I beg readers to indulge me in a past time of mine, understanding the braiding of United States governance and education. Learning this has become both vital and necessary. Multiple readers advocate for disability and human rights. Even a few readers might argue that by supporting disability rights, their own rights become restricted. Yet, no one talks about natural rights – the founding principles that inspired our nation.
Natural rights are fundamental freedoms that belong to everyone by virtue of being human. These natural rights are freely exercised so long as there is no infringement on the rights of others. You do good because it is good. You avoid wrong because it is wrong. The fundamentals of being a moral human. Sounds perfect, right? Except it can be difficult to co-exist when moral compasses do not align. Living in society means giving up certain natural rights for safety and, through that, social inclusion. Essentially, we enter into a social contract. An individual’s behavior and actions align with governance and social norms. Social contracts contain implicit terms that rely on a trust relationship between society and the state. But what exactly is morality, and how do individuals gain it?
Morality and Childhood
To understand how morality develops, reflect on a childhood memory. For example, imagine taking a toy from your sibling, leading to a disagreement. At this point, a parent intervenes and says, “No, bad.” This moment helps shape your understanding: doing something considered “bad” makes you “bad” in the eyes of others. Simultaneously, you may notice a physical reaction, like your stomach aching—a clear demonstration of the mind-body connection. The lesson becomes: do bad, feel bad, are bad. Remember, children are sponges and absorb information through their senses: hearing, seeing, and feeling. The body’s sensory system is a child’s first teacher, with each lesson imprinting upon the nervous system.
On the other hand, there is a positive side to these formative experiences. When a child is engaged in play and receives praise for “good behavior,” it reinforces a healthy feedback loop. The child’s regulated body and actions during play, combined with adult approval, establish the principle: do good, be good, feel good. In this way, early various experiences help children understand the relationship between their actions, feelings, and self-perception, forming the foundation of their moral development.
Children learn these crucial lessons from key environments: home, school, and community. Throughout youth, internal morality transitions into an external application of social standards: rights, safety, and justice. This begs the question, “Can a morally developing child enter a social contract where the terms favor adult society?” Of course not. So, who is responsible for protecting the child when society fails?
Keeping All Students Safe Act 2025
This past December, bipartisan leaders Rep. Beyer (D-VA), Rep. Hamadeh (R-AZ), Rep. Scott (D-VA), and Senators Murphy (D-CT, Sanders (I-VT), and Murray (D-WA) introduced the Keeping All Students Safe Act (KASSA) to Congress. At its simplest, it outlines contractual language that establishes general welfare and safety terms for compliance-based compensation. By accepting federal funds, schools agree to stop the traumatic practices of seclusion and specific restraints that lead to significant harm, injuries, and even death. KASSA has yet to pass since its original introduction in 2009. Currently, this is a moral and governance dilemma for a nation founded on natural rights.
Federal Spending Power and Student Safety
The expectation is that KASSA will not pass – again. This raises an important question – what could alter this predetermined outcome? To answer this, it might be helpful to examine how justice-enforced morality had previously been applied in the United States through another federal funding mechanism.
Chief Justice Rehnquist outlined the general welfare principle in the summary opinion for South Dakota v. Dole (1987). The Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that incentivizes states to adopt a minimum legal drinking age by conditioning highway funds on states’ compliance. The Court determined that promoting safety and general welfare justified the federal government’s approach when limiting state federalism.
This precedent prompts a critical comparison: what distinguishes the federal government’s authority to mandate a legal drinking age from the potential to require schools to be safe environments for children through the regulation of harmful practices? In both instances, the underlying rationale is the protection of general welfare and safety to save lives. To appreciate the dichotomy of this comparison, we need to review how governance and social contracts influence the establishment of our nation.
John Locke, Social Contract, and the birth of a Nation
In general, Thomas Hobbes is recognized as the creator of Social Contract Theory. However, John Locke is known as the father of America’s social contract model. Both men wrote about the State of Nature, with each noting his own degree of differences. Locke’s version outlined that a person is free to lead a moral life without undue interference. He noted that individuals who willfully leave the State of Nature as they want to join a governing society to gain security.
Throughout history, individuals have agreed to accept certain restrictions on personal rights in exchange for the safety and protection offered by a governing authority. This relationship is the foundation of a social contract and applies equally to all citizens. State laws that require children to attend school impose limitations on their personal rights. By a social contract, this extracts an expectation that the governing authority will provide safety and general welfare equally for all children.
John Locke advocated for a conditional power dynamic between the people and their government. He emphasized that the legitimacy of government rules and authorities should directly connect to the government’s capacity to protect the fundamental rights of individuals, namely, their life, liberty, and property. In Locke’s view, support for governmental power is justified only as long as it serves to defend these essential rights, and any overreach or failure to do so undermines the social contract itself.
Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another. – John Locke
He argued extensively regarding the balance of morality and government. If the government failed to provide protection for an individual’s natural rights, the people had the right to resist tyrannical rule. This had a profound influence on the origins of the United States, from the American Revolution, the development of our government, and inspiring the U.S. Constitution.
John Locke championed the Law of Nature as the basis of all morality. Government and society are responsible for preventing harm to individuals’ life, liberty, and property. The authors of the Declaration of Independence used these very words to declare the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.
– The Declaration of Independence
The government is responsible for securing the right of all individuals to be safe in life and liberty. This outlines our social contract with one another. The U.S. Constitution establishes protected rights for adults. And in America’s justice system, there is differential protection for children’s natural rights. Children’s constitutional rights balance on the fulcrum of state interest over upholding a child’s personal rights. In the U.S. government, taxes are collected and spent for “common defense and general Welfare”. When a state infringes upon a child’s inherent rights, it breaks the social contract, causing the child to lose trust and respect for the government responsible for their protection.
Natural rights are universal and unalienable, constituting basic human rights. Society’s violation of these rights draws attention to issues of discrimination and bias. The insidious diminishment of these rights often corresponds with the decline of trust in government and society. If a state violates the social contract, the state becomes dependent on forced compliance. We are seeing this reflection in our school systems today. Upholding natural rights serves as an essential reflection on societal mortality.
Keeping All Students Safe Act introduces legislation charging the US government to uphold the Law of Nature, prevent harm to a student in “life, health, liberty.” Individuals have a right to live in a moral society in a contract with a government that provides general welfare in a safe environment for all its citizens. I expect that some will inadvertently argue all the “moral” reasons why seclusion and restraints are necessary. John Locke argued that everyone, including children, have natural rights. In Locke’s words, he believes children have a right to develop an internal moral compass free from the literal restraints on their natural rights.
The question individuals should be asking is, “What state interest has greater weight than securing a child’s safety while preventing harm?” If we can mandate safe highways to save lives, we can mandate safe schools to save a child’s life.
Pass KASSA. A child will live to thank you one day.
