Liberalism, Group Rights and the Boundaries of Toleration: The Case of Minority Religious Schools in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on the proliferating literature on multiculturalism, this article provides a theoretical and critical argument in support of public funding for minority cultural schools, as well as a critique of the Ontario Conservative government's proposal in 2001 to extend tax credits to parents who enroll their children in private schools in Ontario. It argues that governments in Canada committed to the idea of multiculturalism have an obligation to promote the maintenance and flourishing of minority cultures through education and financial support. The article first outlines and refutes neutralist liberal arguments against public funding for minority religious and culturally education, and demonstrates what is meant by a right to culture and the attendant duties such rights impose on the state. It then raises and responds to concerns about such cultural pluralist policies and suggests ways to balance group demands for public funding with other values the state wishes to support. It argues that the Ontario government's proposal to provide tax credits for private education without regulation does not respond to concerns about balancing the right to culture and teaching liberal citizenship values, and offers alternative policy recommendations in the conclusion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.057 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".