RE: LAST WEEK’S DEM COLUMN
It’s not surprising to see an unqualified defense of public education under the Democratic Column. The justification of unions, especially public sector unions has long been a mainstay of Democratic Party politics as they are reliable donors to the left. They have proven themselves to be uninterested in fiscal responsibility, with their single-minded emphasis on members’ personal security, and access to health care benefits, the coverages which continue to expand, perhaps due to much of academia having little contact with the private sector that actually raises our standard of living, while balancing their budgets. Fortunately for us, we have many examples of their malfeasance to learn from in the country’s major cities and don’t have to repeat the problems here. It is instructive to remember that Franklin D. Roosevelt, a supporter of large government if ever there was one, was opposed to public sector unions because of their ability to force concesssions by extortion, for example, by threatening to strike and shut down vital government services. Does the 80’s Airline Traffic Controllers’ strike and the recent Chicago Public School teachers’ union strike come to mind? Adding to their toxic influence is the fact that they collectively bargain with political office-holders who only have an incentive to cave to their demands since currying favor with as many as possible is a positive for remaining in office and it costs them nothing in contrast to a private organization which must balance a budget.
She characterizes parental opposition to the teaching of controversial subjects with inflammatory connotation as, “unconscionable book-burning” and claims that such actions by conservatives is a hypocritical rejection of their often claimed freedoms. This is a straw man argument as conservatives have always emphasized balancing freedom with personal responsibility. While many things are lawful; not all are helpful and certainly the teaching of aberations of sexual behavior are easily includable in that list. It’s often stated that one doesn’t have the right to shout, “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Well, yes, you do, if it happens to be true and it’s to everyone’s benefit to know that truth. The point being that freedom has limits and is conditioned by discernment. She argues that those parents who desire to protect their young impressionable children from the peculiar proclivities of a few adults that apply to a very small minority should not be able to prevent the teaching to all the others who trust the academics, but that becomes an argument for segregating groups for a particular kind of instruction, the social benefit of which is very difficult to see. It’s an argument against public education in favor of private instruction. The prevention of them thinking for themselves is hardly the issue for young children. Critical thinking is a life skill that can’t be mastered at an elementary level with very limited real world experience. The elementary years are a time for grounding a person in the common principles that have stood the test of time, form the core of our consensus as a culture and have a history of success. Teachers would do better to concentrate on Reading for the promotion of critical thinking as it has obviously been severely neglected as confirmed by any number of indicators. What she is advocating is the teaching of elective courses in optional practices that are firmly rejected by legitimate science, which would obviously confuse and frustrate a young, inexperienced person. The teaching of topics that repel most of us and don’t consider worthy of study is an area that is designed for indoctrination and yes, grooming. Have we learned nothing from the negative experience of the Catholic Church hierarchy? This is essentially the same argument that the proponents of abortion rights use when they insist that the public underwrite their choice with tax dollars. Conservatives have been remarkably consistent in not being meddlesome in the private lives of others, merely insisting that others finance their own obsessions, which is not the same as legislating for prevention. There are plenty of places for diverse opinions and they have their own supporters.
The increase in scrutiny directed at the public schools is only part of the public’s growing scepticism of government. Her party has brought this scrutiny on itself with its nationwide opposition to the legitimate use of police power in controlling crime, characterizing every social ill as racism, the withdrawing of immigration law enforcement, the unexplainable abandonment of the airbase and billions in materiel in Afghanistan, and the headlong, unjustified intervention in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, all contributing to runaway inflation. The basic problem is that government, including government education doesn’t know what it’s good at, tries to do too much and fails at an awful lot of it.
John Brooks Parker
Bandera, TX
Mr Parker is a Texas registered architect (of buildings, not computers),a Masters’ graduate of Texas A&M, and a combat wounded USMC rifle company officer veteran of the Viet Nam War Tet Offensive of 1968.