In his most recent article on MSNBC.com, George Will tries to argue that teacher's unions are out to get the poor and minorities by opposing Florida's school choice scheme. Any person with a course or two in logic can read through Will's cleverly crafted and poorly reasoned article and see the reality--Will cares about the poor far less than those he attempts to attack.
As is often the case with his writing, the article is all over the place. He boldly starts out alleging that those opposing school vouchers (he uses the much more Luntz-esque phrase "school choice")"use 19th-century bigotry".
Will's Article
Will states that Florida's voucher program was "enacted in 1999 to ameliorate a gross civil-rights injustice--the fact that poor families whose children are trapped in terrible schools are helpless to prevent their children's life chances from being blighted." Wow, that sounds noble. The problem is, Will intentionally words this to make it sound as if this legislation were the result of a court order or some decision finding a civil rights violation, which it is not. Will apparently divines the intent of the statute's drafters from his imagination or GOP press releases. Nowhere in the "Findings and Intent" discussion of the Statute does it mention a "civil rights" violation or issue.
Statute
Will, in a blatant attempt to convince African-Americans that the Democrats and labor unions opposing vouchers are bigots, can't avoid appealing to authority--in this case comparing vouchers to the underground railroad and public schools to Civil War-era plantations. While it might paint a picture, its a wholly-inaccurate picture.
Will then beautifully leads to his next attempt to show that his opponents are bigoted. This time against Catholics. One law to which the teachers unions cite in their case happens to be a law with a chequered history--Florida's Blaine Amendment.
Will is correct that the historical motivation for the Blaine Amendment was anti-Catholic. However, the Blaine Amendments are drafted in a neutral manner. That is, they apply equally to ALL religious sects and prevent the use of public funds and lands by religious sects. The concern borne out of bigotry which resulted in the Blaine Amendments is, nonetheless, a valid concern. And, despite Will's attempt to make the Blaine Amendment out to be indicia of liberal bigotry, as Will points out, it was a bigoted, REPUBLICAN, would-be presidential candidate who is the namesake of the amendment.
Given the attack on the judiciary and its enforcement of the Establishment Clause, it is probably not a bad thing to have these laws which act as a direct prohibition of the use of public funds for religious purposes. Will does nothing to show that the EFFECT of the Blaine Amendments is unconstitutional religious discrimination, regardless of what motivated their passage.
Will's final attack on the teacher's unions is for their focus on the requirement of "uniform" public schools. To attack the teachers unions, Will argues that uniform doesn't really mean "uniform". "Rather, the term "uniform" means merely that no child shall be denied access to the public system."
Wow, where have I heard that argument before? Sounds a lot like "separate but equal", doesn't it? Access to the public system doesn't have to be equal as long as there is access. Brilliant. Will engages in circular logic stating that the public schools are failing, so they clearly aren't providing a uniform education ergo we must have vouchers, but he avoids the real question--do vouchers solve the alleged problem or make it worse? Furthermore, if the objection is the lack of uniformity of public schools, how are UNREGULATED private schools which are not subject to state and federal standards for public schools any more uniform?
Will, as usual, misses the boat and fails to see that his cure results in more of the problems he proclaims to want to solve. After all, even with vouchers, the poor will not have an equal opportunity if the funding for education of Florida's youths is inadequate to begin with. And, if Will is concerned about religious and racial bigotry, is it a good idea to allow a new form of "white flight" within our educational system where racial, ethnic and religious minorities are prevented from attending quality schools because the funding for public schools is cut further and private schools can legally discriminate against them?
In the end, Will asks " Does anyone think Florida is providing all students with public schools that are "efficient, safe, secure, and high quality"?" and yet it is clear he is unconcerned with providng all students with PUBLIC SCHOOLS that meet those criteria instead choosing to funnel money to unregulated private schools.
