I live in a small (45,000) Texas town that is located in between San Antonio and Austin. It is a very conservative town, with over 73% voting for John McCain in 2008. Both of the local school districts have decided to not show the President's speech on Tuesday during school. This appears to be keeping with the views of the majority of the population of the area. However, the publisher of the local paper has responded with what I believe is the best argument for why our students, regardless of which side they are on, should hear the speech. More below the fold.
The school districts, instead of admitting that they have caved in to pressure, have stated reasons for not showing the speech that are downright laughable. They go out of their way to say the reasons are not politically driven and they would do the same regardless of who the speaker was. One of the districts goes so far as to state that the speech does not fit in with the curriculum of the district and that they (pdf link)
"...hope that this decision is viewed as an attempt to do what is in the best interest of our patrons, students, district, and staff, and not as a political statement."
For the life of me I cannot understand why a speech by the President encouraging kids to work hard and stay in school could ever be "not part of the curriculum."
In response, the local publisher of the newspaper, the New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung (New Braunfels has a large German population) has written a wonderful column addressing the issues and asking some very pertinent questions; particularly why are people so afraid of the speech? The local publisher, Doug Toney, is not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, in his past columns he has appeaered to be a conservative, as is the editorial staff of the paper who have always endorsed Republicans in the past. I am sure that he will receive many angry letters concerning his position.
Doug starts out by helping you determine if you see the issue as a partisan one:
If you oppose broadcasting President Barack Obama’s “stay-in-school” speech to students, would you oppose it if it were President George W. Bush or another Republican president?
And if you support broadcasting President Obama’s speech in the classroom next Tuesday, would you still support it if it were President Bush or another Republican president?
If you change your position based on the political affiliation of the president, then you see this mostly as a partisan political issue.
He then points out that a precedent of the president speaking directly to students has already been set by two Republican presidents:
But this is not the first time a president has delivered a speech just for students.
President Ronald Reagan took the opportunity to politicize his message. Clips of Reagan’s 1988 speech show Reagan telling students that taxes were “such a penalty on people that there’s no incentive to prosper ...”
In 1991, President George H.W. Bush, in a nationally televised speech from a Washington, D.C. school, urged students to study and work hard in school and to say “no” to drugs.
So the precedent has been set, not once, but twice, and both times by Republicans.
He then goes to the crux of his message, primarily directed at the opponents:
The parents who called the school districts to complain or threaten to pull their children from school are within their rights to do so.
But they are missing a great opportunity to teach their children to think for themselves.
Why run away from the possibility of hearing an opposing point of view?
Would it not be better for the school administrators and teachers (and parents) to tell their students that they can view it, but they have an equally important responsibility to decide whether they agree or disagree with the message?
Why would school administrators, teachers and parents not use this opportunity to say it is important for an United States citizen (and students are citizens) to respect the office of the presidency, but that each citizen has a right to agree or disagree with the person who holds the office?
Why would educators and parents not use this opportunity to explain that whoever holds the position of resident serves at the pleasure of its citizens?
Why would they not see this as an opportunity to explain that the resident works for us, the citizens?
Why would teachers and parents not want to use this opportunity to explain that our form of government works with a rule-by-majority, rights-to-the-minority philosophy and that this “loyal opposition” concept is fundamental to preserving a well-functioning republic.
He then closes by taking the school districts and superintendents who are trying to hide behind the "curriculum smokescreen" to task by asking:
How could teaching a student to be a responsible citizen who can distinguish political rhetoric be outside the educational goals of any public school district?
Let’s teach our children to listen to all views. After all, if you don’t listen to those with whom you disagree, then they have no obligation to listen to you.
Do we really want our students, our children, to say: “When I was in school, they taught us that if we thought we might disagree with someone, even if it’s the president of the United States, we should just ignore them.”
Does that really fit the “curriculum goals” of our public schools?
I am really proud of the stance that Doug Toney has taken. I know this is not a popular stance within this conservative community and probably will cost him some subscribers, but it is well reasoned and asks critical questions about what we are really trying to teach our kids in school.
His whole column can be read here.
To support or contact Doug, you can contact him here