The U.S. Constitution is a document well worth studying. It is the first secular set of founding principles that absolutely protects the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. It ensures equality among individuals in the eyes of the law. It is also a living document, subject to change and clarification as the circumstances and values of the nation shift over time. All in all, it is a document, at the very least, worth a look.
So, how could we object to the South Carolina law that requires all in-state colleges to spend a year teaching the constitution, among other founding documents?
First off, the wording of the law is already concerning. At first glance, a law demanding that students be committed to “the study of and devotion to American institutions and ideals” may sound well and good. But not letting these individuals graduate if they fail to pass a test on the subject is simply too much.
Also, despite the fact that the Constitution applies to everyone, not everyone needs to study it for an entire year. Students with time-intensive majors (such as biomedical engineering or nursing) will not have the time to pore over the intricacies of the founding documents. Additionally, some students’ areas of interest don’t intersect at all with knowing the Constitution front-to-back.
Put simply, there is absolutely no reason that a music student should be forced to memorize the minutiae of, say, the electoral college.
For those who have the time and a related area of interest, however, such a course would be well worth having. The schedules of liberal arts and social science students are generally looser, and their area of study more relevant to the subject matter.
While the number of required classes might already seem daunting to the average freshman, a required semester-long class concerning the Constitution doesn’t sound like it would end the world.
It’s more than worth studying the Constitution, but forcing people to spend an inordinate amount of time on it isn’t fair.