This article is authored by my daughter: Jaycee Mae Faber
The relationship between Harvard and homeschooling students is more robust than most people think. Consider Harvard student, Olivia S. Farrar who explained, “Homeschooling prepared me for Harvard really well because it fostered such a strong love for the act of learning... Not learning for a grade, not learning for an exam, but learning for the sheer love of knowledge itself.” However, recently, Erin O’Donnell wrote an article in Harvard Magazine, called “The Risks of Homeschooling.” The basis of the article was a paper published in the Arizona Law Review written by Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Bartholet.
While everyone would agree that some homeschooled children do not receive a proper education, and some, sadly, are abused or neglected, it is also clear that these bad outcomes are shared by children in every education system. That said, some would support O’Donnell’s research, saying that it used strong reasoning. However, there is a case, which is just as compelling, that the article does not hold up to basic logical fallacy scrutiny.
Using multiple logical fallacies, it is clear that O'Donnell's article does not hold strong reasoning. It displayed a hasty generalization throughout the entire article, it uses an anecdote from the book Educated, written by Tara Westover, as an argument against homeschooling, and it applies genetic fallacy while attacking the Christian faith. Each of these logical fallacies should be unpacked to adequately examine her arguments.
The first reason the article did not display strong reasoning is that it uses a hasty generalization. Like an anecdote, a hasty generalization is generalizing about a class based on a small or poor example. The article claims that, by some estimates, "90% of homeschooling families are driven by conservative Christian beliefs." However, the source of this statistic is uncited, and with a quick search through other articles, the same estimates for the same metric differ greatly. For example, an article in the Atlantic claims that roughly two-thirds of the homeschooling population are conservative Christians. Thus, O'Donnell is likely cherry-picking.
The second fallacy occurs when using an anecdote as a broad generalization. Educated, written by Tara Westover, illustrates the childhood of a homeschooled, neglected, and abused young girl. O’Donnell uses Westover as an anecdote by generalizing her experience for many homeschoolers. Unfortunately, this neglect can and has occurred in homeschooling families. However, there is no evidence that this horrific abuse, depicted by Westover, is any more common in homeschooled families than in the non-homeschooled populations. Also, Westover went on to receive a Ph.D. from Trinity College, Cambridge, and become a New York Times best-selling author. This same anecdote fallacy could use these positive outcomes to justify Westover’s mistreatment.
The third fallacy that the article applies is a genetic fallacy. A genetic fallacy is condemning an argument because of how it began, where it began, who began it, or who participates in it. O’Donnell attacked the Christian faith by referencing Bartholet's Law Review when she states, "that some of these parents are 'extreme religious ideologues' who question science and promote female subservience and white supremacy." What is "some?" Without quantitative data, where is the proof that the families who question science, promote white supremacy, or female subservience are any greater among homeschool families than the general population? In the Arizona Law Review, this claim is not backed up with any numbers. Instead, the review is littered with words such as many and some.
As a Christian, I am growing up in an atmosphere with friends of all colors, a strong mother, and a father who loves and respects his wife. The most important thing I am taught is to love our neighbors as ourselves. Our family consistently comes together with our community to help families in need, whether it be by delivering meals, praying together, and caring for each other's children. My faith has nurtured a love for learning and relationships. Although my own homeschool experience may also be an anecdote, I have been a part of a national homeschool community in four different states and I have never experienced or seen anything resembling white supremacy or female subservience. Even if there are pockets of these twisted beliefs, they are not the norm and are likely just as prevalent in non-homeschool populations. It is difficult not to be offended that this article blamed my faith for such sickening practices.
It may be argued that the Harvard Magazine article displayed strong reasoning by referencing an authoritative source. However, by only citing Professor Elizabeth Bartholet's paper in the Arizona Law Review, O'Donnell guarantees bias toward her findings. There was no exploration of counterarguments or acknowledgment of weaknesses in the source.
Also, Bartholet mentions her concern for the 24/7 control homeschooling parents have over their children. She argues that it is dangerous to "put powerful people in charge of the powerless." However, this argument is inadequate. Most often no one cares for a child's well-being and education more than their parent. Spending time with the child, not only strengthens their relationships but also allows them to tailor their student’s education to their specific interests and needs. In addition, it allows parents to introduce community, social, and democratic values to the child's education as often as the opportunities arise. Homeschooled students do not need to wait for the quarterly field trip but spend many days every month interacting with their communities and friends through volunteering and field trips. Many people would agree that compulsory education cannot offer such advantages purely due to capacity issues.
Neither of these arguments- that the article cited a reputable source, or that the 24/7 control parents can assert may be dangerous - inherently give the article a foundation of strong reasoning.
In conclusion, the article, “The Risks of Homeschooling,” displayed poor reasoning because it included multiple logical fallacies including a hasty generalization, an anecdote, and a genetic fallacy.
Could it be that O’Donnell is concerned about the future of compulsory state-run education as parents nationwide are experiencing a taste of homeschooling as they shelter-in-place during COVID-19? After a few months at home, perhaps their children are becoming friends with one another. They are learning according to their interests and for the first time since kindergarten, have found time for family game nights.