenter. However, your reverse social security argument doesn’t really fly if parents are net beneficiaries of having children. Given that parents recieve a net benefit from having a child there is no reason I have to ‘pay back’ what was spent on me as a child to society. I already pay that back by treating my parents well throughout their life so I’m a net benefit to them. If I provided my parents a net benefit there is nothing I ‘owe’ because no one made their lives worse on my behalf.
I’m with Ian, If I have a child (which I do) I am committed in law to that child even if (as is quite possible, but not in my case) it was an accident.
I have all sorts of obligations on how to bring up the child. And if we had free association I could just walk out on the child but society doesn’t want me to do that so it tells me I will be punished in various ways (depending on how I go about it) if I do that. It is not unreasonable that I might be compensated for that.
Also to not subsidizing families with children would be to expose a particularly vulnerable group which does not have free association (or a huge range or rights) to a higher chance of harm at a time when that harm would have maximum negative effect.
Ohh, I agree totally that parents and society in general has an obligation to make sure everyone has a good life, and this obligation is particularly pressing in the case of children since they are more vulnerable and less able to care for themselves.
If you want to take my tax dollars to subsidize beneficial programs giving poor children nutritious food or beneficial educational programs I’m entirely in support. Hell, if there was good data supporting it’s beneficial effect on children I would support heavily subsidizing child care for all sufficently poor families. However, this is a completely different issue.
I mean owning a dog morally obligates you to feed it, but it toys, and take it to the vet but these expenses don’t suggest we should subsidize dog ownership for graduate students.
In fact I think graduate students, being a group selected for responsibility and intelligence are the perfect example of a group who doesn’t deserve subsidy for child care. Unlike other groups graduate students will make sure their children are treated well even without a subsidy. The effect of not subsidizing child care would be to force graduate students to choose between not having a child now and leaving for a higher paying job. This is no different than the choice any of the rest of us face when we want to do things that cost more than graduate students can afford.
Regardless even if you dismiss all of these points it doesn’t change the fact that there is no justification at all for taking money from other graduate students to give graduate student parents a better deal than parents on the janitorial staff. If your argument really held water we should immediately kick out all the graduate student parents and give all the subsidized slots to the maintenance workers since, after all, the graduate students could earn much more money if they choose to drop out.
Or to put this in a brief fashion: I think the children of graduate students (or people who drop out of graduate school to have children) have it pretty damn good compared to the vast majority of children. That’s who I would want to be my parents if I had to be a child again so your argument doesn’t really fly in this situation.
Hmm i see your point
Still - for better or for worse there is a sort of parental relationship with graduate students and a more contractual one with janitors.
And for whatever reasons we have less children being born into the sort of household that you consider to be preferable and far more born into other sorts of households.
Now the idea that we ought to subsidize child care for graduate students because we want those sort of people to be having children is an interesting argument and one that many people make when they get to this point in the argument. With appropriate evidence it might even be one that could be compelling but I don’t think it works to defend the current policy for several reasons.
First of all we simply don’t know if this policy really encourages the sort of people who might be graduate students to have more children. For instance it might be that offering some subsidy convinces people who want to both be parents and go to or stay in graduate school that it’s possible. However, even with a subsidy being in graduate school might discourage people from having children (no amount of subsidy will change the fact that most of your friends don’t have kids). On the other hand if this subsidy hadn’t been in place at all perhaps more of these individuals would have chosen to leave graduate school entirely at which point they would have many more children. Or perhaps it works the opposite way and people who leave graduate school find they are too busy to have the children they wanted.
Ultimately we just don’t know what effect these kinds of policies will have on birth rates of smart, curious, high socioeconomic status individuals. Thus until we have some studies or at least suggestive models these aren’t sufficient justifications for implementing an unfair policy (I’m fine with small pilot programs to gather data with randomized participation). It seems pretty clear to me that all these incentivization based arguments about encouraging the right people to have children or female representation in the sciences are posthoc rationalizations of a program that people feel a guy level sympathy towards not real justifications that would cause us to rational adopt such a program.
Secondly, are you really prepared to say that we need to subsidize graduate child care because it’s more important that these sorts of people have children than janitors? If you are that’s a fine argument but most people aren’t willing to make it and I very much doubt that this is at any level what’s behind the child care subsidy.
The fact that the university tends to take a more parental type role to graduate students is really besides the point. The only reason I raised the issue of janitors in the first place was to show that a subsidy of graduate student child care is not morally mandated by our responsibility to make sure that children are well cared for. Frankly, given that graduate students are going to make sure their children are well cared for either way (even if they have to drop out) I don’t see how the moral duty to children argument even gets a foot hold here.