Week 1:

“The Greeks divided mankind, in all the relations of life, into two distinct classes, a governing and a governed, and considered the former alone as the subject of education; the latter being a mere instrument in its hands” (Davidson 13). In a society divided so clearly, education is both the wall and the gate between classes. Education is the gateway for a Greek individual to become a free citizen, an influence in the functions of their society. In this sense the function of the institution of education is sound. In order for one to make informed decisions for the wellbeing of their society, they must have the necessary knowledge and judgement. When access to education is restricted to only certain peoples, it becomes a wall between the ruling and the ruled. The end of education for an Athenian student is to become a participant in the State, to have influence on its functions. In order to achieve this end, they must receive a university education and pass a series of tests and requirements. In his teenage years, an Athenian boy would transfer to a gymnasium to receive an education from the State to prepare him for citizenship, provided his family could afford it. This financial barrier prevented those from the lower, working class of society from obtaining an education and becoming free citizens. Prior to this class, I was unaware of this extreme political inequality in Greek society. My perception of Athens had always been that it was a pillar of freedom and democracy. Upon learning of the class division between the ruling class and the ruled, I was reminded of the function of American society today. While there is not such an obvious and concrete division between the classes of society, there is no doubt that political power in the United States is concentrated in the hands of a minority of the population. The source of this political power is wealth.  

The United States Constitution lays outlines a representative democracy. While the people don’t get to vote directly on matters of policy, they do get to choose representatives who will protect their interests in the legislature. As a result of this system, elections become the arenas in which political battles are fought and the people get to assert their will. Political candidates spend millions of dollars and countless hours attempting to convince people to vote for them. Media advertisements, interviews, debates, focus group research, and large rallies make campaigning for political office exceedingly expensive. In order to cover the costs of their campaigns, candidates rely on donations and independent expenditures, both by individuals and corporations. The Supreme Court has decided that freedom of speech protections from the first amendment extend to expenditures made by corporations. This makes two connections which do not exist in the Constitution. First, that money is speech, and is deserving of the same amount of protection as any other type of speech. Second, that corporations are due the same rights as any individual under the Constitution. This concept is called “Corporate Personhood.” In a political system where each individual is supposed to have the same amount of political influence, classifying corporations as persons does not make sense. While the average American might be able to make what is classified as a small donation ($200 or less), a large corporation could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on independent expenditures. To grant these forms of campaign spending the same level of protection is damaging to democracy. Corporations have much more influence in elections than any individual.

As a result of our expensive elections, wealth and political power have essentially become one and the same. As Americans we are able to exercise our political power by choosing who represents us in government, but having money greatly increases our influence over who is chosen. The argument for the fairness of this system is that we live in a free market, and every person has equal opportunity to work hard and become financially successful. However; almost all well-paying career paths require a college education, and this is not something that every person has equal opportunity to obtain. Universities are extremely expensive, even middle class families struggle to afford them without loans and grants. For lower class families, affording a university tuition without extensive loans or scholarships is nearly impossible. I strongly disagree with the notion that every American has an equal opportunity to become wealthy. When getting a university degree is a prerequisite to making enough money to have political influence, and having money is a prerequisite to getting a university degree, the lower classes are all but excluded from upward mobility. Though our society and its class divisions are not quite as clearly defined as those of Athens, they are strikingly similar. Political power is concentrated in the power of the few. In order to gain political power, one must receive a university education. However, a university education comes with a price tag which the lower classes cannot afford. This solidifies class divisions and insures that the lower classes of society do not have avenues to gain political influence in their own society. Though I do not have a solution for political equality, removing the monetary element of education so that it becomes a gateway between classes rather than a barrier would be a good start.