FREEDOM AND BEYOND JOHN HOLT John Holt was born in New York City on 14 April 1923. He was educated at a number of schools in the States and at Le Rosey in Switzerland (1935-6), after which he attended the Phillips Exeter Academy and graduated in 1939. He took a B.S. degree in Industrial Administration at Yale from 1940 to 1943. Following this he served in the Submarine service of the U.S. Navy until 1946. He then worked in various parts of the world government movement, finally as Executive Director of the New York State branch of the United Work Federalists. On returning to the States in 1953 after travelling in Europe for a year he taught in various schools in Colorado and Massachusetts. He is presently advising consultant at the Fayerweather Street School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His publications include How Children Fail, How Children Learn and The Underachieving School, all available in Penguins. He has also published articles and reviews in such magazines and journals as the New York Review of Books, Book Week and Peace News (London). ‘Schools do not nave the power or me and death over children. But they do have the power to cause them mental and physical pain, to threaten, frighten, and humiliate them, and to destroy their future lives.’ John Holt, author of How Children Fail and How Children Learn, questions and discusses the whole vexed problem of education as we know it. Formal education, he argues, is not the whole answer - on the contrary, with its emphasis on routine, privilege and competitiveness, it can be positively harmful. Education is, of course, essential to any society, but why shouldn’t, for instance, the student be allowed to choose what, where and how he learns? The educators of today and tomorrow, the author warns, should take a careful look at themselves, their motives and the system and its results. John Holt here continues his plea for a reappraisal of Western attitudes to education, believing that people of all ages and skills can be brought profitably together without ‘some of them always pushing the others around’. 1. Freedom and Beyond ‘Maybe the time has come when we should stop talking about “education”,’ George Dennison said to me, about the time his book The Lives of Children was coming out. I was not quite sure what he meant. I thought he might mean that even to use the word ‘education’ suggested wrongly that it was a process separate from the rest of life. As we often do when we think we ought to understand but are not sure we do, I kept still, hoping George would say something else to make his thought more clear. But for some reason our conversation turned to another subject, and I never did ask him what he meant. At that moment, it certainly did not look as if the time had come for me to stop talking about ‘education’. In the next two years I was to talk to and with hundreds of groups of people at meetings, large and small, almost all in schools or colleges and supposedly about ‘education’. But more often than not, and particularly if we had time to get deeply into the subject, we found ourselves talking not about education but about such things as human nature, the meaning of life, the relations between children and adults, or American society. It has become hard to talk seriously about schools anymore, even with people who work on or in them, without finding soon that the subject of the talk has somehow moved outside the school building. In short, it has been a long time since anyone asked me a question like, ‘How are you going to teach children to spell (add, multiply, etc.) if you don’t give them drill?’ The national conversation about schools, like mine with George Dennison, has taken another turn. In a way this book marks the end of an argument. For some time I and others have been saying - some before I was born -that children are by nature smart, energetic, curious, eager to learn, and good at learning; that they do not need to be bribed and bullied to learn; that they learn best when they are happy, active, involved, and interested in what they are doing; that they learn least, or not at all, when they are bored, threatened, humiliated, frightened. Only a few years ago this was controversial, not to say radical talk. Not any more. Almost any body of educators, hearing such things, will yawn and say, ‘So what else is new?’ This is not to say that everyone has been won over. Some may never be. But on the whole these once radical and crazy ideas have become part of the conventional wisdom of education. Students in most colleges of education are regularly required to read, and I suppose take tests on, books by people who not long ago were being called ‘romantic’ critics. The unthinkable has become respectable. At any rate, what concerns me now is that so many people seem to be saying that our schools must stay the way they are, or at any rate are going to stay the way they are, even if it means that children will learn less in them. Or, to put it a bit differently, our schools are the way they are for many reasons that have nothing whatever to do with children’s learning. If so, convincing people that most of our present schools are bad for learning is not going to do much to change them; learning is not principally what they are for. Enough people now believe in learner-directed, non-coercive, interest-inspired learning so that we should be seeing in education far more widespread and profound change than we have. Only a very small number of those people who would truthfully say that in theory they accept these new ideas about learning, have made a strong effort to put them into action. Too many of those who have tried to make change have been ineffective, frustrated, disappointed, and even defeated. This book has grown out of many talks with such people, in which we have tried together to understand why the things we believe in so often appear not to work, or at any rate not to work very well. In another sense the book has grown out of an article or chapter that Harold Hart asked me to write for his collection Summerhill: For and Against. After a while these ideas seemed to begin to collect around two centres, and the article to take shape in two separate parts. The first was about the way in which the school worked, and why it worked as well as it did, why it had been able to help so many young people that no one else had been able to help and who indeed had often seemed beyond helping. The other part was about some of the problems of Summerhill, questions or conflicts that had not completely been answered or resolved, either there or anywhere else. It seemed to me that we had to think about how to deal with these problems, how to carry Neill’s work forward, in short how to go beyond Summerhill. I soon saw that I would have too much material for one article or chapter. I began to imagine 3 possible books. A natural title seemed to be Summerhill and Beyond. But this too soon changed. More and more it appeared that a large part of our problem is that few of us really believe in freedom. As a slogan, it is fine. But we don’t understand it as a process or mechanism with which or within which people can work and live. We have had in our own lives so little experience of freedom, except in the most trivial situations, that we can hardly imagine how it might work, how we might use it, or how it could possibly be of any use to us when any serious work was to be done. For our times the corporate-military model seems to be the only one we know, trust, and believe in. Most people, even in democracies, tend to see democracy as a complicated process for choosing bosses whom all must then obey, with this very small difference - that every so often we get a chance to pick a new set of bosses. Not understanding freedom, we do not understand authority. We think in terms of organization charts, pecking orders, stars on the collar and stripes on the sleeve. If someone is above us on the chart, then by virtue of being there he has a right to tell us to do what he wants, and we have a duty to do whatever he tells us, however absurd, destructive, or cruel. Naturally enough, some people, seeing around them the dreadful works of this kind of authority, reject it altogether. But with it they too often reject, naturally but unwisely, all notions of competence, inspiration, leadership. They cannot imagine that of their own free will they might ask someone else what he thought, or agree to do what he asked, because he clearly knew or perhaps cared much more about what he was doing than they did. The only alternative they seem to see to coercive authority is none at all. I have therefore tried to explore a little further the nature of freedom, so that we may better understand how people of varying ages and skills may live together and be useful to each other without some of them always pushing the others around. The title of the book has still another meaning. Not long ago I would have defined the problem of educational reform as the problem of somehow getting much more freedom into our schools. If we could find a way to do that, we would have a good education for all children. Now the problem seems larger: if schools exist we naturally want them to be better rather than worse. But it no longer seems to me that any imaginable sum of school reforms would be enough to provide good education for everyone or even for all children. People, even children, are educated much more by the whole society around them and the general quality of life in it than they are by what happens in schools. The dream of many school people, that schools can be places where virtue is preserved and passed on in a world other-’ wise empty of it, now seems to me a sad and dangerous illusion. It might have worked in the Middle Ages; it can’t work in a world of cars, jets, TV, and the mass media. Moreover, it seems clear from much experience that most adults will not tolerate too great a difference between the way they experience their own lives .and the way their children live their lives in school. Even if the schools give up the idea that they should be preparing children for society as it is, and try instead to prepare them to live in or make a better society, they will not be allowed to go very far in that direction. The ‘beyond’ in the title of this book means, therefore, that we must look beyond the question of reforming schools and at the larger question of schools and schooling itself. Can they do all the things we ask them to do? Are they the best means of doing it? What might be other or better ways? 2. The Structure of Freedom Two children, eight and five, sister and brother, are playing on the grass in the yard behind their house. I am watching and now and then, when asked, helping. Their main tool or toy is a long piece of clothes-line, one end of which they have tied to a small tree. The eight-year-old is just learning, along with many of her friends in school, how to jump rope, so she wants to do things that have to do with jumping. The five-year-old is full of energy and enthusiasm, and wants to take part in whatever is going on. They play together a great deal, partly because, though they have other friends, none of them live close enough so that they can play with them whenever they feel like it, and partly just because they are fond of each other. As children often are, they are in a mood for striving and contests. The eight-year-old, who is organizing the play - this doesn’t always happen, often the younger one is the leader - knows exactly what she wants to do, and much of the time she does it. One game is high jumping. One end of the rope is tied to the tree, about two feet up from the ground. I am shown where to stand, given the other end of the rope, and asked to raise or lower it to certain heights. We start with the rope low, she jumps over it, tells me to raise it a little, jumps again, and so on, until we get it about as high as she can jump. In the other game we move the rope up the tree a little, I turn my end, and she practices ‘jumping in’, which she is not very good at. She wants to be able to do this as well as the other girls in her class. Her brother is there, and wants to be included. This creates difficulty and tension. The difficulty is that he can hardly high jump at all, and can certainly not jump a twirling rope. There is nothing in her games for him to do. After watching a few jumps he begins to clamour for a turn. The tension comes from two conflicting pulls or needs or desires. On the one hand, she wants to get on with her practice. On the other hand, if she leaves him out, he will get angry. He can get very angry, and since they live together, this will have to be dealt with, he will somehow have to be pacified and appeased and won over and made friends’ again. Besides, the rope game won’t go on forever, and for other kinds of play she will need him. Also, she likes him. So without giving up her game and contest she has to find a way to include him in it. All this calculating sounds very laborious and deliberate, but the fact is that she is thinking or intuiting these realities and these needs as she plays. There is no break in the play while she considers what to do with her brother. In the high jumping this is easy to manage. She takes a few jumps, and then we lower the rope, almost to the ground, and he jumps across it a few times. In the other rope jumping she introduces him - and me - to a game called Blue Bells, a wonderfully ingenious game that children must have invented as a first step in learning to jump a twirling rope. In Blue Bells the rope is simply swayed back and forth, and the child jumps as it comes toward him. He has to learn to time his run and jump with the swing of the rope. It turns out, as she hoped it would, that this was just hard enough to challenge and excite him, and just easy enough so that most of the time he could do it. So the play goes on. Both children are active and having a good time. Yet there is still frustration and tension. Both children would like a real contest, but this is no contest and they both know it. The boy can hardly high jump at all, and he can just barely manage Blue Bells, which as he can see is a long way from being able to jump a twirling rope. She would like to have a rival with more nearly her own skill, to spur her on and give the game excitement. He would like to change the game into something in which the difference between her skill and his would not be so great or clear, in which he would feel himself not just a duffer, but a worthy rival or partner. So they must make a delicate adjustment to each other. If she works too much on things she can do much better than he can, he will get frustrated and angry and will quit. She must not rub his nose in the fact of her greater skill. At the same time he must accept in good part the fact that for the time being this is the game she wants to play, and that there is no way the game can be changed to hide the fact that she is much better at it than he is. If he gets too sore about being a loser she will stop trying to include him, tell him to go play by himself, and get on with her own business. And so, with great subtlety and skill, as they play, they adjust to each other’s needs and feelings, respond from one second to the next to what the other says and does. All of this is energetic and noisy. Indeed, the casual or careless observer might say that much of the time the children are quarrelling or fighting. This is not true. They are simply doing what most of their elders have forgotten how to do or are afraid to do, which is to show their feelings as they feel them. It is because they show them so openly that they are able to adjust to them so quickly and adroitly. When they are not pleased with what the other is doing, they do not hide and nurse their displeasure or resentment until it becomes an anger they cannot cope with. They say or do something right away that gives the other a signal that things are not going right and that something must be done. I have a reason for beginning with this story. This book is about freedom in learning, and among other things about some of the difficulties and tensions we meet when we try to create situations in which learners are free to learn. For most of us these situations are new, strange, awkward, perplexing, even threatening. We find it hard to learn even how to perceive them, how to see and hear what is going on. We find it harder yet to live in them, deal with them, make the best use of them. This task, difficult at best, will soon become impossible if we try to talk about these situations with words that do not fit, that do not describe what happens. We must watch our language. If we choose our words badly we will not be able to see or think about what we are doing. One group of words, that twist and hide truth and understanding, is ‘structured - unstructured’. Almost everyone who talks or writes about learning situations that are open, free, non-coercive, learner-directed, calls these situations ‘unstructured’, and their traditional authoritarian, coercive, teacher-directed opposites ‘structured’. People who support open learning use these words in this way as much as people who oppose it. It is a serious error. There are no such things as ‘unstructured’ situations. They are not possible. Every human situation, however casual and unforced - and this is part of the point of my story about the children playing - has a structure. If two men meet by chance on the street and for half a minute talk to each other, that meeting has a structure, perhaps even a very complicated one. Who are the two men? What is their relation to each other? Are they more or less equals or does one have some kind of power over the other? Is the encounter equally welcome to both of them? If not, why? If so, is it for the same reasons? Does one of them want the other to do something? Does he think the other wants to do it? Is he willing to do it? We could ask dozens, scores, perhaps even hundreds of such questions. The answers to any one of them will have something to do with the structure of that meeting on the street. And the structure of this meeting exists within many other structures. For each man it is a small part of a life that has many other things in it. The meeting happens at a certain time and place, on a certain kind of street in a certain kind of town, in a culture in which these men, depending on their economic and social class, are expected and expect themselves to act in a certain way. All of us live, all the time, within structures. These exist in their turn within other structures within still larger structures, like Chinese boxes. This is just as true of children. They live in the structure of a family; beyond that in a neighbourhood, about which they feel in a certain way. This child also lives in the structure of his friends, of his school. His life will be very different than if he lived on a ranch in northern Wyoming. Children are not indifferent to these structures. They sense them, intuit them, want to know about them, how to fit into them, how to make use of them. We do not need to put structure into children’s lives. It is already there. Indeed, we might well say of many children, including many poor city kids, that there is far too much structure in their lives, too many situations in which they must constantly worry about what is the right thing to do and whether they want or dare do it, or refuse to do it. What they often need, as Paul Goodman has so well pointed out, is a chance to get away from it all - more solitude, time, and space. There are certainly great differences between the traditional classroom and the open or free classroom that I and many others are urging. But this difference is not made clear at all by calling these classes ‘structured’ or ‘unstructured’. Or even by pointing out that the open class has if anything more structure than the traditional, not less. Let us instead speak of two different kinds of structure, and to see how they differ. We might say that the structure of the traditional classroom is very simple. There are only two elements in it, only two moving parts, so to speak. One is the teacher and the other is the students. The children may be all different but in such a class their differences do not make any difference. They all have the same things to do, and they are all expected to do them in the same way. Like factory workers on the assembly line, or soldiers in the army, they are interchangeable - and quite often expendable. The second thing we can say of this structure is that it is inflexible, rigid, and static. It does not change from the first day of school to the last. On the last day as on the first, the teacher is giving out information and orders, and the children are passively receiving and obeying or refusing to obey. The third thing we can say of this structure is that it is arbitrary and external. It does not grow out of and has nothing to do with the life and needs of the class, what the children want, what the teacher has to give. It is dropped on them from above like a great glass box. The teacher is as much a prisoner and victim of this structure as the children. He has little more to say than they about what it should be, and can do little more than they to change it. By contrast, the structure of the open class is complicated. It has as many elements as there are teachers and children in the classroom. No two of these elements are alike, and their differences make all the difference, since no two children will relate to the class and teacher, or make use of them, in quite the same way. Secondly, the structure is flexible and dynamic. The relationship of each child to the teacher and to the class changes from day to day, and may change enormously in the course of a year. Indeed the nature of the whole class may change. Finally the structure is organic, internal. It grows out of the needs and abilities of the children and teachers themselves. They create this order, in ways vividly described by James Herndon in The Way It Spozed to Be, or George Dennison in The Lives of Children - or like the children in my opening story. When and because they create it, the order works. By that I don’t mean that it looks neat and pretty; it often does not. I mean that it helps people to get things done, helps them to live, work, and grow. It does not squelch life. It enhances it. The structure of a class can also be clear or unclear, straightforward or contradictory. This has not much to do with its being open or not, except that a very strict and traditional classroom is often both clear and straightforward -anything you do in there can get you into trouble. What the child wants to learn about the class is, are the rules easy or hard to find out? Once you have found them out, can you count on them? Some com- munities say, no problem about rules here, it’s all out in the open, all down in black and white. Others say, we have no rules, don’t believe in rules. Neither is true or possible. All communities have some rules, and all have more than they could write down. One of the things that makes a community is that it has more rules than it knows. People in the community do a lot of things the same way, and never even think about it - until an outsider comes in and does something completely different. A school I once knew used to boast that its only rule was No Roller Skating In the Halls. Nonsense. As the students well knew, there were plenty of things that you could get in trouble for doing. In any classroom, traditional or open, rigid or flexible, kids want to know how to get along, how to become an insider instead of an outsider, how to get whatever good things are going. Most of all, to use the phrase everyone loves, they want to know where are the limits. If doing and saying something is going to get them in really bad trouble, they want to know beforehand what it is. Like the constitution, which forbids it, they don’t like ex post facto law - having the government (teachers) say that what you did was a crime, but not saying it until after you did it. Tyrants are on purpose vague about the law. Tearful child: ‘But what did I do?’ Avenging adult: ‘You know very well what you did!’ It is not so important that the structure of the class, its rules and customs, be clear in the sense of explicit. Children are used to figuring out the rules in complicated human situations. What they don’t like is a structure that is contradictory. In the early progressive schools, and, I suspect, in quite a few alternative schools, right now, the adults have strong expectations about the way the children will and should behave. They project onto children their theories about right human behaviour in general. They think, if the children are healthy they will behave the way we think everybody should behave. For that matter, this is probably true for all teachers, progressive or not. The difference is that the traditional teacher tells the children how he wants them to behave. The progressive or so-called free teacher says, ‘Behave any way you like.’ So the child has to look for clues, which the adults can’t help giving, to show whether he is doing the right thing or not. This can be exhausting. Sometimes the kid gets fed up with it, and like the famous (probably made-up) child in the progressive school, says, ‘Teacher, do we have to do what we want today?’, meaning do we have to figure out what you want us to do today? Why don’t you just tell us? When I first started visiting a lot of schools and classes, I saw, by furtive glances darted towards me, by plaintive voices and strained movements, that in some classes the children were very anxious; in others, much less so. This didn’t necessarily have anything to do with how strict the class was. From all I heard and saw a notion that I call the Behaviour Gap began to form itself in my mind. Imagine a spectrum of behaviour, from very Good to very Bad. If we start at the Good end of the line and move towards the Bad, for every teacher we come to a point on the line, call it point A, which represents behaviour that is bad enough to annoy her and to make her wish that it would stop, but not bad enough so that she thinks she can or needs to or ought to do anything to stop it. If we keep moving towards the Bad end, after a while we get to another point, point B, which represents behaviour so bad that she feels she can, must, and will take some kind of action to stop it The distance between A and B is the Behaviour Gap. When it is wide, the class is going to be uneasy, when it is narrow, they are probably going to be more at ease - unless point B is impossibly close to the Good end of the behaviour spectrum. For the most part, how wide or narrow the gap is counts much more than where it is on the spectrum. This is another possibly useful meaning for the old saw about children and limits. Children certainly don’t like adults who are bugged by everything they do. But they equally dislike being around an adult who lets them bug him. It is too mysterious and threatening. What is he going to do when he does cut loose? If a kid is doing something that annoys a teacher, better to say, ‘Hey, cut that out, it’s driving me crazy.’ Or, ‘Please don’t do that, I really don’t like it.’ Then the structure is clear, and the kids get information about the teacher from which they can build up a fairly good picture of him and learn how to live with him. 3. The Uses of Freedom “Freedom” is a word we use badly and strangely. We seem to be afraid of it. Not long ago a lady wrote a furious letter to one of the Toronto papers, complaining about all this talk about freedom for children. What would happen to me, she asked, if I yawned in my boss’s face when he was expounding some pet theory, or if I decided to express my feelings by smashing my typewriter and throwing all my papers down on the floor? When she thinks of freedom, what she really would like to do is yawn in the boss’s face, that old pompous windbag fool, throw his rotten typewriter on the floor and his stupid papers out of the window. But she doesn’t dare. Why not find a boss in whose face she might not want to yawn, someone she might enjoy working for and with, might trust, respect, even like? She can’t imagine such a person! Her life is poisoned by anger and hatred, which she dare not express - the consequences for her would be disastrous. Freedom, she says, along with millions of others, just means letting people do everything they want. If you let them do that, they’ll do bad things. I know, because that’s what I’d want to do. Freedom, for her and millions of others, means tearing the lash away from the overseer and using it to flog him to death. But a world without lashes and overseers? Impossible! At one school I heard part of a lively argument between some anti-war students and the black custodian - unschooled but eloquent. What he said, over and over again, was that in any human organization you have to have a boss. Don’t make no difference who it is, you have to do what he says. The president says we got to fight a war, no argument, we got to fight it. All this man asked or expected or even could imagine was that every so often he might be allowed to say whether he would like a different boss. But to anyone he sees as being above him on the ladder of power, and like most people he sees himself at the bottom, he can’t imagine any way to act except total obedience. A poll taken not long ago showed that a majority would give the name ‘violence* to any kind of group or mass protest against the government, however peaceful and legal. But they would not call it ‘violence’ if, on the other hand, the government arrested, beat, gassed, or even shot and killed these people. People who feel they have no freedom hate the people who have it, or act as if they had it or ought to have it. What’s all this about protest, they say. I got plenty of things I’d like to protest, but I keep my mouth shut, I can’t afford to get in trouble. Such people don’t want to be told that they might have protested all along, that it might have made a difference. The man in chains, seeing another man without them, thinks, is it possible I could have struck these chains off if I had only tried, that I didn’t have to wear them all these years? The thought is unbearable. Better get some chains on the other guy. Only a few slaves talk about getting free. The rest argue about who has the biggest house, the finest establishment, the richest and strongest master. My team can lick your team! I once rode into New York from the airport with an angry cab driver. The mayor had just named a new chief of police, and he had brought him in from outside. What about all those guys who have been waiting in line? What did he have to go outside for? he kept saying furiously. Where is justice in the world if, after you’ve waited all those years for your turn, they move some joker from nowhere in ahead of you? What’s the point of doing what you’re told if at the end you don’t get your reward? Small wonder that for practical, everyday talk, real talk as opposed to political oratory, we have had to invent a substitute word for ‘freedom’, a spiteful, mean-spirited word that lets us say right out what we really feel. The word is ‘permissiveness’. ‘Permissive’. One result is that when some of us urge freedom for children or for learners, we find ourselves arguing about whether children should be allowed to do anything - torture animals or set buildings on fire. If we say No we are then told that we don’t really believe in freedom after all. Or people say, the idea of freedom for children is nonsense, children need limits. All such talk illustrates a great confusion about freedom, a confusion I have already touched in what I have said about structure. It implies that freedom means the absence of any limits or constraints, and that such a state is both desirable and possible; that the idea of freedom is opposed to the idea of limits, the idea of liberty opposed to the idea of law, so that you have to be for one or the other, that a free society or government and a tyranny are not different in kind but only in degree. As there is no life without structure, so there is no life without constraints. We are all and always constrained, bound in, limited by a great many things, not least of all the fact that we are mortal. We are limited by our animal nature, by our model of reality, by our relations with other people, by our hopes and fears. It is useless to ask if life without constraints would be desirable. The question is too iffy even to think about - what is important is not whether there are limits but how much choice we have within those limits. A man in prison has some things he can do, and others he can’t. So has a man outside. The man in the prison cell has some choice; he can stand, sit, or lie down; sleep, think, talk, or read; walk a few steps in this direction or that. But the two men are not equally free or equally limited. It is playing with words, and bad play, to say that we are all prisoners, or that the man in the cell is free. There are two ways in which one person may limit the choices, the freedom of action, of another. He can say, You Must Do This. Or he can say, You Must Not Do This. They are not the same, and are not equally restricting. I did not really see, though it is plain enough, until Ivan Illich pointed it out in a small seminar at MIT, that telling people what they may not do, if you are clear and specific, allows them much more freedom of choice and action than telling them what they must do. Proscriptions are better than prescriptions. One mother says to a child, ‘Go out and play, if you want, but don’t cross the street, don’t play in the street, don’t climb that little maple tree, don’t play in that abandoned house, and stay out of Mrs. X’s garden.’ Another mother says, ‘Time to go to your swimming lesson, or to Little League.’ No question about which child has the most choice. Obviously - and I say it only to spare people the trouble of pointing it out - it is possible to say You Must Not in such a way that it destroys all freedom of action. Mother may I go out to swim? Yes, my darling daughter. Hang your clothes on a hickory limb. But don’t go near the water. The idea of limits is not of itself opposed to the idea of freedom. The difference between a free community or society and a tyranny - this is another way of saying what I tried to say about structure - is not that one has limits while the other does not. It is that in a free society you can find out where the limits are; in a tyranny you can never be sure. A society has moved well along towards tyranny when people begin to say (as many of our citizens do), ‘Better not do that, you might get into trouble.’ The free citizen says, ‘What do you mean, might get into trouble? If the law doesn’t specifically tell me I can’t do it, then I damn well can do it.’ The framers of our Constitution understood that an important part of what makes a tyranny is that its power is vague. It has no limits. You never can tell when it will move in on you. What is wrong with imaginary crimes like being un- American, counter-revolutionary, or uncooperative in school, is that you can’t tell in advance what they mean. You only find out you’ve done wrong after you’ve done it. In short, a free community differs from an unfree one, first, in that its rules are mostly of the Don’t Do This rather than the Do This kind, and secondly, that it is clear and specific what you must not do. The second is as important as the first. People in our Congress often introduce and too often pass laws which would make it a crime to, let us say, undermine the morale of the armed forces, or threaten the American Way of Life, or conspire to create a riot and so on. Such laws are tyrannical, in effect and intent. They do